used and the part of the body at which the stabs were directed, it may reasonably be inferred that the accused intended killing the deceased (dolus directus). The State v Rickerts (CC 08/2015) [2016] NAHCMD 30 (25 February 2016). Summary: Accused charged with murder for the unlawful killing of the deceased. Accused pleaded not guilty and the basis of his defence is that, prior to the incident which led to the death, he had consumed different types of liquor. His deceased’s memory was clear up to a point where after he has no recollection until later that day, some two hours after the incident. Accused being the only witness testifying in his defence presented no medical or expert evidence. After considering the evidence about the state of intoxication immediately before, during and after the incident, it accused’s was concluded that the defence was not reasonably possible and rejected as accused’s false. On the evidence it was established that the accused had acted with direct intent. The State v Rickerts (CC 08/2015) [2016] NAHCMD 47 (03 March 2016) Summary: The accused had consumed liquor prior to the stabbing incident as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. Though the court had rejected his defence of having been incapacitated due to intoxication, it was accepted that his mental faculties or judgement had been impaired and thereby influenced him in regard to the crime. The State proved two relevant previous convictions against the accused, one of murder and another of assault, in the latter the accused had stabbed the deceased in the neck with a knife. Though the accused not now to be punished for crimes committed in the past, his previous convictions cannot be ignored in sentencing even where a period of 15 years had passed since the murder conviction. These reflect on the bad character of the accused who, in view of his criminal record, is regarded a threat to society who deserves protection against him. Held, that, the seriousness of the crime and the interest of society outweigh the interests by far. accused’s Held, further, that the accused is a threat to society and as objectives of punishment prevention and retribution should be emphasised. Accused sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.
used and the part of the body at which the stabs were directed, it may reasonably be inferred that the accused intended killing the deceased (dolus directus). The State v Rickerts (CC 08/2015) [2016] NAHCMD 30 (25 February 2016). Summary: Accused charged with murder for the unlawful killing of the deceased. Accused pleaded not guilty and the basis of his defence is that, prior to the incident which led to the deceased’s death, he had consumed different types of liquor. His memory was clear up to a point where after he has no recollection until later that day, some two hours after the incident. Accused being the only witness testifying in his defence presented no medical or expert evidence. After considering the evidence about the accused’s state of intoxication immediately before, during and after the incident, it was concluded that the accused’s defence was not reasonably possible and rejected as false. On the evidence it was established that the accused had acted with direct intent. The State v Rickerts (CC 08/2015) [2016] NAHCMD 47 (03 March 2016) Summary: The accused had consumed liquor prior to the stabbing incident as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. Though the court had rejected his defence of having been incapacitated due to intoxication, it was accepted that his mental faculties or judgement had been impaired and thereby influenced him in regard to the crime. The State proved two relevant previous convictions against the accused, one of murder and another of assault, in the latter the accused had stabbed the deceased in the neck with a knife. Though the accused not now to be punished for crimes committed in the past, his previous convictions cannot be ignored in sentencing even where a period of 15 years had passed since the murder conviction. These reflect on the bad character of the accused who, in view of his criminal record, is regarded a threat to society who deserves protection against him. Held, that, the seriousness of the crime and the interest of society outweigh the accused’s interests by far. Held, further, that the accused is a threat to society and as objectives of punishment prevention and retribution should be emphasised. Accused sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.
2016%20Unreported%20High%20Court%20Criminal%20Judgment%20Index.docx