IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter of:

versus

JUDGMENT

Mr Labuschagne also hightlighted the difference between the sketch in the identikit and the photograph which was placed before this Court, of the Appellant, which in his view supported the argument that some doubt had to arise as to whether in fact the single witness had correctly identified the pen. Furthermore, the record appears to support this aspect of Mr Labuschagnes submission, mainly the manner in which the investigating officer has sought to suggest that the Appellant was indeed the person who had perpetrated these two violent acts.

Whenever a single witness testifies in a case of this kind, of course the Court has to exercise the requisite degree of caution.
There is obviously some discrepancy between the identikit and the identity of the Appellant. Unfortunately the identification parades were not handled fn a manner in which any of that evidence can be regarded as having weight.

There is the further point as Mr Labuschagne noted this morning, that although the Appellant was placed on the scene of the crime which he did not himself deny, why he asked rhetorically would an Appellant who had just committed such two violent acts be watching the unfolding events rather than having escaped from his crime.