Fletcher v S

On 15 January 1998, the complainant Bianca (24 years old) went to a nightclub with friends in Rosebank, Johannesburg. When separated from her friends and experiencing a panic attack, she met Fletcher who offered her a lift home. Fletcher drove with Du Plessis and De Kock as passengers in the back. Fletcher took an unfamiliar route, causing Bianca to become scared. There was a tussle over her handbag which disappeared through the window, and Bianca attempted to jump out of the moving vehicle. Fletcher stopped the car beside open veld. Bianca ran out and the three men chased her. According to Bianca, Fletcher raped her with Du Plessis holding her arms while De Kock stood nearby. De Kock subsequently pretended to be helping her and they escaped together. Two security guards found them on Cedar Road, with Bianca naked from the waist down. They were taken to a police station where Bianca reported the rape. Fletcher was convicted of rape and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Du Plessis was convicted as an accomplice and sentenced to 6 years. De Kock was acquitted. Fletcher appealed to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

• How should a court approach the evidence of a single witness in a rape case?
• What constitutes corroboration in cases of sexual assault?
• Was the complainant's evidence credible and reliable despite the absence of direct corroborating evidence?
• What weight should be given to the complainant's emotional state and behaviour following the alleged rape?
• Was the accused's version reasonably possibly true?

The appeal was dismissed. Fletcher's conviction for rape and sentence of 12 years imprisonment was upheld.

In evaluating the evidence of a single witness in a rape case, the court must adopt a cautionary approach aimed at reducing the risk of wrongful convictions, but this does not require corroboration as previously understood. The court must weigh all elements pointing to guilt against those indicating innocence, considering inherent strengths, weaknesses and probabilities on both sides, and decide whether the balance weighs so heavily in favour of the State as to exclude reasonable doubt. Corroboration means evidence that supports the complainant's evidence and renders the accused's version less probable on disputed issues - not merely evidence confirming undisputed facts. Evidence of the complainant's emotional state, behaviour immediately after the incident, and subsequent trauma can provide support for the complainant's version. Where the accused's version is improbable and inconsistent with undisputed facts and objective evidence, it may be rejected even without direct witnesses to the alleged crime.

The court noted with disapproval that the quality of medical attention afforded to the complainant was completely unsatisfactory, though this did not affect the outcome of the case. The court also emphasized that the cautionary rule in sexual assault cases is based on an irrational and outdated perception that unjustly stereotypes complainants (overwhelmingly women) as particularly unreliable, quoting with apparent approval from S v Jackson that in the South African system the burden is simply on the State to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - no more and no less.

This case provides important guidance on the approach to single witness testimony in sexual offences cases in South African law. It clarifies that the cautionary rule is not based on any inherent unreliability of complainants in sexual assault cases, but rather on the general need to avoid wrongful convictions. The judgment demonstrates how circumstantial evidence, post-incident behaviour, emotional state, and the inherent probabilities of competing versions can provide sufficient support for a complainant's testimony even in the absence of direct corroborating evidence. It reinforces that 'corroboration' means evidence that renders the complainant's version more probable and the accused's version less probable on disputed issues, not merely evidence confirming undisputed facts. The case is significant for its modern, victim-sensitive approach that rejects outdated stereotypes about complainants in sexual assault cases while maintaining appropriate safeguards against wrongful conviction.