Coffin assault trial

Ninja'd said:
Something something white privilege captured judges purple monkey dishwasher
Click to expand...

Fortunately not a whitey,
Judge Yvonne Thokozile Mbatha
hqdefault.jpg
 
ponder said:
Fortunately not a whitey,
Judge Yvonne Thokozile Mbatha
hqdefault.jpg
Click to expand...
The scathing views by the SCA of the analysis of the evidence by Judge Mphahlele demonstrate either considerable incompetence on her part or her having been unduly swayed by what was happening outside the court. Either way, her performance was unprofessional.
Click to expand...

www.politicsweb.co.za

‘Coffin case’: A reflection on justice and the law | Politicsweb

Sara Gon says the SCA was excoriating of the trial judge in the case
www.politicsweb.co.za www.politicsweb.co.za
 
I hope that judge got censured for his BS handling of the case!

Oosthuizen and Another v S (180/2018) [2019] ZASCA 182; 2020 (1) SACR 561 (SCA) (2 December 2019)

www.saflii.org www.saflii.org
[13] In criminal proceedings the State bears the onus to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused’s version cannot be rejected solely on the basis that it is improbable, but only once the trial court has found on credible evidence that the explanation is false beyond reasonable doubt.[1] The corollary is that, if the accused’s version is reasonably possibly true, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.[2] The appellant’s conviction can therefore only be sustained after consideration of all the evidence and their version of the events is found to be false beyond reasonable doubt.

[14] Before us, it was contended that the complainants did not pass the litmus test for the evidence of a single witness in terms of s 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA) as laid down in R v Mokoena[3] and succinctly set out in S v Sauls & others:[4]

‘[T]he absence of the word “credible” is of no significance; the single witness must still be credible, but there are . . . “indefinite degrees in this character we call credibility”. There is no rule of thumb test or formula to apply when it comes to a consideration of the credibility of the single witness. The trial Judge will weigh his evidence, will consider its merits and demerits and, having done so, will decide whether it is trustworthy and whether, despite the fact that there are shortcomings or defects or contradictions in the testimony, he is satisfied that the truth has been told.’

[15] It was submitted that the trial court did not have regard to the cautionary rule when assessing the evidence of the single witnesses. It is trite that the court can only convict on such evidence if it is satisfactory in all material respects. At the same time the court of appeal is reticent to interfere with the credibility findings of the trial court as well as the evaluation of the oral evidence, unless there is a material misdirection.[5]

[16] It is clear from a reading of the judgment on conviction that the trial court failed to apply the cautionary rule that applies to the evidence of single witnesses. Given the many improbabilities and contradictions in the complainants’ account, if she had applied the necessary caution, she could not have accepted their evidence because it could not be said to have been satisfactory in all material respects.

[17] The trial court’s approach to the evidence was arbitrary. For instance, it accepted that there was insufficient evidence before it regarding the instrument referred to as a firearm, but at the same time accepted the evidence of the complainants where there was a lack of sufficiency of evidence. There is no indication in the trial court’s judgment that it was alive to the fact that it had to approach the evidence of the two complainants with caution on account of the fact that they were single witnesses. It was incumbent upon the trial court to show that it took into account the necessary caution. The trial court set out the evidence in great deal, but nothing suggests that it was properly evaluated. Regard must be had at all times to the fact that the onus to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt rests on the state.

[18] The two complainants alleged that the incidents took place on 17 August 2016 whereas the appellants testified that they knew only of one incident involving Mlotshwa, which occurred on 7 September 2016. The trial court in its judgment alluded to the dispute about the date, but did not make any finding with regard thereto. This was significant as it has a bearing on probabilities. The court’s approach in assessing evidence in a criminal case is to weigh up all the elements that point towards the guilt of the accused against all those that are indicative of his innocence, taking proper account of inherent strengths and weaknesses, probabilities and improbabilities on both sides and, having done so, to decide whether the balance weighs so heavily in favour of the state as to exclude any reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.[6]

[19] The trial court did not consider the merits and demerits, discrepancies and contradictions in the respective versions of the complainants, especially as they were single witnesses. In highlighting this misdirection, I point out the following discrepancies and contradictions:

· According to Sithole when Mlotshwa was apprehended, he was brought to him and asked if he knew Mlotshwa. He answered in the affirmative and was then released; whereas Mlotshwa’s evidence was that he became aware of the presence of another person as he was being assaulted by the appellants but was unable to identify that person, save to say that it was a black person.

· Sithole’s evidence was that later on the day of the incident he spoke to Mlotshwa who informed him that he had been placed in a “box”. This was explicitly denied by Mlotshwa.

· When Sithole was cross-examined as to why he did not report his assault to the police, he stated that they did not know whether those people, (referring to the appellants) were farmers or not. Once again Mlotshwa denied speaking to Sithole about this. Mlotshwa’s version was that he did not report the incident because of the threats from the appellants.

· Mlotshwa in fact denied ever speaking to Sithole about the incident.

· Mlotshwa’s evidence was that he was extensively assaulted on his back with a knobkerrie, which has a very large metal nut, however, he did not point out such injuries to the doctor who examined him.

· A photograph of Mlotshwa was handed in to the court as exhibit L. This photograph had been taken by Oosthuizen shortly after he had been placed in the coffin. Mlotshwa conceded that that was how he looked after being placed in the coffin. The photograph did not show any visible injuries on his face and chest. This shows the improbability of Mlotshwa’s evidence about having been hit all over his body including the face with fists, as well as a knobkerrie without sustaining any visible injury on his body.

· Mlotshwa denied that he was found in possession of stolen copper cables, but in the video, Mlotshwa was asked about the copper cables, which indicates that such issue was not a fabrication on the part of the appellants.

[20] Given the many improbabilities in the complainants’ account, coupled with contradictions in their own evidence and the objective facts, the trial court erred in accepting the evidence of Sithole as proof of the commission of the assault against him. The trial court’s evaluation of the evidence and its approach to credibility findings of the State witnesses was incorrect in light of the material contradictions and improbabilities. The court a quo should have determined the matter on the version of the appellants. The video recordings and photographs corroborate their version.
Click to expand...

Next up is the Coligny trial...
 
Coffin assault pair's parole under review as 'victim-offender dialogue did not take place'

Justice and correctional services minister Ronald Lamola on Thursday announced that the two Mpumalanga farm workers who forced Victor Mlotshwa into a coffin after claiming he had stolen copper cables will be referred to the parole review board. “Please note that this matter is on review with the correctional services review parole board as per 77(1) of the Correctional Services Act,” Lamola wrote on Twitter. His spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: “The victim-offender dialogue and victim offender mediation was not conducted.” He said the men might have to go back to jail if the parole review board set their release aside.
Click to expand...


More at : https://www.timeslive.co.za/amp/new...tm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=truest
 
R13... said:
The victim is supposed to have a say on the release of the person who wronged them. Doesn't seem to ever happen in this country though.
Click to expand...

Explains how parolees are committing murder and rapes couple of months after being released, as their victims are usually dead.
 
With all the media attention and political meddling these guys never had a fair trial, politicians all used this as a platform to get attention, seems even now they don't stand a chance at having a fair parole. Their and their family's lives destroyed because they put a tsotsi in a coffin as a joke, no justice there.
 
diesel said:
With all the media attention and political meddling these guys never had a fair trial, politicians all used this as a platform to get attention, seems even now they don't stand a chance at having a fair parole. Their and their family's lives destroyed because they put a tsotsi in a coffin as a joke, no justice there.
Click to expand...
Odd, that's Zuma's defence, politicians and the media are making sure he's never going to have a fair trial.

Their family's lives were destroyed because they are stupid, end of story.
 
thechamp said:
Odd, that's Zuma's defence, politicians and the media are making sure he's never going to have a fair trial.

Their family's lives were destroyed because they are stupid, end of story.
Click to expand...

Very stupid indeed, what price do they need to suffer for their stupidity? , a simple settlement or compensation to the victim would have been better for both parties.
 
R13... said:
They have now been released under the covid parole programme. Freed over the weekend. Victim not happy.
Click to expand...

I also wouldn't be happy if people who assaulted me got out sooner than they should. But that's the law, if rapists get out on parole, why shouldn't these racists also get out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X