THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Not Reportable
CASE NO: 453/07
In the matter between:

PATRICK LANGEVELDT

APPELLANT
versus
THE STATE

RESPONDENT
____________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM:
MPATI AP, STREICHER, HEHER JJA and LEACH, KGOMO AJJA

Date of hearing:
20 MAY 2008
Date of delivery:
02 JUNE 2008
Summary:
Motor collision – factual dispute – no misdirection on the part of trial court

Neutral citation:
P Langeveldt v The State (453/2007) [2008] ZASCA 81
(2 June 2008)
____________________________________________________________________________________

KGOMO AJA

[1] The appellant was convicted in the Stellenbosch Regional Court on 22 July 2002
of culpable homicide arising from the alleged negligent or reckless driving of a motor
vehicle and was sentenced to four years imprisonment in terms of s 276(1)(i) of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977. On appeal to the Cape High Court (Louw J, Zondi
AJ concurring) his conviction was confirmed but the sentence was altered to one of
three years imprisonment in terms of s 276(1)(i) of the Act. This appeal, with leave of
the court a quo, is against the conviction only.

[2] It is common cause that a head-on collision occurred on 31 January 1998
between the motor vehicle driven by the appellant and that driven by Mr Douglas. The
appellant was the sole occupant of his car whereas Douglas had his wife, daughter  and
son, Marius, as passengers in his car. Marius, who was badly injured and hospitalized
for several months, and the appellant were the only survivors of the accident.

[3] It was further common cause that the collision took place on Douglas’s side of
the road and the appellant’s wrong side of the road. The appellant was driving from his
friend’s home out of Stellenbosch while the Douglas family was driving in the opposite
direction into Stellenbosch.

[4] The appellant’s defence is succinctly captured by his counsel in his heads of
argument:
‘Gegewe die feite in die onderhawige saak het Appellant getuig dat hy die oorledene se voertuig
waargeneem het op `n afstand van `n 100 meter, die voertuig het oor beweeg na sy baan, hy het remme
getrap wat veroorsaak het dat sy voertuig oor beweeg het na die regter baan terwyl die oorledene op sy
beurt weer teruggekeer het na die linker baan wat `n kop aan kop botsing veroorsaak het.’

[5] The state relied on the evidence of four witnesses. The first was a Mr Davids,
who testified that he was driving his employer’s vehicle at the Old Helshoogte Road and
Kahler Street junction. He had the right of way. The appellant entered the junction
without stopping. Davids applied his brakes and just managed to avoid a collision. The
appellant, slouched heavily towards the front passenger’s seat with his head leaning on
one shoulder, simply drove on as if nothing had happened. Davids was now heading in
the same direction as the appellant and witnessed him ignoring another stop sign. He
further noticed appellant’s vehicle traveling in a zigzag fashion on a straight road. The
appellant inexplicably from time to time accelerated or slowed down. Davids reckoned
that the appellant posed a danger to other road users and, by way of his municipal car
radio, notified the traffic police accordingly, before he turned off in another direction.

[6] Ms Lambrechts and Ms Nel, sisters, testified that they were driving in Bird Street,
Stellenbosch and heading towards Koelenhof. While waiting at a red traffic light they
noticed the appellant approaching from their right in Bell Street. He turned into Bird
Street and in doing so narrowly missed colliding with the kerb on his left and with
vehicles traveling in the opposite direction in Bird Street. The appellant tilted perceptibly
towards the passenger’s seat during his driving. The ladies drove behind him. They
observed him speed away and then reduce speed for no apparent reason. His vehicle
also swerved from side to side even though he managed to keep it in his correct lane.
Ms Nel, who was the passenger, noted the registration of the appellant’s vehicle
because she and Ms Lambrechts who was driving, realized that they were witnessing
an accident waiting to happen. According to the sisters the appellant sped away as they
were approaching a bend. They lost sight of him momentarily at that point and then
heard a bang. When they came around the bend they realized that a collision had
occurred and when another vehicle stopped at the scene they turned around in order to
report the matter to the police.

[7] The crucial witness for the State was the surviving member of the Douglas
family, Marius. He was accused by the defence of concocting a version. The magistrate
found him to be an honest and credible witness. There is no reason to differ from this
finding.

[8] Marius’s acceptable and accepted evidence boils down to the following. His
father was the driver of their car and he was the front passenger. He was 16 years old
at that stage. The family was on their way to have dinner with a relative. They were on
time and his father drove normally (‘binne perke … en rustig’), although he was unsure
of the exact speed. His father kept to his correct side of the road throughout. He
became aware of the appellant’s vehicle when it was practically upon them on their side
of the road. As Marius was not the driver there was no need for him to have been
vigilant and to have become aware of the impending danger before he actually did.
Counsel’s criticism of him in this regard is unfounded. What is certain is that if his
father’s vehicle had swerved in the violent fashion described by the appellant and at
high speed, he would have been aware of it.

[9] The magistrate also found Davids and the two sisters to be credible witnesses. It
is significant that they all described, in essentially similar terms, the erratic manner in
which appellant was driving at different locations. All these witnesses alluded to the
contorted posture that the appellant adopted while driving. This points to the fact that
the appellant, for whatever reason, was not fully in control of himself, let alone his
vehicle.

[10] On the other hand the appellant stated that he had three or four glasses of wine
over a period of some six hours, during which he also had a meal, at his friend’s place.
He over-elaborated on how carefully he drove from his friend’s home and even recalled
how considerate he was at the stop streets and the robots, what speeds he travelled at,

where he accelerated and why. He denied that he was drunk or that he drove in the
manner described by the witnesses. He described his extraordinary posture to a chronic
back problem. He acknowledged that at one stage he drove on the edge of the road but
explained that he did so to pick up his cell phone from the front passenger’s seat when
it was ringing.

[11] The appellant blamed Douglas for causing the accident and stated that all he did
was to take emergency evasive action in the manner and for the reason described in
para 4 above. His counsel submitted that support for his version is to be found in the
brake marks which were unbroken for a distance of 15 meters and started on the
appellant’s side of the road leading up to the point of impact on his incorrect side of the
road.

[12] The magistrate was not impressed with the appellant’s evidence and rejected it
as not being reasonably possibly true. Appellant’s concession concerning his awkward
posture in the vehicle, his driving on the edge of the road and his erratic driving lends
credence to the truthfulness of the evidence given by Davids and the two sisters.

[13] The magistrate carefully evaluated the evidence of all witnesses. He was of the
view that appellant’s erratic driving and awkward posture indicated intoxication. He gave
reasons for such finding and did not misdirect himself in any way. In fact, in his heads of
argument, appellant’s counsel conceded that the appellant was possibly drunk. He
stated:
‘Dit word nietemin toegegee dat die Appellant in die lig van die getuienis van Davids en
die twee susters moontlik onder die invloed van drank was. Gevolglik moet hy, met
respek aan daardie oortreding skuldig bevind word.’

[14] Appellant’s counsel argued furthermore that there was no reason for the
appellant to have braked, as he did, leaving the oblique tyre burn marks across the
road, if something untoward had not been noticeable in the driving of Douglas. There
may have been some merit in this submission had it not been for the fact that according
to his own evidence the appellant was driving at about 120 km per hour immediately
before the collision and had consistently shown lack of control over his vehicle; and had
it not been for the credible evidence of Marius to the effect that there was nothing
untoward in the driving of Douglas. In the light of that evidence we cannot find that the
magistrate was not correct in concluding that the negligence of the appellant had been
established.

[15] I make the following order:

The appeal is dismissed.

________________________

F D KGOMO

ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

CONCUR:
)
MPATI AP

)
STREICHER JA

)
HEHER JA

)
LEACH JA

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

Date:
2 June 2008

Status:
Immediate

P LANGEVELDT v THE STATE

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media
and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal

In a judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the
appellant’s appeal against his conviction of culpable homicide. The appellant,
a 49-year old man, was convicted in the Stellenbosch Regional Court on
22 July 2002 of culpable homicide arising from the negligent or reckless
driving of a motor vehicle. Three members of the Douglas family (husband,
wife and daughter), who were in the car driven by Mr Douglas died in the
accident.

The appellant contended that Mr Douglas (who was also killed) caused the
accident by having swerved into appellant’s path and back into his (the
deceased’s) correct side of the road where the collision took place. Appellant
maintained Mr Douglas caused a ‘sudden state of emergency’ which resulted
in the appellant making the wrong choice and thus causing the accident.

In dismissing the appeal the SCA pointed out that the conclusion of the
regional magistrate, with which the High Court agreed, was based largely on

factual and credibility findings emanating from the evidence of various State
witnesses and the discredited evidence of the appellant. The SCA found that
Mr Douglas kept to his correct lane throughout and that the appellant, who
had driven dangerously over some distance, drove directly into the path of Mr
Douglas, recklessly causing the head-on collision that claimed the lives of the
aforesaid Douglas family, from which only a fourth member survived.

(Appellant did not appeal against his three years imprisonment sentence).