IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between: 

and

JUDGMENT

The appellant was subsequently apprehended due to his fingerprints which were taken in the complainants' house and in the motor vehicle in which the robbers attempted to flee the scene. The appellant raised the defence of necessity. He says that he was one of the persons who entered the house of the complainants and took their possessions and loaded same into the car. His version, however, is that he was threatened by one of the other perpetrators, a person by the name of Sawso, to partake in the robbery and that it was never his intention to harm the complainants or to rob them of their possessions. He says that if it were not for the conduct of Sawso, he would not have partaken in the robbery.

I am further of the view that the version of the appellant is not only improbable, but clearly false. In arriving at this conclusion, the following should be emphasised:
1. According to the State witnesses, all three perpetrators partook in the execution of the robbery and even took turns in watching over the family members.

2. Mr McNicol observed that all three robbers attempted to flee the scene in the stolen vehicle and that they fled on foot when the vehicle stalled.
3. Appellant did not only partake in the robbery, but even instructed one of his co-perpetrators to ask the occupants of the house to tell him how the immobiliser of the motor vehicle works. He was accordingly not a mere passive bystander.
4. When the authorities arrived on the scene, appellant did not come forward to identify himself as an innocent bystander, but rather hid away in the reeds until the next day. He also failed to report the incident after he got home the next day.
5. There appears to have been ample opportunity for appellant to make a getaway during the course of the robbery, which lasted nearly three hours. However, he at no stage attempted to distance himself from the robbery.

To all of this I should add that appellant's version as to how he came to be involved with the others, is totally unconvincing. It seems highly improbable, if he was requested to assist Sawso to collect a vehicle which he, Sawso, had bought from his employer, that they would have driven around from 7 p.m. until the early hours of the morning before reaching the house where the car ought to have been collected. Also on his version, appellant was not threatened by the other two to partake in the robbery and he testified that the reason why he did not leave the scene of the robbery was that he was unfamiliar with the area. This does not constitute a valid defence of necessity. I, therefore, conclude that there is no merit in the appeal against his conviction.

In the result I propose that the appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence be confirmed.

FOURIE, J