Pieter Doorewaard and Another v The State

On 20 April 2017, the appellants (two farm workers) encountered a 15-year-old boy stealing sunflower heads from their employer's farm. According to the State's main witness, Mr Pakisi, the appellants assaulted, kidnapped, intimidated and threw the boy from a moving bakkie, causing his death. The appellants denied these allegations, stating they arrested the boy for theft and were transporting him to the police station when he jumped from the bakkie. They discovered him injured on the road, left him in the care of passersby, and went to the police station to arrange an ambulance. The boy subsequently died from his injuries. The prosecution case rested almost entirely on Mr Pakisi as a single witness, with no objective corroboration such as blood evidence in the bakkie, cartridge cases, or forensic evidence linking the appellants to the alleged crimes. The trial court convicted the appellants on five counts: murder, kidnapping, intimidation, theft, and pointing of a firearm.

• Whether the evidence of a single witness (Mr Pakisi) was sufficiently credible and reliable to sustain convictions beyond reasonable doubt
• Whether the trial court erred in refusing to discharge the appellants in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act at the close of the State's case
• Whether mutually destructive versions were properly evaluated
• Whether the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt given contradictions and lack of corroboration
• Whether a conviction of culpable homicide was competent based solely on the defence version

The appeal was upheld. The convictions and sentences were set aside. Both accused were found not guilty and discharged on all counts.

An accused may be convicted on the evidence of a single witness only if that witness is both credible and reliable. Where a single witness's evidence contains material contradictions, lacks objective corroboration, and includes demonstrable falsehoods, such evidence cannot sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The failure to call important witnesses whose evidence could corroborate or refute the single witness's version is a factor undermining the State's case. Where, at the close of the State's case, there is no reliable evidence upon which a reasonable court acting carefully might convict, the accused is entitled to discharge under section 174 of the CPA. An accused cannot be convicted of an offence (including a competent verdict) based on a case that was never properly put to them and which lacks a proper factual foundation in the evidence.

The court made significant observations about prosecutorial duties and standards. Prosecutors must act independently of media pressure and public sentiment, basing charging decisions on objective assessment of evidence rather than community demands for prosecution. The decision to prosecute must be shaped by impartial assessment of admissible evidence, the law, and public interest. There is no substitute for meticulous attention to police dockets before deciding to prosecute. A prosecutor should be a prosecutor, not a persecutor. The court also criticized the bungled police investigation, including failure to preserve evidence, improper handling of witness statements, and failure to conduct basic forensic examinations. The judgment notes with concern that prosecution may have been driven by violent community protests rather than evidence. Molemela JA's dissenting judgment discusses the duty of care assumed when conducting a citizen's arrest and the standard of care required when transporting an arrestee, particularly a minor, though these observations did not command majority support.

This case demonstrates the rigorous approach South African courts must take to single witness evidence in criminal cases, particularly where there are material contradictions and no objective corroboration. It affirms the importance of: (1) the presumption of innocence and the State's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) proper evaluation of mutually destructive versions; (3) the duty to discharge accused persons under section 174 of the CPA when there is no reliable evidence upon which a reasonable court might convict; (4) the importance of calling material witnesses who can corroborate or refute key testimony; (5) professional prosecutorial standards requiring objective assessment of evidence rather than yielding to public or media pressure; and (6) that an accused cannot be convicted on a case not properly pleaded or put to them. The case also illustrates concerns about investigative failures and the dangers of prosecution driven by community pressure rather than evidence.