Lefaso v R (C of A (CRI) 7 of 1989) [1990] LSCA 25 (26 January 1990)

C of A. (CRI) 7 of 1909 IN T HE L E S O T HO C O U RT OF A P P E AL In the matter between: NARO LEFASO Appellant v R EX Respondent Held At Maseru Coram: Schutz P. Plewman J. A. Ackermann J. A. Schutz P. J U D G M E NT The a p p e l l a nt w as c o n v i c t ed of m u r d e r i ng M a m p o oa P ae P a e, w i t h o ut e x t e n u a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es b e i ng f o u n d, and w as s e n t e n c ed to d e a t h. He a p p e a ls to t h is C o u rt a g a i n st t he w h o le of t he j u d g m e n t. The m u r d er t o ok place, on t he n i g ht of 28 June 1 9 88 at or n e ar B e n t e le in t he d i s t r i ct of B u t h a - B u t h e. T he Crown r e l i ed p r i n c i p a l ly upon t wo w i t n e s s es (PW1 'Mota Pae P a e, and P W2 M a n t s o a ki Pae P a e) to i d e n t i fy / t he a p p e l l a nt .... - 2 - t he a p p e l l a nt as t he m u r d e r er ( i d e n t i f i c a t i on b e i ng in i s s u e) and to d e s c r i be the c i r c u m s t a n c es of t he m u r d e r. PW1 w as t he son of t he d e c e a s e d, and P W2 is his w i f e. On t he n i g ht in q u e s t i on PW1 w as a l r e a dy in bed w h en he heard the d e c e a s ed s c r e a m i ng "Oh my son C a s w e ll t he h o u se is on f i r e ". He w o ke up his w i fe and w e nt out of his h o u s e, to find t he d e c e a s ed o u t s i de h er reed h o u s e, w h i ch w as on f i r e- The a p p e l l a n t, he s a i d, was h i t t i ng t he d e c e a s ed w i th a k n o b K e r r i e. It w as a m o o n l it n i g h t. He r a i s ed an a l a r m. He said t h at w h en t he a p p e l l a nt w as h i t t i ng t he d e c e a s ed she w as a l r e a dy on t he g o u n d, and t h at she w as b l e e d i ng from t he n o se and t he m o u t h. Like his w i fe he said t h at t he a p p e l l a nt w as w e a r i ng a "donkey b l a n k e t ". Upon a r r i v i ng at t he s c e ne PW1 said to t he a s s a i l a nt t h at "I am n ow s t a b b i ng you s i n ce y ou are k i l l i ng my m o t h er and h a ve set f i re to h er h o u s e ". For t he p u r p o se of s t a b b i ng he had taker, w h at he c a l l ed a " r e e d ". He w e nt on to say t h at t he a s s a i l a n t, "ran away w h en I c a me n e ar but he came back and I said I w o u ld stab h i m. It w as t h en t h at I i d e n t i f i ed him to be N a ro (the a p p e l l a n t ) ". He e x p l a i n ed t h at w h en he ran a w ay t he f i r st t i me he i m m e d i a t e ly t u r n ed b a c k, and t h at it w as t h en t h at he ( P W 1) t o ok t he reed and said he w o u ld s t ab h i m. W h en he ran away t he s e c o nd t i me t he a p p e l l a nt d i s a p p e a r e d. He s t a t ed t h at his h o u se and d e c e a s e d 's faced o ne a n o t h e r. /He said ... - - He s a id t h at he k n ew t he a p p e l l a nt "very w e l l ". T he a p p e l l a nt c o n c e d ed t h at PW1 had no q u a r r el w i th h i m, and c o u ld g i ve no r e a s on w hy he s h o u ld c o n s c i o u s ly i m p l i c a te h im f a l s e l y. He s a id t h at b o th PW1 and P W2 w e re n ot t e l l i ng t he t r u th w h en t h ey said t h ey h ad s e en h im on t he n i g ht in q u e s t i o n. He did n ot v o l u n t e er a ny r e a s on w hy P W2 s h o u ld h a ve i m p l i c a t ed h im f a l s e l y. I n d e ed t he f i r st t wo C r o wn w i t n e s s es and t he a p p e l l a nt w e re p a rt of t he s a me c o m m u n i t y. P . W .2 l a r g e ly c o r r o b o r a t ed t he e v i d e n ce of h er h u s b a n d. S he said t h at it w as t he a p p e l l a nt w ho w as h i t t i ng t he d e c e a s ed o v er t he h e ad w i th a k n o b k e r r i e. S he s aw t h r ee b l o ws s t r u c k. T he d e c e a s ed w as j u st n e xt to t he d o o r. A s k ed a b o ut t he s t a te of t he l i g ht s he s a i d, " t h e re w as a f l a me l i g ht as well as t he m o o n l i g h t ": and a s k ed in w h i ch d i r e c t i on t he h o u se w as b u r n i n g, s he s a id t he f r o n t. O ne M a m o l i e hi P ae P a e ,, w ho had b e en j o i n ed as a c c u s ed N o .2 w i th t he a p p e l l a nt in t he m a g i s t r a t e 's c o u r t, had b e en t he l o v er of t he a p p e l l a n t, s he s a i d. S he w as a s k ed if s he k n ew a m an c a l l ed P h a m o la and s he s a id n o. T he p u r p o se of t h is q u e s t i on w as n ot e x p l a i n ed and it w as n ot d e v e l o p e d. T he l e a r n ed J u d ge a q uo b e l i e v ed t he C r o wn w i t n e s s e s, i n c l u d i ng t he f i r st t w o. T he a p p e l l a n t 's e v i d e n ce w as r e j e c t ed as f a l se b e y o nd d o u b t. / T he a p p e l l a n t .. - 4 - The a p p e l l a nt d e p o s ed t h at on t he n i g ht of t he m u r d er he had b e en in t he O r a n ge F r ee S t a te to f e t ch his m o n ey f r om o ne P h a m o l a. He had g o ne l a te (he did n ot say h ow l a t e) b e c a u se he w as r u n n i ng a w ay f r om t he p o l i ce on t he o t h er s i de of t he r i v e r. A l t h o u gh he had a p a s s p o r t, he did not u se it but c r o s s ed t he r i v er " b e c a u se t h at f a rm ( w h e re P h a m o la w as s u p p o s ed to b e) is very n e a r ". He f a i l ed to g et h is m o n e y. W h en he r e t u r n ed h o me he h e a rd of t he d e a th of t he d e c e a s e d. He said he c a me b a ck "early in t he m o r n i n g ". The t r a n s c r i pt of t he e v i d e n ce of ' M a l i k e l e ko P h e e l l o, w h i ch had b e en g i v en at t he p r e p a r a t o ry e x a m i n a t i o n, and w h i ch had b e en put in by c o n s e nt as b e i ng c o r r e c t, w as put to h i m. S he had said t h at on t he n i g ht of 28 J u ne s o me p e o p le had c o me s e a r c h i ng f or h i m, but he c a me h o me "very e a r ly in t he m o r n i n g ". The a p p e l l a nt d e n i ed t h i s, s a y i ng t h at he a r r i v ed a f t er s u n r i s e. P W8 w e nt on to s a y, "He (the a p p e l l a n t) w e nt a w ay d u r i ng t he d a y. P o l i ce c a m e. A c c u s ed d i s a p p e a r ed u n t il I s ee him t o d ay (at t he p r e p a r a t o r y ). The k n o b k e r r ie b e f o re c o u rt b e l o n gs to a c c u s ed 1 ( t he a p p e l l a nt a c k n o w l e d g ed t h at it w as h i s ). I h a n d ed t he k n o b k e r r ie to P o l i ce ....". The a p p e l l a nt said t h at on t he d ay of h is r e t u rn h o me he w e nt b a ck to t he F r ee S t a te w h e re he s t a y ed t he n i g h t. H is k n o b k e r r ie he left at h o m e. W h en he a g a in r e t u r n ed he f o u nd it g o n e. He r e t u r n ed at n i g ht as he w as runing a w ay f r om t he S o u th A f r i c an P o l i c e. He t h en m et h is s i s t er ' M a t h a b a ng K h o a na ( P W 6 ). He t o ld h er t h at it w as said t h at he w as s u s p e c t ed to h a ve k i l l ed ' M a m p o oa /and t h at ... - - and t h at he w as g o i ng to B u t ha B u t he p o l i ce s t a t i o n. On t he w ay t h e r e, he s a i d, he m et a p o l i c e m an in a v e h i c le The p o l i c e m an a s k ed w h e re he w as g o i ng and he a n s w e r e d, to t he p o l i ce s t a t i o n. The p o l i c e m a n, he s a i d, did not a r r e st h i m. This is to be c o n t r a s t ed w i th t he a d m i t t ed e v i d e n ce of P W 1 0, T r o o p er K h o b o l i so w ho s t a t ed t h at on 1 July 1 9 88 (which s e e ms to be t he d ay on w h i ch t he a p p e l l a nt s a ys he r e t u r n ed f r om t he F r ee S t a te t he s e c o nd t i m e) he w as in a p u b l ic v e h i c le w h en t he a p p e l l a nt b o a r d e d. He a r r e s t ed t he a p p e l l a nt w h en t h ey r e a c h ed t o w n, t he a p p e l l a nt s a y i ng t h at he w as g o i ng to s u r r e n d er h i m s e l f. I now t u rn to t he q u e s t i on of w h e t h er t he i d e n t i ty of t he a p p e l l a nt h as b e en e s t a b l i s h ed b e y o nd r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. W h en t h is q u e s t i on is w e i g h ed it is n e c e s s a ry to c o n s i d er not o n ly w h e t h er PW1 and P W2 w e re h o n e st (as t he l e a r n ed J u d ge f o u nd t h ey w e r e ), but a l so w h e t h er t h e re w as a ny r e a s o n a b le p o s s i b i l i ty of t h e ir b e i ng m i s t a k e n. T h e re is t he d i r e ct e v i d e n ce of t wo w i t n e s s es i d e n t i f y i ng t he a p p e l l a n t. He w as no s t r a n g er to t h e m. A c c o r d i n g ly t h o se g r e at d a n g e rs of w r o ng i d e n t i f i c a t i on t h at e x i st w h e re a w i t n e ss w ho h as had a l i m i t ed o p p o r t u n i ty of i d e n t i f y i ng a s t r a n g e r, a re l a r g e ly a b s e nt h e r e. The f a ct t h at t he w i t n e s s es did n ot o f f er d e s c r i p t i o ns of t he a p p e l l a nt is a l so by t he w ay in a / c a se like ... - 6 - c a se like t h i s. R e c o g n i t i on of a p e r s on whom one knows is often not easily defined. All sorts of almost s u b- c o n s c i o u s ly r e m e m b e r ed f e a t u r e s, g e s t u r e s, m o v e m e n t s, s h a p e s, d i m e n s i o ns and so on go to m a ke up r e c o g n i t i o n. The q u e s t i on then is w h e t h er the t wo w i t n e s s es had so s u f f i c i e nt an o p p o r t u n i ty of o b s e r v i ng t he a p p e l l a nt as to e x c l u de the p o s s i b i l i ty of e r r o r. In my o p i n i on t h e ir i d e n t i f i c a t i on can be relied u p o n. A l t h o u gh it was n i g h t, not only was t h e re m o o n l i g h t, but the reed hut next to w h i ch the d e c e a s ed and t he a p p e l l a nt w e re was a b l a z e. M o r e o v e r, the w i t n e s s es could not have been far from the a p p e l l a n t. The huts of the d e c e a s ed and PW1 f a ce each o t h e r, and w e re so c l o se to each o t h er that he could hear her words when she cried o u t. T h e n, PW1 c a me c l o se e n o u gh to t he a p p e l l a nt for the f o r m er to a d d r e ss him and t h r e a t en to e n g a ge him in b a t t l e. A n o t h er small detail of PW1's e v i d e n ce impresses m e. He did not claim that he r e c o g n i z ed the a p p e l l a nt when he first w e nt up to h i m, but only on t he latter's r e t u r n. This is n o t, in my o p i n i o n, t he e v i d e n ce of a c a r e l e ss w i t n e s s. M r. M o o r o s i, who a p p e a r ed for the a p p e l l a n t, c o n t e n d ed t h at t he fact t h at t he e v i d e n ce did not r e f l e ct that PW1 had called out the name of the a p p e l l a nt when he g a ve t he a l a rm indicated t h at he had not r e c o g n i z ed the a p p e l l a n t. The a n s w er to this c o n t e n t i on is that t h e re w as a m p le e v i d e n ce t h at t he a p p e l l a nt was being sought d u r i ng t he night in q u e s t i o n. He h i m s e lf acknowledged /that when ... - 7 - t h at when he s p o ke to his s i t er he knew t h at t he p o l i ce w e re looking for h i m. As t he e v i d e n ce w as t h at it was only PW1 and P W2 who saw him at t he s c e ne of t he m u r d e r, it m u st h a ve been they w ho had named h i m. A f u r t h er f a c t or w e i g h i ng a g a i n st t he a p p e l l a nt is his second t r ip to t he Free S t a te a f t er he knew that t he p o l i ce w e re looking for him in c o n n e c t i on with t he m u r d er of t he d e c e a s e d. This was h a r d ly t he b e h a v i o ur of an i n n o c e nt m a n. I t u rn next to t he alibi raised by t he a p p e l l a n t. The f i r st p r o b l em with t he alibi is t h at even if the a p p e l l a nt w e nt to t he Free S t a te on t he night of the m u r d er t h e re is no k n o w i ng at w h at t i me he w e n t, so t h at it could have been a f t er t he m u r d e r. S e c o n d, even if he did go b e f o re t he m u r d e r, t he p l a ce to w h i ch he w e nt was so c l o se t h at he could h a ve c o me back again d u r i ng t he n i g ht and a g a in r e t u r n ed to t he Free S t a t e. But t h e re is a m o re f u n d a m e n t al p r o b l em with t he a l i b i, and t h at is t h at it was n e v er put to t he Crown w i t n e s s e s, and first e m e r g ed d u r i ng t he e v i d e n ce of t he a p p e l l a n t. I h a ve a l r e a dy a l l u d ed to t he q u e s t i on about one P h a m o la w h i ch w as put to P W 2. As I h a ve r e m a r k ed it was not d e v e l o p e d. Indeed it was not put to t he two e ye w i t n e s s es e v en that t he a p p e l l a nt had not been at t he s c e ne of t he c r i m e. The need for t he d e f e n ce to put t he s a l i e nt p a r ts of t he d e f e n ce c a se to /the r e l e v a nt ... - - t he r e l e v a nt C r o wn w i t n e s s es h as b e en s t r e s s ed by t h is C o u rt o v er a nd o v er a g a i n. O ne r e a s on f or p u t t i ng t he d e f e n ce v e r s i on is to g i ve t he C r o wn w i t n e s s es a c h a n ce to c o u n t er i t. A n o t h er is t h at C r o wn C o u n s el is e n t i t l ed to a s s u me t h at a f a ct is n ot in i s s ue if it h as b e en d e p o s ed to a nd is n ot c h a l l e n g ed in c r o s s- e x a m i n a t i o n. T h e re is no c a ll on p r o s e c u t i ng C o u n s el to c a ll f u r t h er w i t n e s s es to p r o ve a f a ct w h i ch is n ot in i s s u e. F r om an a c c u s ed p e r s o n 's p o i nt of v i ew f a i l u re to r e v e al h is v e r s i on b e f o re he g i v es e v i d e n ce l e a ds to t he n a t u r al i n f e r e n ce t h at he h as c o n c o c t ed a v e r s i on at t he l a st m i n u t e, e v en t h o u gh s u ch an i n f e r e n ce s h o u ld n ot a l w a ys be d r a w n. In t h is c a se t he a p p e l l a nt a c t u a l ly a d m i t t ed t h at h is c o u n s el d id n ot k n ow w h at s t o ry he w as g o i ng to t e ll in t he b o x. T h at is s o m e w h at c a l l ed i n to q u e s t i on by t he d e f e n ce c o u n s e l 's a s k i ng a b o ut P h a m o l a. It is d i f f i c u lt to s ee w hy he a s k ed t he q u e s t i on if h is c l i e nt h ad n ot t o ld h im s o m e t h i ng a b o ut t he t r ip to t he F r ee S t a te or a b o ut P h a m o l a. E i t h er w ay t he a p p e l l a nt is in t r o u b l e. E i t h er he c o n c o c t ed t he a l i bi or he w as s h o wn to be a l i ar f or a n o t h er r e a s o n. M o re g e n e r a l ly h is s t o ry of h is n o c t u r n al f l i t t i n gs a c r o ss t he b o r d er d o es n ot h a ve t he r i ng of t r u t h. M o r e- o v e r, h is c o u n s el g a ve up a t t e m p ts to f i nd t he w i t n e ss w ho w as s u p p o s ed to s u p p o rt h is a l i b i, s u g g e s t i ng he w as in c u s t o dy in S o u th A f r i c a, O ne w o u ld h a ve t h o u g ht t h at on a m a t t er of s u ch very g r e at i m p o r t a n ce a m o re d e t e r m i n ed e f f o rt w o u ld h a ve b e en m a de if a w i t n e ss or w i t n e s s es a c t u a l ly e x i s t e d, I w o u ld a dd t h at t he / a p p e l l a n t 's ... - 9 - a p p e l l a n t 's c r e d i b i l i ty f a r es no b e t t er on t he e x t e n u a t i on i s s u e, with which I h a ve y et to d e a l. B e a r i ng in m i nd t h at no m o t i ve for t he c r i me has been p r o v e d, w h i ch is a l w a ys a c a u se for c o n c e r n, and t h at the a p p e l l a nt b e a rs no o n us to p r o ve his a l i b i, I am of t he o p i n i o n, t a k i ng into a c c o u nt w h at I h a ve said a b o ve t h at t he i d e n t i ty of the a p p e l l a nt as t he m u r d e r er has been p r o v ed beyond all r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. A c c o r i n g ly I find t h at the a p p e l l a nt w as c o r r e c t ly c o n v i c t ed of m u r d e r. I t u rn to t he q u e s t i on of e x t e n u a t i o n. E x t e n u a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es are such as r e d u ce t he m o r a l, if not t he legal g u i lt of t he a c c u s e d. The o n us of p r o v i ng them. on a b a l a n ce of p r o b a b i l i t y, r e s ts on t he a c c u s e d. M r. M o o r o si u r g ed on us t h at a d i r e ct i n t e n t i on to kill had not been p r o v e d, o n ly d o l us e v e n t u a l is based on r e c k l e s s n e s s. I do not a c c e pt a c c e pt t h at s u b m i s s i o n- The a p p e l l a nt w as d e l i v e r i ng a m u r d e r o us a s s a u lt upon t he d e c e a s ed w h en she w as a l r e a dy on t he g r o u n d, and t h is a s s a u lt w as i n t e r r u p t ed by t he a r r i v al of PW1 and P W 2. The m e d i c al e v i d e n ce s h o w ed t h at t he d e c e a s e d 's s k u ll had been s t o ve i n, w i th an e x t e n s i ve f r a c t u re on t he left of t he h e a d, t he skull b o n es h a v i ng been d e e p ly d e p r e s s ed d o wn on t he b r a i n. / T he a p p e l l a nt ... - - T he a p p e l l a nt led no e v i d e n ce on e x t e n u a t i o n. The j u d g m e nt on e x t e n u a t i on r e f l e c ts t h at t he a p p e l l a n t 's c o u n s el a r g u ed as f o l l o w s: "A w o m an ' M a m o l i e hi w h o se n a me a p p e a r ed t i me and a g a in in t h is c a se is s a id to h a ve b e en in l o ve w i th t he a c c u s e d. S he is a l so s a id to be t he d e c e a s e d 's c l o se r e l a t i v e. The c o u rt w as a s k ed to t a ke i n to a c c o u nt t h at in t he a b s e n ce of t h is w o m a n 's h u s b a nd t he d e c e a s ed had a h i gh d e g r ee of c a re o v er h e r. A c c u s ed t h r o u gh h is c o u n s el m a i n t a i ns t h at ' M a m o l i e hi h as c a u s ed t he b r e a k d o wn of a c c u s e d 's o wn m a r r i a ge in t he s e n se t h at he and s he l i v ed v i r t u a l ly as m an a nd w i f e. ' M a m o l i e hi p l a y ed on a c c u s e d 's f e e l i n gs to t he e x t e nt t h at s he u r g ed h im to g et rid of t he d e c e a s ed w ho s e e m ed to be i n t e r f e r i ng in t h e ir i l l i c it l o ve a f f a i r. It w as p r o j e c t ed as a c c u s e d 's w e a k n e ss or h u m an f a i l ty t h at he f a i l ed to a p p r e c i a te t h at d e c e a s ed w as e n t i t l ed to l i ve a l s o; and t h us f e ll to t he t e m p t a t i on of p u t t i ng h er a w ay at t he i n s t i g a t i on of h is l o v er ' M a m o l i e h i ." T he f i r st d i f f i c u l ty w i th t h is a r g u m e nt is t h at in h is e v i d e n ce t he a p p e l l a nt s a id t h at he had l o v ed ' M a m o l i e hi long a g o, b ut t h at w h en t he d e c e a s ed d i ed t h ey w e re n ot in l o v e. T he s e c o nd d i f f i c u l ty is t h at t h e re w as no e v i d e n ce to s u p p o rt t he a r t u m e n t. It had b e en o p en to t he a p p e l l a nt at t he e x t e n u a t i on s t a ge to g i ve e v i d e n ce a g a i n, c o n t r a d i ct h is f o r m er e v i d e n ce of i n n o c e n c e, and t ry to p e r s u a de t he C o u rt t h at e x t e n u a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es e x i s t e d. T h is w o u ld h a ve i n v o l v ed a d m i t t i ng g u i l t. B ut t h is t he a p p e l l a nt d id / n ot d o. ... - 11 - n ot d o. He t r i ed to ride t wo h o r s e s, p r o t e s t i ng his i n n o c e n ce (as his a r g u m e nt in t h is appeal s h o w s ). w h i l st c o n t e n d i ng in t he a l t e r n a t i ve t h at if he w as g u i l ty his g u i lt w as e x t e n u a t ed by f a c ts t h at s u p p l i ed t he m o t i ve for t he m u r d er t h at he in f a ct c o m m i t t e d. This is g e n e r a l ly a f i f f i c u lt p o s t u r e, and in t h is c a s e, I t h i n k, an i m p o s s i b le o n e. He c a n n ot h a ve it both w a y s. If he had g i v en e v i d e n ce a n e w, a d m i t t ed g u i lt and s o u g ht to p r o ve e x t e n u a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c e s, he w o u ld have been s u b j e ct to c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n, in w h i ch his s u b j e c t i ve s t a te of m i n d, a m a t t er of g r e at i m p o r t a n c e, c o u ld h a ve b e en t e s t e d. This leads to t he t h i rd m a j or d i f f i c u l t y. Even if t he v e r s i on a r g u ed w e re to be a c c e p t e d, it is far t oo g e n e r a l, in my v i e w, to e s t a b l i sh e x t e n u a t i o n. The m e re f a ct t h at a p e r s on s t a n ds b e t w e en a n o t h er and a d e s i r ed o b j e ct d o es not m e an t h at t he m u r d er of t he f o r m er by t he l a t t er is e x t e n u a t e d. If it w e re o t h e r- w i se a w i fe w ho m u r d e rs her h u s b a nd in o r d er to e n c a sh t he i n s u r a n ce p o l i c i es he h as t a k en o ut on h is life in her f a v o ur c o u ld be said to h a ve her m o r al g u i lt lessened b e c a u se of t he fact of t he h u s b a n d 's " o b s t r u c t i o n ". For t he a r g u m e nt raised to s u c c e ed it w o u ld be n e c e s s a ry to p r o be t he s t a te of m i nd and f e e l i n gs of t he a p p e l l a nt and t h is p r e s u p p o s es e v i d e n c e. D u r i ng t he c o u r se of t he a p p e al t h e re w as c o n- s i d e r a b le d e b a te a b o ut t he s t a t u s, if a n y, of t he a r g u m e nt r e f e r r ed to a b o v e, and in p a r t i c u l ar as to w h e t h er t he / C r o w n . . .. - 12 - Crown had accepted it as being f a c t u a l ly c o r r e c t. The d e b a te ended i n c o n c l u s i v e l y. I would stress that in a matter as vitally important as e x t e n u a t i o n, if the d e f e n ce counsel w i s h es to rely on an ex parte s t a t e m e nt not based on sworn e v i d e n ce he should ascertain clearly w h e t h er the Crown admits its factual c o r r e c t n e s s. If the Crown does n o t, d e f e n ce counsel must c o n s i d er w h e t h er he will lead e v i d e n ce or n o t. Needless to say I am not referring to an argument which seeks to d e r i ve inferences (that e x t e n u a t e) from proved f a c t s, but an a r g u m e nt that asserts facts as facts without proof of them t h e m s e l v e s. In the light of what I have said above I am of the opinion that the trial court was correct in finding that e x t e n u a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es had not been proved. In the result the appeal is d i s m i s s e d. ( S i g n e d) W . P. S C H U TZ P R E S I D E NT I agree ( S i g n e d) I agree ( S i g n e d) C. PLEWMAN JUDGE OF APPEAL L. W. H. A C K E R M A NN JUDGE OF APPEAL Delivered at MASERU this 26th day of J a n u a r y, 1990. For the a p p e l l a n t: Mr. S. Moorosi For the r e s p o n d e n t; Mr. Mokhobo