About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAFSHC 92
|
|
De Sousa v S (A231/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 92 (12 June 2013)
FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Appeal No.: A231/2012
In the matter between:
ALBERTO A DE SOUSA
..............................................................
Appellant
and
THE STATE
...............................................................................
Respondent
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
DAFFUE, J
et
LEKALE, J
_______________________________________________________
HEARD ON:
7
JUNE 2013
_______________________________________________________
JUDGMENT BY:
LEKALE, J
_______________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
12 JUNE 2013
_______________________________________________________
[1] On 13 December 2012
Thamage AJ and I dismissed the applicant’s appeal against
convictions on two counts of indecent assault.
The appeal succeeded
in respect of the sentence relating to the second count in that the
sentence of the regional court was set
aside and replaced by a
sentence of 7 years imprisonment. We ordered that the sentences in
respect of the two counts should run
concurrently with the result
that an effective sentence of 7 years imprisonment was imposed.
Appellant feels aggrieved by the dismissal
of his appeal against the
convictions only and now approaches us for leave to appeal the same
to the Supreme Court of Appeal on,
inter alia, the ground that there
exists reasonable prospect that another court could come to a
different conclusion on the evidence
forming the basis of the
convictions.
[2] The application is
opposed by the state on, inter alia, the basis that the contemplated
appeal has no merit insofar as the criticisms
levelled against the
relevant evidence was never put to the relevant witnesses to enable
them to deal with the same.
[3] We are, however,
persuaded that the matter enjoys reasonable prospects of success on
appeal. (See
Smith v S
2012 (1) SACR 567
(SCA) at
570b-c.)
ORDER
[4] Leave is granted to
the applicant to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the
convictions.
______________
L. J. LEKALE, J
I
concur.
_____________
J. P. DAFFUE, J
On behalf of applicant:
Adv. J. Nel
Instructed by:
E G Cooper Majiedt Inc
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of respondent:
Adv. W. J. Harrington
Instructed by:
The Director: Public
Prosecutions
BLOEMFONTEIN
/eb