CITY OF HIPPO

v.
DESMOND PETERS
 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY OF CASE
 On January 5, 2010, a handbag containing jewellery

and 900 KUDU-BUCKS was taken from Louisa

Singano as she returns from market along Browns
Roads. The victim and other witnesses identified the
accused, DESMOND PETERS as the thief. Desmond
Peters was present at Brown’s Road at the time of the
theft. He was arrested immediately and confessed to
being a pick-pocket. He however denies taking the
purse.
 INTRODUCTION (contd.)
Our firm identified six witnesses;
• Police Officer Thomas Phiri – The Investigating Officer
• Louisa Singano – The victim
• Theela Singano – Sister to the victim
• Said Mohammed
• Desmond Peters – The accused
• Edwin Kwaza
The Stolen Purse
SKETCH PLAN

CASE ANALYSIS
The facts presented by the witnesses in their statements will
be used by both the prosecution and the defence in both
their cases.
 THE FIRM IS ON THE DEFENCE SIDE AND WIL
THEREFORE BE SEEKING TO DEFENCE DESMOND
PETERS – THE ACCUSED PERSON IN THIS MATTER.
 GOOD FACTS FOR THE PROSECUTION

 Said Mohammed knows the accused

 The age of the boys
 The description of Desmond’s clothing
 Desmond’s character
 Passing over the stolen property
 PROSECUTION’S BAD FACTS

 Uncertainty as to the identity of the accused

 Contradiction in description of clothing
 Louisa’s sight
 Accused was not out of breath
 Accused not in possession of property
 Bad blood
 Inconsistent dates
 DEFENCE’S GOOD FACTS

 Uncertainty in statements of witnesses

 The clothing
 Bad blood
 Louisa’s sight problems
 Accused was not out of breath
 Uncertainty as to the identity of the accused
 Accused not in possession of property
 DEFENCE’S GOOD FACTS
(contd.)

 Desmond’s alibi
 Inconsistent dates
 DEFENCE’S BAD FACTS

 Said’s prior knowledge of the accused

 Desmond’s character
 The age of the boys
 Desmond’s clothing
 Edwin’s relationship to the accused
 CONCLUSION

 The fact finder will make a decision based on the

facts inundated above. It will solely be based on the
strength of either the prosecution’s or the defence’s
case. This is because of the adversarial system
applied in this jurisdiction.