REPUBUC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AF RlCA
GAU TENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER : A 10/2025
I (1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES . NO
(3) REV ISED
03 September 2025
DATE
fn the matter between:
PETERSON , CHESTER RASHID
and
THE STATE
JUDGMENT
YA.COOS J: (KUNY J CONCURRING )
Appe llant
Respondent
[1] The appellant, Mr Peterson, was charged with robbery with aggravating
circumstances. He pleaded not guilty and had legal representation. He was
convicted on 31 May 2021 1n the Regional Court, Brixton. and sentenced, on
21 June 2021, to 20 years' impnsonment . Mr Peterson appeals both
conviction and sentence with the leave of the lower court.
2
[21 The complainant, Mr Mafokane, was accosted in his motor vehicle at
gunpoint, on 27 February 2020. He was placed in the backseat of his vehicle,
and driven somewhere . He was then transferred to another vehicle,
apparently amidst a gunfight. He was dropped off in an unknown place, and
eventually was assisted by passers-by to contact his family. He was then
taken to·the place where the vehicle had been hijacked. His evidence was that
he did not see and could not identify his assailants.
[3J None of the other witnesses called by the State could positively Identify Mr
Peterson. The second witness, Mr Moolman, was a reaction officer employed
by a vehicle tracking company to recover stolen and hijacked vehicles. His
company received a •took out" for a vehicle, which the company 's GPS
tracking system showed was moving around Eldorado Park. He and his
colleague went to the area, apparently in separate vehicles, and were
Informed by the. control room that the vehicle had stopped "on ltumeleng
Street and Robin". They approached the spot, wh ich Mr Moolman r-eached
after his colleague. They saw two vehicles there, one of whicfi was the
hija9ked vehicle. As they exited their vehicles and approached the hijacked
vehfcle, Mr Moolman saw four people standing around the hijacked vehicle,
and another person getting out of the driver's side of that vehicle. Three of
them ran down the street, another one wlth a firearm ran fnto a yard, and Mr
Moolman chased that person. Mr MooJman also discharged his firearm while
in pursuit.
[4] It was approximately 19h00 and dusk, the sun had just gone. down but it was
not completely dark. There were streetlights. When Mr Moolman saw the
person w ith the firearm, he was abouHen metres away. When asked if he
could see that person, he stated that he could see what he was wearing. The
person jumped over walls and fled. Mr Moolman came out of the yard and
found members of the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department
found members of the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department
(" JMPD ") at the sceAe. He told them the directions in which suspects. had fled
and the JMPD then continued the search for the perpetrators.
3
[5J Mr Moolman [old the JMPD that he saw a tall man with a dark jacket and long
dark pants. He then continl,led searching ~r the person with the firearm and
the JMPD went to look for the person he had given the description of. This
person was the one who had come out ofthe driver's seat They then returned
with a person fitting the description, after about 5 minutes. This was Mr
Peterson.
[6] When asked if it was the same person who he had seen, Mr Moolman simply
said it matched the description. He was unable to confirm that it was the same
person. He stated that he had not seen the suspecfs face, only his clothing
and height. However, he did not testify that the clothes Mr Peterson wore were
the same as the clothes of the person he had seen, s1mply that it "matched
the description•. This is clearly far short of a positive identification, Mr
Moolman 's colleague had left the scene in his vehicle by then. in pursuit of
other suspects
[7] Mr Moolman testified that he overheard the person saying that he had run
from the vehicle and he had been asked to drive the vehicle. He pointed out
Mr Peterson in court as the person who had been arrested, of which there
was no dispute.
(8) The next witness was a Mr Rofhiwa, one of the JMPD officers who arrived-at
the scene. He arrived with his. colleague at the identified spot, and found the
tracker vehicles and employees on the scene. They also found members of
the public. The tracker employees and members of the public informed the
JMPD that people who jumped out of the car went to the next street. He and
his colleague drove to the next street, and started to lo.ok around. They saw a
person wearing black clothes "busy jumping walls". They chased after him and
caught him According to him the tracker employees confirmed thatthe person
the JMPD had apprehended had jumped out of the hijacked vehicle. Mr
Rofhiwa also testified that Mr Peterson told him he had been fetched by his
Rofhiwa also testified that Mr Peterson told him he had been fetched by his
friends who were driving the hijacked vehicle and he_ had simply got in. He
had been a passenger.
4
(9) Notably, this was not the evidence of Mr Moolman. Toa high point of Mr
Moolman 's identification evfdence was that the person apprehended
"matched the description" of the p_erson he had seen. This is a far cry from
confirming that it was the person he had seen.Also. accordinQ to Mr Moolman,
only he confirmed the identity, as hls colleague had left by then. In addition,
Mr Moolman had testified that the person described had got out otthe driver's
seat of the car, and he had heard Mr Peterson say that he had been asked to
dnve the vehicle, rather than that he had been a passenger.
[10] The State's fourth witness was another official of the JMPD, Mr Daniels.
According to him thelracker employees gave a descri~tion to the JMPD ota
person clad in dark clothing. He said that they saw the suspect in the next
street, but he jumped thew_alls and came back to the streetwhere the vehicle
was, where they apprehended him. Mr Daniels testified that Mr Peterson told
them that he had been picked up and asked to drive the hijacked vehicle. He
also testified that the tracker people had confirmed that It was the same
person they had seen.
(11] An unsuccessful application in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure
Act, 51 of 1997, was made on Mr Peterson's behalf. Mr Peterson then testified
that he had been walking in the street wrth his cousin, they heard gunshots
and started running. It was while he was running that he was apprehendeti.
[12] According to Mr Peterson he informed the police who arrested him that he
was running because he heard gunshots. They then dragfjed him and one of
them hit him with a rifle on his chin. He was then handcuffed and taken and
thrown on the ground in front of a vehicle. After about 25 minutes he was
placed in a police car. The policemen came with another person and asked
that person If he, Mr Peterson, was the pers9n, and that p~rson said no. Mr
Peterson identified that person as the first witness, Mr Moolman
Peterson identified that person as the first witness, Mr Moolman
(13] Mr Peterson testified that he had run when he heard the gunshots because
he lives in Eldorado Park where people get shot all the time, even from stray
bullets. He denied having said anything about having been in the hijacked
vehicle, either as driver or passenger. According to him his cou.sin could not
5
testify because he was deceased He had in any ev~nt not asked him for a
statement because-he did not want to involve his cousin who was only a
youngster. Mr Peterson testified that that evening he had been wearing dark
blue jeans and a dark grey hoodie with yellow writing on the front
[14] The court a quo found that the so-called admission that was made was
sufficient to make up for the deficiency in identification. In addition, the court
relied on the evidence that Mr Peterson's clothing was dark as described and
that he had been jumping from yard to yard. The court also iound that Mr
Peterson was a dishonest witness, although it is not clear on what basis the
court makes this fimling. The court does not make a distinction between
whether Mr Peterson was allegedly a driver or passenger in the hijacked
vehicle, finding that he admitted to .one or the other. and apparently using this
as a basis to find that Mr Peterson was extemporizing.
[15] Howeve r, the contradiction was not in what Mr Peterson said, but in whatthe
State witnesses said he had said. This means the State witnesses
contradicted one another, and that the State's evidence is therefore less than
watertight
[16] Considering the various contradictions in the State's evidence, that Mr
Peterson adm itted to having been a passenger in the hijacked vehicle versus
that he admitted to having been the. driver, tbat both tracker employees had
confirmed Mr Peterson's fdentity versus only one tracker employee having still
been there, and that Mr Moolman only confirmed that Mr Peterson fd the
descriptlon, not that he was ihe person Mr Moolman had seen exiting the
hijacked vehicle, there is little relfable evidence that M r Peterson was involved
in the robbery.
[17] In addition, one must take into account that there Is no forensic evidence at
all placing Mr Peterson in the vehicle,
[18] In those circumstances, it is not even necessary to consider Mr Peterson's
evidence. In my view, however; his version that he was running because he
evidence. In my view, however; his version that he was running because he
had heard gunshots is reasonably possibly tru~. especi.ally since Mr Moolman
had testified that he had fired hts weapon . Mr Peterson's failure to call his
cousin cannot be held against him , as ft amounts to placing a higher burden
on the accused than on the state
[19] In these circumstances it is clear that the State has not proved its case beyond
a reasonable doubt. and that the appeal must succeed.
[20) In all the crrcumstances, I make the following order
1 The appeal succeeds.
2 The conviction of Mr Peterson in the Regional Court, Brixton on 31
May 2021 is set aside
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IAGREE
JUDGES KUNY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG _ DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Tojs judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal
representatives by email, by uploading it to the electromc fi[e of this matter on
Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information
Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 03 September 2025.
7
APPEARANCES
ON BEHALF OF APPEUANT :
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT :
L Vorster
Luando Vorster Attorneys
AK Mathebula
Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions, Johannesburg