According to court documents, the robbery occurred on 27 February 2020 when complainant Mr Mafokane was held at gunpoint in his motor vehicle.
The Gauteng High Court recently set aside the conviction and 20-year sentence of Chester Rashid Peterson, who was found guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances in 2021.
The court ruled that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictory witness testimony and inadequate identification evidence.
Peterson was initially convicted on 31 May 2021 in the Regional Court, Brixton, and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment on 21 June 2021.
He successfully appealed both his conviction and sentence with the leave of the lower court.
The original crime
According to court documents, the robbery occurred on 27 February 2020 when the complainant, Mr Mafokane, was held at gunpoint in his motor vehicle.
“He was placed in the backseat of his vehicle and driven somewhere. He was then transferred to another vehicle, apparently amidst a gunfight,” the records state.
Mafokane was eventually dropped off in an unknown area, where he was helped by passers-by to reach his family.
Crucially, Mafokane testified that he did not see and could not identify his assailants.
Furthermore, none of the other state witnesses could positively identify Peterson either.
ALSO READ: Suspected robbers killed in high-speed shootout with cops on N14
The arrest
The case against Peterson hinged on events at approximately 7pm on the day of the hijacking.
Vehicle tracking company reaction officer Mr Moolman and his colleague responded to a GPS alert showing the hijacked vehicle had stopped “on Itumeleng Street and Robin” in Eldorado Park.
The court heard that when Moolman arrived at the scene, he saw two vehicles, including the hijacked one, with four people surrounding it and another person getting out of the driver’s side.
“Three of them ran down the street, another one with a firearm ran into a yard, and Mr Moolman chased that person. Mr Moolman also discharged his firearm while in pursuit.”
Despite the twilight conditions with streetlights providing visibility, Moolman was unable to make a positive identification.
When asked if he could see the suspect, Moolman stated that he “could see what he was wearing” from about ten metres away.
“The person jumped over walls and fled.”
ALSO READ: Court denies five men’s appeal in farm murder and robbery cases
Contradictory witness testimony
The state’s case began to unravel due to significant contradictions between witnesses.
Moolman told arriving Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) officers that he saw “a tall man with a dark jacket and long dark pants”.
After searching the area, the JMPD returned with Peterson after about five minutes. When questioned if this was the man he’d seen, Moolman could only say Peterson “matched the description”.
“This is clearly far short of a positive identification.
“He was unable to confirm that it was the same person,” the judgment noted.
Moolman had not seen the suspect’s face, only clothing and height, and did not testify that Peterson’s clothes were identical to those he observed.
JMPD officer Mr Rofhiwa testified that tracker employees confirmed Peterson was the person who had jumped out of the hijacked vehicle. However, this contradicted Moolman’s evidence, as his colleague had already left the scene by then.
The witnesses also provided conflicting accounts of Peterson’s alleged admissions. Moolman testified that he overheard Peterson saying “he had run from the vehicle, and he had been asked to drive the vehicle”.
In contrast, Rofhiwa claimed Peterson told him “he had been fetched by his friends who were driving the hijacked vehicle, and he had simply got in” as a passenger.
Another JMPD officer, Mr Daniels, supported the version that Peterson admitted to being asked to drive the hijacked vehicle. “He also testified that the tracker people had confirmed that it was the same person they had seen.”
ALSO READ: Serial rapist wanted for series of crimes arrested in Diepkloof
Peterson’s defence
An application in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1997, was made on Mr Peterson’s behalf; however, it was unsuccessful.
Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows a court to acquit an accused at the end of the prosecution’s case if there’s no evidence on which a reasonable person could convict.
Following the unsuccessful application, Peterson testified that he had been walking with his cousin when they heard gunshots and started running.
He said he was arrested while fleeing and informed police he was running because of the gunshots.
Peterson claimed police officers “dragged him and one of them hit him with a rifle on his chin” before handcuffing him and throwing him to the ground. After about 25 minutes, he was placed in a police car, where an identification parade of sorts took place.
“The policemen came with another person and asked that person if he, Mr Peterson, was the person, and that person said no,” according to Peterson’s testimony. He identified this person as Moolman.
Peterson explained his flight response by noting he lives in Eldorado Park “where people get shot all the time, even from stray bullets”.
He denied making any admissions about being in the hijacked vehicle and said his cousin could not testify because he was deceased.
Court’s analysis
The High Court found multiple fatal flaws in the state’s case. Judge Seena Yacoob noted that “the contradiction was not in what Mr Peterson said, but in what the state witnesses said he had said”.
“This means the state witnesses contradicted one another, and that the state’s evidence is therefore less than watertight,” the judgment stated.
The court highlighted several key contradictions: whether Peterson admitted to being a passenger or driver, whether both or only one tracker employee confirmed his identity, and whether Moolman only confirmed Peterson fit a description rather than positively identifying him.
” In addition, one must take into account that there is no forensic evidence at all placing Mr Peterson in the vehicle,” said Yacoob.
Regional court’s flawed reasoning
The original court had relied on Peterson’s alleged admission to compensate for weak identification evidence.
It also considered that Peterson wore dark clothing as described and had been jumping between yards.
However, the High Court found these factors insufficient given the contradictory witness testimony about what Peterson allegedly admitted.
Judgment outcome
Yacoob, with Judge Kuny concurring, concluded that the state had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
“In my view, however, his [Peterson’s] version that he was running because he had heard gunshots is reasonably possibly true, especially since Mr Moolman had testified that he had fired his weapon,” Yacoob stated.
Additionally, she set aside Peterson’s conviction and 20-year sentence, noting that it was not even necessary to consider Peterson’s evidence given the weakness of the state’s case.
The judgment was handed down electronically on 3 September 2025.
READ NEXT: Pretoria man gets life after online property listing leads to deadly home invasion
