Jub Jub makes second appeal

LazyLion

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,449
Reaction score
10,000
Location
District 9
Convicted killers Hip Hop artist Molemo "Jub Jub" Maarohanye and Themba Tshabalala's latest appeal against their convictions was underway by noon on Thursday in the High Court in Johannesburg.

"They, being the two applicants Molemo Maarohanye and Themba Tshabalala, are appealing their convictions and sentences," National Prosecuting Authority spokeswoman Phindi Louw said.

"I can confirm that the NPA is opposing the application."

They were found guilty of murder, attempted murder, driving under the influence of drugs, and racing on a public road by the Protea Magistrate's Court, Soweto, on October 16, 2012.

They crashed their Mini Coopers into a group of schoolboys in Protea North, Soweto, on March 8, 2010. Four boys were killed in the crash, and two were left permanently brain damaged.

Both men were sentenced on December 5, 2012, to 20 years imprisonment for murder and four years for attempted murder.

For use of drugs, driving under the influence of drugs, and racing on a public road, they got a year for each count.

Their previous appeal was dismissed in February 2013.


Source : Sapa /aw/th/jk/hdw
Date : 12 Jun 2014 12:43
 
In other news, the murdered victim from his illegal activities unable to appeal to his sentence.

Fsck you Jub Jub - rot in prison.
 
This is ridiculous, they need to stay down!! I hope their sentences get increased should this crap actually go through.
 
"He was removed from his cell - kicking and screaming...
Click to expand...

Who wouldn’t be after how many months of just getting it and not giving some.
 
Those are ridiculous charges for murder and attempted murder, and they were based on a case that has since been reversed by the Appeals court. They should get the murder charge replaced with negligence, and they should get a sentence of 8 years each, and they have already served close enough time to go out on parole.
 
Yup, killing 4 children and leaving two with brain damage while racing high on drugs is just negligence.

This is not PD - it's the rational thinking forum.
 
North Korea's leader/president/almighty commander/messiah has the right idea to deal with this type of scum. Mortars or dogs. Both works.
 
daveza said:
Yup, killing 4 children and leaving two with brain damage while racing high on drugs is just negligence.

This is not PD - it's the rational thinking forum.
Click to expand...

Law is not based on emotions. The case which they used to justify this ridiculous charge and sentences have since been appealed successfully, so there's no reason for them to be charged with murder and attempted murder. Negligence is the right charge, since they didn't intend killing anyone, specifically those that died.
 
rza said:
Law is not based on emotions. The case which they used to justify this ridiculous charge and sentences have since been appealed successfully, so there's no reason for them to be charged with murder and attempted murder. Negligence is the right charge, since they didn't intend killing anyone, specifically those that died.
Click to expand...

You should revive the original trial thread where this issue was debated at length.
 
rza said:
Law is not based on emotions. The case which they used to justify this ridiculous charge and sentences have since been appealed successfully, so there's no reason for them to be charged with murder and attempted murder. Negligence is the right charge, since they didn't intend killing anyone, specifically those that died.
Click to expand...

Of course they didn't intend to kill them.

Racing out of your skull down a road with school children on the pavements just tends to make that a no-brainer.

Talking of no-brainers....
 
R13... said:
You should revive the original trial thread where this issue was debated at length.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be debated, the Humphrey case was proven to be ridiculous which is the case that the magistrate used to convict Jub Jub and his friend. So it's a formality that their sentences will be reduced and they wil be convicted of negligent killing.
 
Last edited:
daveza said:
Of course they didn't intend to kill them.

Racing out of your skull down a road with school children on the pavements just tends to make that a no-brainer.

Talking of no-brainers....
Click to expand...

You intended to race down the road, but in no way did you intend to kill students, specifically the ones who died. This case was the most ridiculous case I have ever seen, and I won't be surprised if that magistrate never gets a promotion for the rest of his career.
 
rza said:
Law is not based on emotions. The case which they used to justify this ridiculous charge and sentences have since been appealed successfully, so there's no reason for them to be charged with murder and attempted murder. Negligence is the right charge, since they didn't intend killing anyone, specifically those that died.
Click to expand...

Extenuating circumstances can lead to it being a murder charge despite it not being premeditated.
This is what happened to them.
 
rza said:
You intended to race down the road, but in no way did you intend to kill students, specifically the ones who died. This case was the most ridiculous case I have ever seen, and I won't be surprised if that magistrate never gets a promotion for the rest of his career.
Click to expand...

So if I drink a bottle of vodka, hop in my car and destroy the lives of 6 children the most I can expect is negligence ?
 
It wasn't ONLY based on the Humphreys case (although that did come into the discussion). The principle of dolus eventualis has long been recognised in our law, even if it more rare.

The Western Cape High Court convicted him on the basis of dolus eventualis (indirect or legal intent), finding that he had foreseen the children’s death as a possible consequence of his actions.

The SCA could not fault this conclusion.

This case, however, lacked a distinguishing feature of dolus eventualis – that Humphreys had brought himself to accept the consequences of his conduct.

While Humphreys had been ”flagrantly” negligent, Judge Fritz Brand, who wrote the judgment, said there was no evidence that Humphreys’s life was immaterial to him and that he had reconciled himself with the possibility of his own death.
Click to expand...


The difference in the Jub Jub case was that the court found that the two defendants HAD accepted that death could be a very result of their conduct, but they didn't care anyway.

That will be the determining factor here again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X