SAFLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Botswana: Court of Appeal

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> Botswana: Court of Appeal >> 1981 >> [1981] BWCA 11

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Help]

Mazhine v The State (Crim.Appeal No. 19 of 1981) [1981] BWCA 11 (4 December 1981)

PDF of original document.PDF of original document

.RTF of original document

SINGLE JUDGE OF COURT OF APPEAL
Francistown Case No. 282 of 1981 Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1981
C/A Crim.Appeal No. 19 of 1981
In the natter betweeni
NATHAN MAZHINE   Applicant
and
THE STATE        Respondent
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
O'BRIEN QUINN. CJ
This application coses before me as a single judge of the Court of Appeal under Rule 36 of the Court of Appeal Rules, it having already been refused by the Trial Judge on 15th October, 1981.
The applicant wishes to be heard on the points which he raised in previous correspondence and, in particular, in his letter of 50th October, 1981*
Having read the papers and the correspondence I do not consider that the present* of the applicant to argue the ssatter In person is necessary.

His main grounds are, as before, and throughout the case, that the two aain prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 were not telling the truth and that they were part of a conspiracy or a clique in the Ministry of Education which was bent on discrediting hi*. However, at no stage, did the applicant produce any evidence that this Bay have been so. There was no burden on hia to do so; all he had to do was to raise a reasonable doubt in the Bind of the Senior Magistrate on the Batter > This he failed coapletely to do. The learned Appeal Judge, likewise, was not lapressed with the arguments advanced by Counsel for the applicant on appeal to the High Court on the same point.
In ay opinion, the conduct of the applicant when initially questioned by the two witnesses, even as explained by the applicant hlaself, was aost unlikely. If, as the applicant argued, he felt th t PW1 and PW2 were hostile to hia when they first questioned hia, it seeas incongruous that he did not open his press and take out the P700 iaaedlately and have declared his innocence of any allegations of dishonesty made by the Bursar. Instead of which, on his own version, he produced certain Telegraphic vouchers only and did not open his press and produce the P700 until the witnesses said they were going to call in the Police. The evidence of the two witnesses was unshaken, was credible,

logical and reasonable and was believed by the Senior Magistrate. In ay view there was no reason to doubt their evidence and I cannot see any reason why the full bench of the Court of Appeal could come to any other conclusion,
I,therefore, refuse the application for leave to appeal.
RULING aade at the High Court, Lobatae, this 4th day of December, 1981.
J. A. 0'BRIEN QUINN
         CHIEF JUSTICE

SAFLII: | Terms of Use | Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/bw/cases/BWCA/1981/11.html