The appellant, Norman Dlepu, was convicted in the Port Elizabeth Regional Court with two co-accused of robbery with aggravating circumstances and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The robbery involved the theft of Albert Moorcroft’s Isuzu bakkie and personal items on 1 March 1999. Shortly after the robbery, police stopped an Audi in which the appellant was a back-seat passenger. Moorcroft’s briefcase containing a firearm, ammunition, and stolen items was found in the Audi, and the stolen bakkie was later discovered at a nearby house. The appellant was not identified as one of the robbers, was not the driver or owner of the Audi, and was not seen carrying the briefcase. He maintained that he was innocently in the vehicle to later use it for his business, unaware of the robbery. The regional court convicted him on the basis that the Audi was a ‘pick-up’ or ‘back-up’ car and that all occupants acted in common purpose. His appeal to the High Court failed in respect of the robbery conviction, leading to a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and he was found not guilty and discharged.
This case reaffirms fundamental principles of South African criminal law relating to circumstantial evidence, the evaluation of an accused’s version, and the doctrine of common purpose. It underscores that an accused must be acquitted if their version is reasonably possibly true and cautions against conflating the versions of co-accused. The judgment also clarifies that mere association or presence in a vehicle linked to a crime is insufficient to establish criminal liability without proof of the elements of common purpose.