140915OPJudgment

CC113/2013-pc 3342 JUDGMENT
2014-09-12
he had asked for it. He had wanted to see it as he was planning to buy
a similar model. His version was that at the time he took it, he did not
realise that the firearm was loaded or that it had a magazine in it. He
wanted to make it safe, when a shot went off accidentally.
Counsel for the defence sought to explain his submission, what
might have caused the firearm to discharge. In my view, it really does
not matter what caused the firearm toe to discharge, as that will not
assist this court in determining whether the accused was negligent. No
one has submitted that there was an intention on the part of the
10
accused.
What is relevant is that the accused asked for a firearm in a
restaurant full of patrons and that while it was in his possession, it
discharged. He may not have intentionally pulled the trigger. However,
that in itself does not absolve him of the crime of negligently handling a
firearm in circumstances where it creates a risk to the safety of people
and property, and not to take reasonable precautions to avoid the
danger.
The version of Fresco was supported in material respects by that
of Lerena. Although Lerena did not know why the firearm was passed
20
from Fresco to the accused, he heard Fresco tell the accused there was
‘one-up’. After the firearm had discharged, he also heard the accused
ask Fresco to take the blame for the incident.
The accused’s version, on the other hand, was that he was
angry with Fresco for having handed him a loaded firearm.
reprimanded him for doing so, as people could have got hurt.
He
It is
iAfrica Transcriptions (Pty) Ltd / hvr