[2017] ZASCA 101 · case 1396/2016 · Not reportable
Appeal – application for leave to appeal against convictions dismissed by regional magistrate - petition refused by the court a quo- special leave to appeal against the dismissal of petition granted to Supreme Court of Appeal – whether leave to appeal ought to have been granted by court a quo - whether there are reasonable prospects of success. 2 ______________________________________________________________
The court's own headnote.
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: 1396/2016 In the matter between: KATERYNA KARPOVSKA APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Karpovska v The State (1396/2016) [2017] ZASCA 101(24 August 2017) Bench: Bosielo, Majiedt, Petse and Saldulker JJA and Lamont AJA Heard: 16 August 2017 Delivered: 24 August 2017 Summary: Appeal – application for leave to appeal against convictions dismissed by regional magistrate - petition refused by the court a quo- special leave to appeal against the dismissal of petition granted to Supreme Court of Appeal – whether leave to appeal ought to have been granted by court a quo - whether there are reasonable prospects of success. 2 ______________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________ On appeal from: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Saldanha and Baartman JJ): The appeal against the refusal of the petition in respect of counts 1 and 4 is dismissed. ______________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________ Saldulker JA (Bosielo, Majiedt, Petse JJA and Lamont AJA concurring):
[1]The appellant was indicted in the Bellville Specialised Commercial Court on four counts of fraud and one count of contravening the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 and one count of contravening the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002.
[2]She was convicted on three counts of fraud and acquitted on all the other charges. On count 1 she was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of five years on condition that she was not convicted of an offence involving fraud or theft committed during the period of suspension, and on the further condition that she repays the complainant the sum of R1, 755 million on or before 28 February 2014. On counts 3 and 4 she was sentenced to three years correctional supervision in terms of s 276 (1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
[3]An application for leave to appeal against the convictions was dismissed by the regional magistrate. The appellant petitioned the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (the high court) and leave to appeal was granted in respect 3 of count 3 only. An application for special leave to appeal against the refusal of the petition in respect of counts 1 and 4 was granted by this court.
[4]The crisp issue to be determined in this matter is not whether the appeal on the merits should succeed or not, but whether leave to appeal should have been granted by the court a quo. This requires us to determine whether the court a quo should have granted the petition or not.
[5]Leave to appeal has already been granted against the appellant’s conviction on count 3 by the high court. The question is thus whether the appellant has established that there are reasonable prospects of success in an envisaged appeal against the convictions on counts 1 and 4. The most recent decision concerning this issue is S v Radebe. 1
[6]We do not find it necessary to deal with the merits of this matter in any great detail, save to consider whether there are reasonable prospects of success or not. In respect of count 1: the trial court in a very carefully reasoned judgment set out all the relevant facts and rejected the evidence of the appellant and accepted the evidence of the complainant. The complainant’s evidence was correctly accepted as credible by the magistrate and was corroborated by voluminous documents which were produced in evidence. The entire weight of the evidence was considered fully by the magistrate who, in such consideration, reached the conclusion that the evidence of the complainant was to be accepted and that the evidence of the appellant fell to be rejected as false beyond reasonable doubt.
[7]The trial court made credibility findings with which this court will not readily interfere. The magistrate's assessment of the evidence accords with the probabilities to be attached to such evidence, which evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus there is no reasonable prospects of success on count 1. 1 S v Radebe [2016] ZASCA 172; 2017 (1) SACR 619 (SCA). 4
[8]On count 4: the facts were largely common cause. The trial court carefully considered all the evidence. It accepted the complainant’s version and rejected the defence raised by the appellant on the basis that no duress had been established. There is no reason to interfere with this finding. Thus there is no reasonable prospects of success in respect of count 4.
[9]In the result the following order is made: The appeal against the refusal of the petition in respect of counts 1 and 4 is dismissed. H K SALDULKER JUDGE OF APPEAL 5 Appearances: For the Appellant: A A Mia Instructed by: William Booth Attorneys, Cape Town Hanno Bekker Attorneys, Bloemfontein For the Respondent: F J Vogel Instructed by: The Director of Public Prosecutions, Cape Town The Director of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein
Read from the court's own list. Judgments are official texts; verify against the court's file before you rely on this page. Firms on AttorneyOS get judgments like this one against the matters they touch, in the Monday edition.