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
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZANCHC 2
|
|
S v Mtshali (16/2012) [2013] ZANCHC 2 (19 February 2013)
Reportable
YES / NO
Circulate
to Judges YES / NO
Circulate
to Magistrates YES / NO
Circulate
to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
[NORTHERN CAPE HIGH
COURT, KIMBERLEY]
CASE No
:
16/2012
19 February 2013
THE STATE
AND
MCHELI MTSHALI
..............................................................................................
ACCUSED
________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________
PAKATI J:
The accused, Mcheli
Mtshali, appears before me on ten charges. They are as follows:
1.1. Count 1: Assault
common: The accused is alleged to have assaulted Ms Josephine Lallie,
also known as Zom, by assaulting her
with an open hand.
1.2. Counts 2, 3, 4 and
7: Attempted Murder: These counts relate to Mr Petrus McKay also
known as Pana (“McKay”), Mr
Raymond Philemon Kaweng
(“Kaweng”), Mr Willem Baboa also known as T-man (“Baboa”)
and Mr Charles Kammies
(“Charles”). The accused is
alleged to have fired shots at them with the intention to kill them.
1.3. Count 5: Murder read
with
s 51(1)
of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997
: The
State alleges that the accused killed Ms Rebecca Modise also known as
Maggie by shooting her with a firearm.
1.4. Count 6: The accused
is alleged to have contravened the provisions of
s 120(3)
(b) read
with
secs 1
,
103
,
120
(1) (a) and
121
of the
Firearms Control Act, 60
of 2000
, by handling a firearm in such a manner that it created a
risk to the safety of Mr Moses Kammies also known as Man (“Kammies”),
Ms Brenda Magada and Ms Josephine Lallie also known as Zom. In the
alternative the State alleges that the accused contravened
s120
(3)
(a) read with
secs 1
,
103
,
120
(1)(a) and
121
of the
Firearms Control
Act, 60 of 2000
in that he handled the firearm negligently.
1.5. Count 8 relates to
possession of unlawful firearm in contravention of
s 3
read with
secs
1
,
103
,
120
(1)(a) and
121
of Act 60 of 2000 read with s 250 of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1997 in that the accused had in his
possession an unlicensed
firearm.
1.6. Count 9: Unlawful
Possession of Ammunition in contravention of s 90 read with secs 1,
103, 120(1) (a) and 121 of Act 60 of
2000; and,
1.7. Count 10: The
accused is alleged to have acted in contravention of the provisions
of s 5 (b) read with secs 1, 13, 17 to 25
and 64 of Act 140 of 1992
in that he dealt in a substance producing drug to wit mandrax tablets
alternatively that he contravened
the provisions of s 4 (b) read with
sects 1, 13, 17 to 25 and 64 of Act 140 of 1992 in that he was found
in possession of mandrax
tablets.
Counts 1 to 9 are alleged
to have taken place on 05 August 2011 at about 23h00 at Diamant Park
Shanties, Greenpoint, in the district
of Kimberley.
The accused, a male aged
40 years, was represented by Mr Nagel on the instructions of the
Legal Aid Board. He pleaded not guilty
to all counts. In his plea
explanation he admitted his presence at the scene at about 20h00 in
search of his friend, Mr Sqiko
Mavundla (“Mavundla”). He
denied being present at the scene when the shooting took place. He
also denied dealing
in mandrax tablets. He alleged that the
arresting officer informed other police officers that he confiscated
from him a plastic
bag which contained mandrax tablets. The contents
of the plastic bag were neither shown to him nor were the tablets
counted in
his presence. They were also not sealed in his presence.
He further denied being in possession of an unlicensed firearm and
ammunition.
The firearm and the ammunition were never recovered.
In the early evening of
Friday 05 August 2011, Kammies was seated at home at the fire
playing music in front of the verandah.
He was in the company of his
cousin, Baboa, Kaweng and his brother, Charles, consuming alcohol.
The accused and Mavundla joined
them. Charles went to the tuck shop.
At a later stage Ms Brenda Magada, McKay and Ms Lallie arrived.
Kammies occasionally went
inside the shack. Whilst still inside the
shack Brenda came and asked him to reprimand the accused who was
bothering Ms Lallie
outside. Kammies and Brenda went out of the
shack. While they were at the verandah Kammies saw the accused
leaving through the
gate. He immediately turned and fired shots
towards the shack where they were. Kammies pulled Ms Magada and Ms
Lallie inside
the shack. At that stage he noticed that someone was
lying on the ground. Further shots were fired one of which hit the
door
of the shack. When everything was quiet Charles knocked on the
door and Kammies opened for him. Kammies, his wife, Ms Violet
Kammies, Charles and others went out to investigate. They saw McKay,
Kaweng and the deceased lying on the ground. The Police arrived
shortly thereafter.
Visibility was good
according to Kammies. The high mast light and a light in front of
his gate provided the light. The flames
from the fire also enhanced
the light. Kammies denied that he reprimanded the accused not to
touch Ms Lallie.
On 12 August 2011, a
Wednesday, between 11h00 and 12h00, Kammies was busy cleaning his
yard when he picked up one cartridge outside
the yard. He handed it
over to the investigating officer.
Ms Lallie testified that
on the day in question she was in the company of Ms Magada and McKay
on their way to Kammies’ place
around 21h50. She gave her
child to McKay and started dancing. At that stage the accused held
her hand, speaking to her in Afrikaans
and touched her on her waist
using both hands. She pushed him away. Ms Magada reprimanded the
accused. The accused refused to
stop. Ms Magada went to call Kammies
from the shack to report the conduct of the accused. In the meantime
the accused slapped
Ms Lallie on her left cheek with an open hand.
She slapped him on the chest in retaliation. The accused and
Mavundla went to
the verandah. They immediately returned and walked
towards the gate. The accused turned and started shooting from the
gate. Ms
Lallie noticed Kammies standing at the verandah as the
shots were fired. She wanted to follow the accused but Kammies
pulled
her into the house.
Lallie says further
shots were fired whilst they were inside the house. When it was
quiet they went outside and noticed that the
deceased, McKay and
Kaweng were lying on the ground. Two to three weeks before the trial
started Charles, Kammies and herself
were taken to the scene by the
police where photos were taken. Certain points were pointed out by
them to the police officer
who took photos.
McKay and Ms Magada
corroborated the evidence of Ms Lallie as to how they got to
Kammies’ place. McKay testified further
that on their arrival
he sat on a chair with his back facing the gate whilst Ms Lallie and
Ms Magada danced. Suddenly he heard
shots being fired. He was struck
on the left side of his chest and fell unconscious. He could not
tell who fired the shots or
from which direction they were fired.
According to Ms Magada
when the accused started to touch Ms Lallie, she went to call
Kammies from the shack. Kammies came out
and reprimanded the accused
and went back to the shack. The accused stood up and said
“
we
will see
”
. He walked
towards the gate. As the deceased entered the yard the accused was
already outside the gate. When she was a short
distance away from
the gate the accused returned to the yard with his hands under his
jacket. He drew a firearm and stood a short
distance away from the
deceased and pointed it at Baboa who was at that stage sitting down.
Baboa told the accused not to scare
him with a toy. He then fired at
the brazier. Everyone ran for their lives.
Ms Magada ran to the
verandah and Kammies pulled her to the house. Kammies also pulled Ms
Lallie and her child into the house.
Whilst they were inside the
house further shots were fired. Kammies opened the door and Ms
Magada saw the accused running down
the street. Mavundla ran in a
different direction. Kammies thereafter closed the door. Charles
called from outside and requested
them to go out to see what had
happened.
In her initial statement
Ms Magada told the police that it was Mavundla who fired the shots
that night. She realised later that
day that what she told the
police officer, Malgraaf, was wrong. On Monday following the
incident she made another statement alleging
that it was the accused
that fired the shots. Her explanation for the conflicting statements
is that she was shocked and confused
and had not slept. She was also
drunk at the time she gave the statement. The evidence shows that at
no stage did Mavundla fire
any shots. In this regard Ms Magada was
clearly wrong.
Charles, Kaweng and
Baboa corroborated Kammies’ evidence that on the day of the
incident the accused and Mavundla joined
them around the fire place
where they were consuming alcohol and listened to music. Kammies
sent Charles to the tuck shop. Whilst
he was at the tuck shop he
heard shots being fired. He returned to Kammies’ place. At the
gate he met the accused coming
out of the gate. He greeted him. The
accused’s response was to fire shots at him but missed. He
turned and ran away. He
stood at the corner of the street and
observed the accused whilst he walked down the road. Charles
returned to Kammies’
place. At that stage Kammies was inside
the house. He knocked and Kammies opened for him. They went outside
to investigate.
Kaweng testified that
the accused, who had been seated at the fire place, stood up and hit
Ms Lallie with an open hand. Thereafter
he went towards the gate and
suddenly turned. He walked towards Kaweng firing shots until he got
to the spot where he was seated.
The bullet struck his right
shoulder and he fell unconscious as a result. He regained
consciousness in hospital.
Baboa arrived at
Kammies’ place around 21h00. After some time Ms Lallie, McKay,
Ms Magada and the accused arrived one after
the other but Ms Lallie
and McKay were the last to enter through the gate. Some of them sat
around the fire listening to music
and others were dancing. At some
stage Baboa went to the toilet situated at the back of the shack. On
his return he noticed the
accused and Ms Lallie talking to each
other but could not hear their conversation. He returned to the
brazier. He and McKay went
inside the shack. They heard shots being
fired. They went outside to investigate. When they were under the
verandah Baboa saw
the accused carrying a gun and firing shots at
McKay who got struck and fell down as a result. The accused was
inside the yard,
a distance from the gate, walking towards the
house. Baboa ran away and jumped over a fence. He went to Frendo’s
Tuck Shop
and remained there for a while. He realised that his
woollen hat that he had on had fallen off as he ran away. He found
it behind
the toilet in Kammies’ yard on his return. He
noticed that the little ball on top of the hat was missing. He
realised that
it was struck by the bullet fired at him as he was
running away.
According to Baboa,
Kammies used his cell phone light to identify the people lying on
the ground. A short while later the police
arrived. Baboa proceeded
home. He related the incident of the hat to his wife and mother. His
mother burnt his hat and performed
a ritual for him, apparently to
thank ancestors that his life was spared.
W/O Edwin Collen,
attached to the Criminal Record Centre, attended the scene at 00h05
the same night after he received a report
from radio control. He
took photos. He took other photos on 18 April 2012 at 13h00. He
testified that it was dark at the scene
such that they had to use
flash light and head lights of their vehicle to improve the
lighting. My understanding is that for
photographic purposes more
intense light (focussed or spot-light) is required. The body of the
deceased was transported from
the scene to the mortuary by Mr Abram
Nkadimeng, a forensic pathologist. Nkadimeng visited the scene on
the day of the incident
around 00h30.
On 06 August 2011, a day
after the incident, Mr Lucky Mpholo, a police officer stationed in
Kimberley, received a report from
radio control that there was a
murder and attempted murder committed in Greenpoint and that the
accused was fleeing. He was in
the company of Const Mogorosi and
Kammies. They rushed to the taxi rank in Craven Street whereupon
Kammies pointed out the accused
to them. He arrested the accused and
searched him. In one of his pockets he found a Butterfield plastic
bag containing 61 mandrax
tablets. He also recovered a sum of
R370-50 in cash. The accused had a blanket and a bag that contained
clothing and tekkies
with stains similar to blood on them. He did
not find the firearm and ammunition during the search. At the charge
office he counted
the tablets and the money in the presence of the
accused. He booked them in the SAP13 register. The tablets were
sealed and handed
to W/O Virtue. They were then sent to Cape Town
for forensic testing. Ms Margaret Mogorosi corroborated the evidence
of Mpholo
as to how the accused was arrested.
W/O John Alfred Virtue
testified that he was contacted by the Charge Office Commander on 07
August 2011 to countersign for 61
mandrax tablets and R370-50 cash
which he did. He locked them in the safe. On Monday 08 August 2011
he sealed them and handed
the tablets over to W/O Roos who took them
to Cape Town for analysis.
Dr Willem Jacobus Grove`
testified that on 06 August 2011 he examined McKay at Kimberley
Hospital. He had a gunshot wound in the
chest. He had developed
haemopneumothorax, which means that his lung had collapsed because
of the blood and air in it that made
it difficult for him to
breathe. An intercostal drain was inserted to drain the air and
blood so that he could breathe normally.
He recorded the clinical
findings as follows:
“
2
x wound sites - entry and exit wounds;
-Entry wound over the
right scapula-
about 4cm lateral to spine;
-Exit wound below
right clavicle in the mid clavicular line;
-chest x-rays:
indicated a right sided haemopneumothorax.”
He concluded that the
injury was life threatening.
Dr Grove` also examined
Kaweng who, at the time, experienced difficulty in breathing. He
recorded the following clinical findings:
“
(1a)
Gunshot wound (entry) left upper arm – outer aspect of arm
(1b) Gunshot wound
(exit) left uppers arm – inner aspect of arm
Clinically no
vascular/nerve injury
Instability of
humerus
No active bleeding
(2) Gunshot wound
(entry) – left upper quadrant of abdomen, below rib border,
anterior-lateral aspect. The patient had a rigid,
tender abdomen with
no active bleeding. No exit wound.”
He concluded that if the
blood vessels running down the arm were damaged Kaweng could have
bled to death from the gunshot wound
injury on the left arm and
abdomen .This injury was life threatening because there could have
been a leakage of the bowels causing
infection.
Dr Adin Don Surtie, who
performed the autopsy, recorded the chief post mortem findings on
the body of the deceased, Rebecca Modise,
as follows:
“
Adult
female
8x8mm bullet wound
with smear ring left anterior neck 10mm from midline and 25mm above
sterna notch with tract running inferior
laterally entering chest
above clavicle with seven of left 1
st
branch of aorta
into superior lung and exiting through 4
th
intercostal
space with10x8mm exit wound in the skin of back. Collapsed left lung
with 1000millilitres blood.
12mm laceration left
eyelid with swollen eye
8mm incision left ear
30x30mm abrasion left
back.”
Dr Surtie concluded that
the cause of death was gunshot neck.
That concluded the
evidence for the State.
The accused testified
that on the day of the incident he went to Kammies’ place
around 18h00 to look for Mavundla who had
gone there to borrow an
empty crate. He found Mavundla drunk at Kammies’ place. An
argument ensued between them. He left
him there and returned home
around 19h00. He proceeded to Vusi’s (his friend’s)
shack and put up there for the night.
Vusi was in the Eastern Cape
attending a funeral. The following morning he went to town to board
a taxi to Donkerhoek where he
wanted to hand over money to a family
member for his children in Natal. Whilst he sat in the taxi two
police officers arrested
him. He denied that he was present at
Kammies’ place when the incident took place. Neither firearm
nor ammunition was found
in his possession. He denied further that
he dealt in or possessed mandrax tablets. Mavundla was also arrested
in this matter
but the charges were later dropped.
The crisp issue to be
determined is the identity of the shooter and whether the accused is
the one who fired the shots at Kammies’
place that night that
killed the deceased and injured and missed others. The accused
maintains that he was not present at Kammies’
place when the
shooting took place. He says he left Mavundla at Kammies’
premises earlier that evening. He is therefore
pleading an alibi.
The witnesses testified that it was him who fired the shots killing
the deceased, injuring Kaweng and McKay
and handled the firearm in
such a manner that put the safety of other people present at the
scene in danger.
In proving its case the
State relies on the evidence of Kammies, Baboa, Ms Lallie and
Kaweng. In
S v MTHETHWA
1972 (3) SA 766
(A)
at 768A-C Holmes
JA stated the following:
“
Because
of the fallibility of human observation, evidence of identification
is approached by the Courts with some caution. It is
not enough for
the identifying witness to be honest: the reliability of his
observation must also be tested. This depends on various
factors,
such as lighting, visibility, and eyesight; the proximity of the
witness; his opportunity for observation, both as to
time and
situation; the extent of his prior knowledge of the accused; the
mobility of the scene; corroboration; suggestibility;
the accused’s
face, voice build, gait, and dress; the result of the identification
parades, if any; and, of course, the evidence
by or on behalf of the
accused. The list is not exhaustive. These factors, or such of them
as are applicable in a particular case,
are not individually
decisive, but must be weighed one against the other, in the light of
the totality of the evidence, and the
probabilities.”
It may be so that W/O
Collen had to use flash lights and head lights of their vehicle in
order to view the scene properly but
all the witnesses testified
that visibility was good. There are street lights in front and at
the back of Kammies’ yard.
There is a high mast light in the
street behind the shack. These lights illuminate the back and front
of the yard. There was
also a brazier burning outside. They all knew
the accused before the incident. This was confirmed by the accused
that he knew
Kammies for a considerable period of time and used to
borrow empty crates from him. He further confirmed that he and
Charles
were known to each other before this incident. These
witnesses testified that the accused was seated next to the fence
with Mavundla.
Kammies testified that when the accused arrived in
the company of Mavundla they spoke to him. Ms Lallie also spoke to
him just
before the incident. If a witness knows the person well or
has seen him frequently before, the probability that his
identification
will be accurate is substantially increased; and
questions of identification marks, of facial characteristics, and of
clothing
are of much less importance. What is important is to test
the degree of previous knowledge and the opportunity for a correct
identification, regard being had to the circumstances in which it
was made. See
R v DLADLA AND OTHERS
(1962) (1) SA 307E-F.
Ms Lallie’s
evidence that she was assaulted by the accused with an open hand
whereafter he and Mavundla left through the
gate was corroborated by
Kaweng. Charles testified that he met the accused at the gate as he
returned from the shop. He greeted
the accused and said ‘
Awe
Mavus’
. At that stage the accused was a few paces away
from him. He therefore had the opportunity to observe the accused
clearly and
at close range. He had been sitting with the accused
around the fire before he went to the shop. It is not possible that
these
witnesses would mistake him for anyone else. The accused’s
alibi
falls flat because from 20h00 until the shooting took
place he was always in the company of and never out of sight of two
or
more of the witnesses. He talked to them. He touched Ms Lallie
indecently. She rejected his unwelcome attention. He was reprimanded
by Ms Magada. All these angered him. That was the motive for the
murder and other offences.
On a question of a
failed alibi See
S v THEBUS AND ANOTHER
[2003] ZACC 12
;
2003 (2) SACR 319
(CC)
at
349c – 354b;
S v NKOMO
1966 (1) SA 831
(A)
at 833 C-D.
In
S v SHABALALA
1986 (4) SA 734
(A)
at 736C-D the Court held
that the “effect of the falseness of an alibi on an accused’s
case is to place him in a
position as if he had never testified at
all. See
R v DHLOMO 1961 (1) PH H54”
It would be strange to
expect the witnesses to give exactly the same account of what took
place especially taking into account
that they had consumed alcohol
and that the scene was moving. In my view the differences as far as
the clothing and failure to
describe the firearm are concerned are
not sufficiently material to warrant casting a reasonable doubt on
the State’s version.
They are so inconsequential that no
purpose can be served by burdening this judgment by itemising them.
In
MKOHLE
1990 (1) SACR 95
(A)
Nedstadt JA cited with
approval the remarks in
S v OOSTHUIZEN
1982 (3) SA 571
(T)
where Nicholas J held at 576B-C and 576G-H:
“
Contradictions
per se do not lead to the rejection of a witness’ evidence;
they may simply be indicative of an error. Not
every error made by a
witness affects his credibility; in each case the trier of fact has
to make an evaluation, taking into account
such matters as the nature
of the contradictions, their number and importance, and their bearing
on the other parts of the witness’
evidence.”
Ms Magada made two
contradictory statements as to who fired the shots at Kammies’
place that night. She testified that she
was drunk on the day and
had not slept. Even though she realised her mistake before she met
with anyone the mistake made is material.
It goes to the core of the
case. Be that as it may, all other witnesses corroborated one
another that it was the accused that
fired the shots that evening.
After the accused left the scene no one saw him again until he was
arrested the following day.
He therefore had enough opportunity to
wash and remove any signs of gunpowder residue from his hands and
conceal the firearm.
The evidence of the
accused’s witness, Mr Vusumzi Botshwa, did not take his case
any further. He was not present when the
incident took place.
In
S v V
2000 (1)
SACR 453
453 (SCA)
at 456A-C Zulman had this to say:
“
It
is trite that there is no obligation upon an accused person, where
the State bears the onus, ‘to convince the court’.
If his
version is reasonably possibly true he is entitled to his acquittal
even though his explanation is improbable. A court is
not entitled to
convict unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is
improbable but that beyond any reasonable doubt
it is false. It is
permissible to look at the probabilities of the case to determine
whether the accused’s version is reasonably
possibly true but
whether one subjectively believes him is not the test. As pointed out
in many judgments of this Court and other
courts the test is whether
there is a reasonable possibility that the accused’s evidence
may be true.”
The evidence of the
accused is a bare denial. There is overwhelming evidence against
him. He was a poor witness. He was very evasive
in answering simple
questions. He confirmed that Mavundla and Kammies knew each other
after several attempts by the Prosecutor
to establish their
relationship. He contradicted himself on numerous occasions. During
cross-examination he could not explain
the time when he returned
from Kammies’ place. He admitted being in Kammies’ yard
before the shooting. He kept adjusting
his evidence as the case
progressed. He gave different versions in trying to explain why he
had to hurry to Donkerhoek. The only
reasonable inference that can
be drawn is that he was fleeing.
The principle to
determine what form of intent to murder an accused should be
convicted of has been authoritatively formulated
in the following
terms by Holmes JA in
S v SIGWAHLA
1967 (4) SA 566
(A)
at
569 G-H – 570 A:
“
The
next question is whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellant intended to kill the deceased. At this
stage I use
the word intention in the sense of dolus directus, i.e. where the
will is directed to compassing the death of the deceased.
It is
sometimes said that a person is presumed to intend the reasonable and
probable consequences of his act. As to that, I had
occasion to point
out in
R
v. Sacco,
1958
(2) SA 349 (N)
at
pp. 351H to 353C, that it is simpler to speak of inferences of fact
than of presumptions; that the practical approach is to eschew
piecemeal processes of reasoning, and to look at all the facts at the
end of the case, and from that totality to ascertain whether
the
inference in question can be drawn; and that inferences do not affect
the incidence of the onus of proof - they assist its
discharge.
Stabbing
cases are usually a matter of degree, and intention must not be
inferred by hindsight from the fact of death. The part
of the body
injured is relevant, but in the present case the deceased was walking
and the appellant jumped forward as he struck.
Hence it cannot be
inferred beyond reasonable doubt that he actually aimed at the heart,
as distinct from the general area of the
upper body. Accordingly, the
fact that the thrust did land with fatal consequences above the heart
does not, in all the circumstances,
necessarily give rise to the
inevitable inference that the appellant intended to kill, in the
sense of directing his will toward
the bringing about of the death of
the deceased
."
The accused used a
firearm, a dangerous weapon, in shooting the deceased and the
complainants. I am satisfied that the evidemce
shows clearly that
the accused had the direct intention to kill the deceased and that
his actions were premeditated. He walked
towards the gate and
suddenly turned and fired shots putting the safety of everyone
present there in danger. I am also satisfied
that he is guilty of
attempted murder in respect of Baboa, Kammies and Charles. He fired
shots at them but missed. He had the
necessary intention to commit
the offences.
Having regard to the
evidence and analysis set out above I am satisfied that the State
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused was the one
who fired the shots that night.
I am not satisfied that
the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as far as count 10
(dealing in mandrax tablets alternatively
possession thereof) is
concerned. It is clear that W/O Virtue handled the mandrax tablets
on Sunday, 07 August 2011, and not
the day the accused was arrested,
as testified to by Constable Mpholo. Neither the tablets nor the
results were exhibited in
Court. The results of the forensic test of
the alleged mandrax tablets were not presented in Court.
The following verdicts
are returned:
On count 1 (Assault
Common): The accused is found guilty of assault common on Josephine
Lallie.
On count 2 (Attempted
Murder): The accused is found guilty of attempted murder of Petrus
McKay.
On count 3 (Attempted
Murder): The accused is found guilty of attempted murder of Raymond
Kaweng.
On count 4 (Attempted
Murder): The accused is guilty of attempted murder of Willem Baboa.
On count 5 (Murder):
The accused is guilty of murder of Rebecca Modise with
dolus
directus
as a form of intent to cause her death.
On count 6 (C/S 120
(3) (b) read with secs 1, 103, 120(1) (a) and 121 of Act 60 of
2000): The accused is guilty of Unlawful handling
a firearm in a
manner that placed the safety of Moses Kammies, Brenda Magada and
Josephine Lallie in danger.
On count 7 (Attempted
Murder): The accused is found guilty of attempted murder of Charles
Kammies.
On count 8 (C/S of s3
read with secs 1, 103, 120(1) (a) and 121 of Act 60 of 2000 and read
with
s250
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
, Possession of
unlicensed firearm): The accused is found guilty of possession of
unlicensed firearm.
On count 9 (C/S 90
read with
sections 1
,
103
,
120
(1) (a) and
121
of Act 60 of 2000)
Unlawful possession of ammunition: The accused is found guilty of
the possession of ammunition without a licensed
firearm.
On count 10 (C/S 5
(b) read with sections 1, 13 (f), 17 (e) to 25 and 64 of Act 140 of
1992 Dealing in drugs): The accused is
found not guilty and
discharged.
____________________
BM
PAKATI
JUDGE
NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY
APPEARING FOR THE
STATE: ADV J ROSENBERG
APPEARING FOR THE ACCUSED: ADV P NAGEL