Kamfer v S

On 25 December 2018, four residential premises in an upmarket area in the Wilderness near Plettenberg Bay were broken into and iPhones and other electronic equipment were stolen. The commission of the crimes was not disputed at trial. The appellant, Donovan Kamfer, was linked to the housebreakings by two 'section 204 witnesses', Brandon Koopman and Salimino Kifaro. Koopman testified that the appellant recruited him to accompany him to the Wilderness, where they smoked drugs under a bridge and the appellant left twice, returning each time with a bag. The appellant then arranged for a person named Cliff to collect them. Kifaro testified that on the day in question he gave the appellant a lift and the appellant produced a bag containing four iPhones, a Lenovo iPad, Bose earphones and a Diesel watch, offering to sell them for R4000. Kifaro gave him R1000 with the understanding he would fetch the items the next day. The following day, Detective Kibido enquired about the appellant and Kifaro handed over the bag of items, which were confirmed stolen. Formal admissions were made regarding the items recovered from Kifaro's home. The appellant testified in his own defence and denied involvement.

• Whether the appellant was correctly identified as a participant in the four housebreakings based on the evidence of accomplice witnesses
• Whether the trial court properly applied the cautionary rule when evaluating the evidence of section 204 witnesses
• Whether the appeal court should interfere with the trial court's factual findings and credibility assessments
• Whether the effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was shockingly inappropriate or disproportionate

The appeal against both convictions and sentence was dismissed. The convictions and the effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment were confirmed.

An appeal court's power to interfere with a trial court's findings of fact is limited; in the absence of demonstrable and material misdirection, the trial court's findings are presumed correct and will only be disregarded if the record shows them to be clearly wrong. The essential inquiry on appeal against sentence is not whether the sentence was right or wrong but whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly and judicially; the sentence will only be interfered with if it is shockingly inappropriate or disproportionate.

None explicitly identified. The court noted in passing that it could appreciate why it might be suggested that the sentences imposed as a whole were 'somewhat harsh', but stated this is not the test for appellate interference.

The case reaffirms the well-established principles governing appellate review of factual findings and credibility assessments (the Dhlumayo principles) and the limited grounds for appellate interference with sentencing discretion. It illustrates the application of the cautionary rule to section 204 accomplice witnesses and confirms that corroboration of an accomplice's evidence by objective facts (such as recovered stolen items, time, date and place) can render such evidence reliable despite inherent dangers.