The Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu-Natal v Ramdass

The respondent, Donovan Mark Ramdass, was charged with murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances arising from the killing of Ms Ashika Singh. The trial court acquitted him on both counts on the basis that the State had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had criminal capacity at the time of the killing. The respondent claimed amnesia due to intoxication from alcohol and crack cocaine. His evidence that he could not recall the events and did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct was accepted by the trial court, and the State led no expert evidence to rebut it. Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to have questions of law reserved under s 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The trial court refused to reserve the questions. The State then followed an incorrect appellate procedure, seeking special leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act instead of petitioning under the Criminal Procedure Act. The matter ultimately came before the Supreme Court of Appeal to determine both the procedural propriety and whether the refusal to reserve questions of law should be overturned.

The appeal was dismissed. The prior order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was varied to reflect that the application for leave to appeal was refused on the grounds that there were no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The refusal to reserve questions of law by the trial court was effectively confirmed.

The case clarifies the narrow scope of appeals by the State under s 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act and reinforces the distinction between questions of law and factual findings in criminal trials. It confirms that findings on criminal capacity are factual in nature and generally not appealable by the State after an acquittal. Procedurally, it is significant for recognising, following S v Liesching, that s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act can in exceptional circumstances apply to criminal matters, thereby allowing reconsideration of refused petitions despite the CPA’s detailed appeal framework.