Judge: He shot at what was perceived as an intruder. Counsel for the state stated that if he never intended to shoot at anyone, then you cannot rely on self-defence.
Judge: In the present case the accused version is that he had no intention to shoot some one et alone the deceased.
Judge: Yet, he approached said danger with a firearm.
Judge: It was said that he could have hit the intruder over the head. This strange conduct was explained by Prof. Derman as a "fight or flight" response.
Judge: This court also understands that a person with a disability like the accused would feel vulnerable when faced with this type of danger.
Judge: Would it be reasonable if they armed themselves with a firearm when in danger. I do not think so. The accused clearly wanted to use the firearm.
Judge: The intention to shoot does not included the intention to kill. Depending on the circumstances of the case, then a accused could be innocent or murder.
Judge: If it is reasonable possibly that he or she may be innocent.
Judge: In the same case, the court warned against the danger of isolation of either being found guilty or innocent.
Judge: In any particular case, it would depend on the nature of what is brought to the court.
Judge: This must account for all the evidence, some might be found false, or unreliable but none of it may be ignored.
Judge: The accused as a witness. The accused was a very poor witness.
Judge: While giving his evidence in chief, it flowed and went smoothly. While being cross-examined he suffered.
Judge: The accused was under medication when he gave his evidence. This argument does not make sense to me.
Judge: It was only under cross-examination that he contradicted himself.
Judge: This court was not unaware that the accused would not be the best witness due to the nature.
Judge: When someone in the position of the accused giving evidence, would be a hollowing ordeal.
Judge: In my view there was several reasons for this. He failed to listen to the questions being put to him. Often a question that required a straight forward answer, it would end in an argument.
Judge: When a court determines a guilt or other wise, the conclusion that the cause of the witness. It does not always justify the exclusion.
Judge: In the present case the deceased was killed in a very pecular manner.
Judge: Why the deceased had not answered the accused when he shouted out to her. Why the deceased did not answer the accused while she was in the toilet.
Judge: It was the accused's version that he screamed at the top of his voice. Yet the deceased did not answer.
Judge: Another question is why the accused fired 4 shots before going back to the bedroom.
Judge: He was not truthful when asked about his intentions of that morning. He was not truthful when he told the court that he did not have intention to fire his firearm.
Judge: There is also a question of owness, there is not explanation as to what the accused did.
Judge: If there is any possibility of his explanation being true then he is entitled to be aquitted.
Judge: The owness was on the state to prove that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge: In count the accused is charged with pre-mediated murder. In respect of this charge the evidence is purely circumstantial.
Judge: The simply explanation from the accused was shooting the deceased was a mistake.
Judge: The timelines of the events tipped the scales of the accused version.
Judge: I am here talking about direct intention. The state has not proved that the accused committed pre-mediated murder.
Judge: There is just not enough facts.
Judge: This was so because all the crime of murder had been met. This brings the question whether we are dealing with the question of transferred malace.
Judge: We will take a 5 minute break.
Court is back in session.
Judge: If A intends to kill b but misses and kills C. If C's death was reasonable and expected than A would be held liable.
Judge: In these circumstances A would be guilty of the murder of C if he intended to kill C.
Judge: In other words A intends to kill an individual whether the name is B or C.
Judge: The error as to the identify of the individual is not in concern.
Judge: In terms of the ruling, A is guilty of the murder of C with out the intention to kill C spectifically. We have since moved away from that law.
Judge: Current S.A. law "Nowadays, if A assults B and B dies, A is not held liable for the death of B.
Judge: My view is that we are here dealing with error in Posona. The blow was meant for the person behind the door, the fact that the person turned out to be the deceased and not an intruder.
Judge: The accused had intention to shoot at the person in the toilet but never to kill the person.
Judge: A person who acts in self-defense or private defense. Would a reasonable man have acted in the same way.
Judge: Depending on the circumstances. At worst for him, he can then be convicted of cupible homicide.