Carolus and Another v S (Appeal) (A201/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 362 (11 August 2025)

Case Note

Fahiem Carolus and Luciano Thomas v The State
Case No: A201/24
Date: 11 August 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications regarding the burden of proof in criminal trials, particularly in relation to the defense of alibi. The judgment underscores the principle that the state must prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and highlights the consequences of failing to investigate or challenge an alibi presented by the defense. The ruling serves as a reminder of the fundamental rights of the accused in criminal proceedings and the responsibilities of the prosecution.

Cases Cited

• S v Shabalala 1986 (6) SA 734 (A)
• S v Musiker 2013 (1) SACR 517 (SCA)
• S v Gcam-Gcam 2015 (2) SACR 501 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

[No specific legislation cited in the judgment]

Rules of Court Cited

[No specific rules of court cited in the judgment]

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an appeal by Fahiem Carolus and Luciano Thomas against their convictions for murder and the subsequent life sentences imposed by the regional court. The central issue was whether the state had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the second appellant's alibi defense. The court found that the state failed to investigate the alibi adequately, leading to a reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' guilt.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include the burden of proof in criminal trials, the treatment of alibi defenses, and the obligations of the prosecution to investigate claims made by the defense. The court also examined the implications of the trial court's failure to engage with the alibi presented by the second appellant.

Held

The court held that the state did not discharge its burden of proof, and the appellants' alibi raised a reasonable doubt that should have been resolved in their favor. Consequently, the appeals against both conviction and sentence were upheld, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.

THE FACTS

The appellants were convicted of murder with dolus directus on 31 March 2023, following an incident that resulted in the death of the deceased on 17 December 2018 in Manenberg. They were arrested on 30 July 2019 and maintained their innocence throughout the trial, asserting that they were not present at the crime scene. The second appellant raised an alibi during cross-examination, claiming he was with his probation officer, Mr. Nombo, at the time of the incident. However, the state did not investigate this alibi or call Mr. Nombo to testify.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the state had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the second appellant's alibi defense. The legal questions included the proper treatment of alibi defenses in criminal trials and the implications of the prosecution's failure to investigate the alibi adequately.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the principles surrounding the burden of proof in criminal cases, emphasizing that the onus remains on the state to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted that an alibi defense does not shift the burden to the accused to prove their innocence. The court criticized the trial court for failing to engage with the alibi and for erroneously placing the burden on the appellants to provide corroborative evidence. The court highlighted that the state had ample opportunity to investigate the alibi but failed to do so, which constituted a material omission.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the appeals against the convictions and sentences of both appellants be upheld. The convictions and sentences were set aside, effectively exonerating the appellants of the charges against them.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established key legal principles regarding the burden of proof in criminal trials, particularly that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It reaffirmed that an alibi defense must be accepted if it is reasonably possibly true, and the failure of the state to investigate or challenge such a defense can lead to a reasonable doubt that must be resolved in favor of the accused. The court also emphasized that the prosecution has a duty to call witnesses who could confirm or refute an alibi presented by the defense.