Heinrich Gentle v The State

The appellant and a co-accused were charged in the Regional Court, Oudtshoorn, with raping the complainant on 31 January 1999. It was common cause that sexual intercourse occurred between the complainant and both accused in bushes near a dirt track. The complainant alleged that the intercourse was non-consensual and that she was assaulted, while the appellant maintained that it was consensual. The complainant had been drinking heavily throughout the day and was intoxicated at the time and still intoxicated several hours later when examined by a doctor. Both accused were convicted, the matter falling under the minimum sentencing regime, and they were committed to the High Court for sentence. The High Court imposed lengthy prison terms. Procedural confusion followed regarding leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, resulting ultimately in an application to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Condonation and leave to appeal were granted; the appeal against conviction was upheld; the appellant’s conviction and sentence were set aside and he was released from custody.

The case is significant for clarifying the SCA’s powers to grant leave to appeal under s 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act where procedural confusion arises, and for its authoritative restatement of evidentiary principles relating to corroboration, medical reports admitted by consent, and the assessment of complainant credibility in sexual offence cases.