S v Siff (K/S 2/15) [2015] ZANCHC 1 (18 March 2015)

82 Reportability
Criminal Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Murder — Accused charged with murder after fatally stabbing deceased with sheep-shears during altercation — Accused claims self-defence, alleging life was in danger — State witnesses testify that attack was unprovoked and deceased was unarmed — Court finds accused's version implausible and contradictory — Verdict of guilty of murder with dolus directus returned.

Comprehensive Summary

Summary of Judgment


1. Introduction


This was a criminal trial in the High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley, in which the accused was prosecuted on a charge of murder read with section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.


The parties were the State as prosecutor and Mr James Siff as the accused. The presiding judge was Pakati J. The accused was represented by counsel instructed by Legal Aid South Africa, and the State was represented by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.


The matter proceeded to trial after the accused pleaded not guilty. In his plea explanation, the accused admitted that he stabbed the deceased once with a pair of sheep-shears, but maintained that the stabbing was accidental and asserted that his life was in danger, which the court treated as aligning more closely with a claim of self-defence than a purely accidental act.


The general subject-matter of the dispute was whether the State proved unlawful and intentional killing (murder) beyond reasonable doubt, or whether the accused’s version (accident in the context of a threatened attack) was reasonably possibly true on the evidence.


2. Material Facts


It was common cause, and formally admitted under section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, that the deceased was Vernon Hugh Kok, that there were no intervening injuries between the scene and the autopsy, that Dr T C Kanaomang performed the post-mortem on 21 October 2014, and that the post-mortem contents were correct, including that the cause of death was cardiac tamponade. The accuracy of the photographic and sketch-plan materials was also admitted.


The incident occurred on Saturday, 18 October 2014, at about 21h00, at the home of Ms Yolanda Esel in Campbell (district of Herbert), where a group including the deceased went to watch a soccer match. On the State’s version, the deceased asked for permission to watch the match, Ms Esel indicated she wanted to sleep, and shortly thereafter the accused approached the door and stabbed the deceased once in the chest with sheep-shears. The State witnesses described the stabbing as unprovoked, and indicated that they were unarmed.


A central factual dispute concerned whether there was any provocation or threat to the accused. The accused’s version was that the door was forced open, he told the group to leave, an argument followed, he fetched sheep-shears to scare them away, and Thomas allegedly drew a knife and advanced towards him. The accused claimed he aimed a blow at Thomas in response to this threat, but the deceased intervened and was accidentally stabbed.


The State witnesses disputed key elements of the accused’s account. Thomas denied that there was an argument before the stabbing, denied that he was armed with a knife, and denied that the accused’s life was in danger. The State witnesses also rejected the claim that a person named Norman Dienaar was present at the stabbing. Ms Tembu’s evidence supported Thomas’s account that the stabbing occurred without provocation, and Ms Kok gave evidence about events immediately after the stabbing, including the accused’s conduct inside the house.


The medical evidence established that the deceased sustained a single stab wound to the left anterior chest wall, caused by a sharp instrument, which penetrated the chest cavity and injured the heart, producing blood accumulation in the pericardial sac consistent with cardiac tamponade. The post-mortem findings connected the stab wound to the fatal mechanism.


3. Legal Issues


The principal legal issue was whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully and intentionally killed the deceased, and in particular whether the accused acted with direct intention (dolus directus) as found by the court.


A connected issue was whether the accused’s version, that the stabbing was accidental and occurred while his life was allegedly threatened (a version suggestive of self-defence), was reasonably possibly true. This required the court to resolve disputes of fact through credibility findings and to apply the criminal standard of proof.


The dispute therefore concerned a combination of fact (what occurred at the door; whether a knife was present; whether the deceased intervened), the application of legal standards to the facts (whether intention could be inferred; whether the accused’s version could be accepted as reasonably possibly true), and an evaluative assessment of witness reliability and probabilities.


4. Court’s Reasoning


The court approached the matter primarily through an evaluation of the evidence and the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. It acknowledged that Thomas made certain contradictions in his testimony, but held that these were inconsequential and did not justify rejecting his evidence in substance, referring to authority on the treatment of immaterial contradictions in witness testimony.


The court found that the accused’s version was not supported by the State witnesses, who corroborated each other on the critical points that the stabbing was unprovoked and that Thomas and the deceased were unarmed. In assessing probabilities, the court considered the accused’s claim that the door had been forced open as inconsistent with the State evidence that the door was already open, and reasoned that forceful entry would therefore not have been necessary on the accepted version.


A significant aspect of the court’s reasoning concerned the accused’s claim that Thomas produced a knife and threatened him. The court viewed the accused’s elaboration about the knife, particularly details emerging only after questioning by the court, as an afterthought. The court also considered the accused’s statement to the police (handed in as an exhibit) and noted that it described a quarrel with the deceased, the accused fetching the sheep-shears, and stabbing the deceased once in the chest, without supporting the accused’s later trial version that he had intended to stab Thomas in response to a knife threat. The court treated the divergence between the statement and the trial version as undermining the accused’s credibility.


The court further reasoned that the accused had alternatives available to him—such as closing and locking the door and calling the police—rather than arming himself with sheep-shears and confronting the group. This consideration supported the court’s rejection of the accused’s claim that he acted under a genuine and unavoidable threat.


On the question of intention, the court inferred dolus directus from the nature of the weapon used and, importantly, the delicate and dangerous location of the stab wound in the chest area. The court concluded that, on the accepted facts and medical evidence, the stabbing was intentional and directed at a vital region, and that the State had therefore proved murder beyond reasonable doubt. It rejected the accused’s account as false and not reasonably possibly true, and found the evidence against him to be overwhelming.


5. Outcome and Relief


The court returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of murder, finding that the accused killed Vernon Hugh Kok with dolus directus as the form of intention.


No separate order regarding sentence or costs was recorded in the judgment text provided.


Cases Cited


MKOHLE 1990 (1) SACR 95 (A)


S v Oosthuizen 1982 (3) SA 571 (T)


Legislation Cited


Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, section 51


Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 220


Rules of Court Cited


No rules of court were cited in the judgment text provided.


Held


The High Court (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley) held that the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused stabbed the deceased in the chest with sheep-shears, causing death by cardiac tamponade, and that the accused acted with direct intention (dolus directus) to kill. The accused’s version that the stabbing was accidental and occurred in circumstances of danger to his life was rejected as not reasonably possibly true. The accused was accordingly convicted of murder.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


The judgment applied the principle that minor or inconsequential contradictions in a witness’s evidence do not necessarily justify rejecting the witness’s account, particularly where the core version remains coherent and is corroborated, and where the contradictions do not relate to material aspects decisive to the outcome.


It further applied the criminal law principle that an accused’s version must be accepted if it is reasonably possibly true, but may be rejected where it is shown, on credibility findings and the inherent probabilities, to be false and inconsistent with reliable evidence.


On intention, the judgment applied the principle that intention to kill may be inferred from the nature of the weapon and the area of the body targeted, especially where the instrument is sharp and the injury is inflicted in a vital and delicate region such as the chest near the heart.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZANCHC 1
|

|

S v Siff (K/S 2/15) [2015] ZANCHC 1 (18 March 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE HIGH
COURT, KIMBERLEY)
Case No: K/S 2/15
DATE: 18 MARCH 2015
In the matter between
THE STATE
V
JAMES SIFF
JUDGMENT
PAKATI J
[1] The accused, Mr James Siff, is
arraigned before me on a charge of murder read with
s 51
of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997
. He is alleged to have killed
the deceased, Vernon Hugh Kok, on Saturday 18 October 2014 at around
21h00 in Campbell, in the district
of Herbert.
[2] The accused is represented by Mr J
Cloete on the instructions of Legal Aid South Africa. He pleaded not
guilty to the charge.
In his plea explanation he admitted having
stabbed the deceased once with a pair of sheep-shears but claimed
that he did so accidentally.
He alleged that his life was in danger.
This sounds more like self-defence.
[3] The following admissions were
recorded in terms of s 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977:
3.1 The identity of the deceased;
3.2 The body of the deceased did not
sustain any further injuries from the scene until the post mortem was
conducted;
3.3 Dr TC Kanaomang conducted the
autopsy on the deceased’s body on 21 October 2014;
3.4 The cause of death is correctly
recorded as cardiac tamponade and the contents of the post mortem are
admitted as true and
correct; and
3.5 The correctness of the content of
the photo album and the key to the sketch plan.
[4] On 18 October 2014 Mr Thomas
Dienaar (“Thomas”), Ms Dora Kok, Ms Marie Tembu, also
known as Meikie, and the deceased
had gone to the house of Ms Yolanda
Esel, also known as Pule, to watch a soccer match between Orlando
Pirates and Free State Stars.
Thomas testified that the deceased
knocked at the door and sought permission to watch the match. Ms Esel
told him that she was
not interested in the game and wanted to sleep.
Without an argument the accused approached the door armed with a pair
of sheep-shears
and stabbed the deceased once in the chest. Thomas
reported the incident to the deceased’s sister whose name was
undisclosed.
[5] Thomas disputed that:
[5.1] When the accused stabbed the
deceased he (the deceased) stood between him and the accused;
[5.2] He and the deceased had an
argument with the accused before the stabbing took place;
[5.3] Norman Dienaar was present when
the incident took place.
[5.4] He bumped against the door while
standing outside.
[5.5] The accused asked them to leave;
[5.6] The accused went to fetch the
pair of sheep-shears to scare them away;
[5.7] He was armed with a knife on the
day; and
[5.8] The accused’s life was in
danger.
[6] Ms Tembu testified that when the
deceased requested to watch TV the accused said that he should not
come with his nonsense.
He advanced and ‘hit the deceased on
his chest’. She did not see the weapon used but saw the
deceased fall to the ground.
The accused then fled the scene. Ms
Tembu corroborated Thomas that the attack was unprovoked. She and
Thomas were unarmed.
[7] Ms Kok did not witness the
stabbing but saw the accused drop the weapon inside the house and
said he had done what he wanted
to do. She discovered later that the
deceased had been stabbed. She agrees with Thomas, Ms Tembu and
Norman Dienaar that Norman
was not present when the incident took
place.
[8] Dr Tebogo Kanaomang, a forensic
pathologist who performed the autopsy, testified that the injury to
the deceased’s chest
was caused by a sharp instrument. The
cause of the collapse of the left lung was the penetrating injury
into the chest cavity.
There was a small defect on the pericardial
sac with 200ml of blood inside. The presence of blood in the chest
cavity was either
as a result of the injury to the blood vessels
underneath the ribs caused by the sharp object or that the organs
inside the chest
cavity were injured. He testified further that there
was another small defect on the right ventricle close to the apex of
the heart.
The blood vessels of the heart were open and the defect
had nothing to do with the deprivation of oxygen to the heart. The
2cm
incised wound he found on the left anterior chest wall between
the sternum and the nipple had sharp-like margins with abrasions.
He
did not measure the depth of the wound. The lungs collapsed and were
congested. He recorded the chief post mortem findings as
follows:
“A body of a Coloured adult male
with a single stab wound to the left anterior chest wall. The sharp
object penetrated the
left chest cavity injuring the right ventricle
of the heart. There is a lot of blood in the pericardial sac. The
left lung is slightly
collapsed and congested and there is a small
amount of blood in the left chest cavity. The right lung is
congested. The brain is
swollen. Both kidneys are hydronephrotic and
swollen.”
Dr Kanaomang concluded that the cause
of death was cardiac tamponade. He explained this to mean that there
was blood inside the
heart sac which spilt in a short period of time
causing pressure to the heart muscles thereby preventing the heart
from pumping
the blood out.
That concluded the State case.
[9] The accused, a 42 year old married
male, testified that on the day of the incident he was in the house
of his girlfriend, Ms
Esel. He and his uncle, Mr Booitjie
Rooibaadjie, were seated in the lounge watching the soccer match
between Orlando Pirates and
Free State Stars. During half-time he
heard a knock at the door. Ms Esel asked who it was and the deceased
identified himself.
He requested to watch the said match. Ms Esel
said that they were about to sleep. A short while later the door was
hitched. The
accused approached it and noticed that Thomas had pushed
it open. He was standing outside with Norman and the deceased. The
accused
requested them to leave the premises. He then closed the
door. On his way to the lounge the door was hitched again. He again
told
them to leave. The deceased and Thomas swore at him and refused
to leave the premises. An argument ensued. He then fetched the pair

of sheep-shears from the room to scare them off. He again told them
to leave but they still refused. Thomas drew a knife and moved

towards him. At that stage his life was in danger. He delivered a
blow which he aimed at Thomas. The deceased got in between him
and
Thomas causing him to accidentally stab the deceased. He discarded
the weapon in the house and left the scene. He reported
the incident
to his mother who in turn reported to the police. He was arrested in
the early hours of Sunday morning. He denied
that Ms Tembu was
present during the incident.
[10] Thomas contradicted himself
several times. However, those contradictions are so inconsequential
that no purpose can be served
by burdening this judgment by itemising
them. (See MKOHLE
1990 (1) SACR 95
(A) and the remarks in S v
OOSTHUIZEN
1982 (3) SA 571
(T) at 576B-C and 576G-H).
[11] The accused created the impression
that the deceased and Thomas did not want to leave the premises and
were a nuisance. The
State witnesses testified differently
corroborating one another. According to them the door was open.
Therefore there was no need
to forcefully open it. In his
evidence-in-chief the accused did not explain what Thomas did with
the knife except that he drew
it and moved in his direction. It only
came out for the first time when the Court asked him what Thomas did
with the knife that
he was holding it in a stabbing position. This,
in my view, is an afterthought by the accused.
[12] The accused’s evidence that
his life was in danger is a fabrication; regard being had to the
evidence of Ms Tembu and
Thomas that Thomas and the deceased were
unarmed. Again, his version that the deceased got in between him and
Thomas is absurd
considering his evidence that ‘Thomas moved
forward in my direction’ meaning that the deceased was left
behind Thomas
who was 2m away from the accused when he delivered the
blow. When he could not take the punches anymore he changed his
version
and said that Thomas, the deceased and Norman moved towards
him simultaneously.
[13] The accused explained that he left
the scene because he was shocked. In his statement made to the police
handed as Exh “B”
he stated:
“Ek het toe die oorledene en sy
vriende gevra om te loop aangesien my vrymeisie hulle nie daar soek
nie.’n Stryery het
ontstaan tussen ek en Vernon, die oorledene,
hy het my gevloek, ek het toe kwaad geraak en terug in die huis
gegaan na die slaapkamer
toe waar ek ‘n skaapskȇr uit ‘n
boksie uitgehaal het en terug gegaan na die voordeur waar die
oorledene en sy
vriende gestaan het.
Ons twee het weer verder gestry en ek
het die oorledene een keer op sy bors met die skaapskêr terug
in die huis gegooi en
ek het geloop na my ma se huis toe.”
[14] When the accused was asked why he
did not tell the police that he accidentally stabbed the deceased he
explained that he was
confused and was not compus mentis. In the said
statement there is no mention of an intention to stab Thomas who,
according to
him, threatened his life. He conceded that instead of
fetching the pair of sheep-shears he had the opportunity to close the
door,
lock it and call the police. He gave the excuse that he did not
think about it. The manner in which he left the scene after the

stabbing is consistent with Ms Kok’s evidence that after he
stabbed the deceased he said that he had done what he wanted
to do.
[15] The accused confirmed that he had
a good relationship with the three State witnesses. There was no
reason for them to falsely
implicate him in the manner that they did.
There was also no reason for them to say Thomas was unarmed.
[16] The evidence against the accused
is overwhelming. He was a poor witness. He was evasive in answering
questions. He kept adjusting
his evidence as the case progressed.
What is clear is that he was unhappy that the deceased and his
companions went to Ms Esel’s
house to watch TV.
[17] I am satisfied that the State
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused’s
version is not reasonably
possibly true and I reject it as false.
[18] Having regards to the instrument
used and the delicate location of the stab wound (5th intercostal
space between 5th and 6th
ribs adjacent to the sternum) I am
satisfied that the accused stabbed the deceased with the direct
intention to murder, dolus directus.
The following verdict is returned:
The accused is found guilty of murder
of Vernon Hugh Kok with dolus directus as a form of intention.
BM PAKATI
JUDGE
On Behalf of the State: Adv J Mabaso
Instructed by: Director Public
Prosecutions
On Behalf of the Accused: Adv J
Cloete
Instructed by: Legal Aid Board-
Kimberley

Back to Law Reports