The judge found that the regional magistrate properly applied the cautionary rule when evaluating identification evidence.
The Western Cape High Court dismissed an appeal by two men convicted of robbing a couple at gunpoint during load shedding in January 2023.
It ruled that the victims’ identification of their attackers was sufficiently reliable despite the darkness.
Acting Judge P. Njokweni, sitting with Judge N.E. Ralarala, delivered judgment on Monday, 8 December 2025, upholding the convictions of Tresline Florence and Justine Albertus handed down by the Wynberg Regional Court.
The appellants had sought to overturn their convictions on the grounds that the identification evidence was insufficient and improperly obtained through dock identification.
Couple robbed during load shedding
The robbery occurred on the night of 22 January 2023, between 9pm and 10pm, when the victims, Jacobs and Sackim, left their home to buy milk and bread during load shedding.
The court heard that the couple used Sackim’s mobile phone flashlight as their only source of light.
While walking, the couple noticed two men approaching and changed their route.
However, Albertus approached with a gun prepared to fire, while Florence brandished a knife and searched the complainants.
“The attackers referenced a rival gang, and one took Ms Sackim’s phone just as electricity returned and streetlights came on, causing the attackers to flee,” the judgment read.
The couple informed their neighbour Faizel, who suggested they look for the suspects.
The next day, they encountered Florence and questioned him without revealing they recognised him. He denied involvement but led them to Albertus.
When confronted, both men blamed each other and refused to disclose the phone’s location. Police arrested both men, and a knife fell from Florence’s pocket during the arrest.
ALSO READ: Inside the collapse of police gun control
Defence alibis rejected
Florence claimed he was with his girlfriend during the robbery and admitted carrying a knife. He was adamant and insisted that he had been falsely implicated.
Meanwhile, Albertus said he was at a pub in Wynberg before going to his mother’s house. He admitted to using “tik” and said this caused pimples described by the couple.
“He could not suggest any reason why the complainants would falsely accuse him and confirmed that the first complainant was not a gang member,” the judgment noted of Florence.
The court found the same reason as Florence in Albertus’ case.
Recognition versus identification
The appellants argued that dock identification carried little weight unless supported by independent preceding identification.
However, the court found this argument flawed. Njokweni distinguished between stranger identification and recognition evidence in relation to Albertus.
The court heard Jacobs had frequently seen Albertus before the incident, and both complainants had witnessed him handing a gun to a young schoolboy weeks earlier.
“Thus, as regards the second appellant, this case does not involve stranger identification but what the Supreme Court of Appeal in Abdullah v S 2022 ZASCA 33 (25 March 2022) described as recognition evidence, which is inherently more reliable when the witness knows the person well,” the judgment stated.
“Simply put, the complainants did not need to identify the second appellant because they knew him and he had distinct facial pimples.”
The court noted that Sackim’s phone flashlight provided sufficient illumination, and that, when electricity was restored, the complainants had adequate lighting to recognise Albertus.
“Accordingly, there can be no mistaken identity when it comes to the second appellant,” Njokweni concluded.
ALSO READ: NPA struggles with high-profile corruption cases
Sufficient opportunity for identification
Regarding Florence, the court found the complainants had sufficient time and lighting to observe him.
Sackim shone her flashlight on his face, noting distinct scarring, and streetlights provided additional illumination when power returned.
It was highlighted that the couple independently recognised Florence the next morning.
“However, in this case, the complainants did not identify the appellants for the first time in the dock,” the judgment stated.
“Their identification was based on prior observations, face-to-face identification under sufficient lighting, prior knowledge of the first appellant, and recognition of physical features such as scarring and clothing.”
No misdirection found
Njokweni found that the regional magistrate properly applied the cautionary rule when evaluating identification evidence.
“Thus, it seems to me that the criticism of the appellants ‘identification’ evidence advanced on appeal amounts to an invitation to this Court to reweigh credibility afresh. That is not the function of an appeal court in the absence of misdirection. This court can find none,” the judgment stated.
“The appellants’ own evidence, by contrast, boils down to a bare denial.”
The court clarified that rejecting the appellants’ alibis did not constitute an impermissible reversal of the onus of proof.
“She had already found the State’s evidence compelling. In that context, the regional magistrate’s testing of the appellant’s version against the inherent probabilities is legally permissible,” said Njokweni.
Appeal dismissed
“Considering the whole matrix of the evidence, this court is unable to fault the regional magistrate’s conclusion that the State discharged its onus,” the judgment stated.
“The direct evidence of the complainants paints a consistent picture of the appellants as the perpetrators of this robbery with aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Ralarala agreed with the judgment, and the appeal was formally dismissed.
READ NEXT: KZN man gets double life for taxi assistant’s murder, attempted murder of taxi boss
