S v Shapiro

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeVan Heerden JA, Smalberger JA and Nicholas AJA
Judgment Date01 December 1993
Citation1994 (1) SACR 112 (A)
CounselR S Chinner for the appellant (the Attorney-General) Andrew Marais for the respondent
Hearing Date01 November 1993
CourtAppellate Division

Nicholas AJA:

At about half past five on the afternoon of Saturday, 24 August 1991, the late Rodney Byron Williams was D standing near the reception counter in the foyer of the Sunningdale Hotel in Corlett Drive, Birnham, Johannesburg. He was using the telephone. A man named Gideon Shapiro entered from the street and fired six shots from a revolver at Williams who fell to the floor. Shapiro went outside, reloaded the revolver, and returned to the foyer and at point blank range fired another shot at the recumbent Williams who died shortly E afterwards. Shapiro left the scene.

On post-mortem examination a number of gunshot wounds were found on Williams' body:

(a)

a wound which penetrated the right upper arm and F exited through the inner aspect of the right upper arm;

(b)

an entrance wound, in horizontal line with the exit wound in (a), of the lower right chest wall, which passed through the right hemi-diaphragm, the right lobe of the liver and the aorta; and

(c)

a wound which entered the left cheek and passed into the brain. There was widespread powder tattooing G around the entrance wound.

In the opinion of the State pathologist who carried out the examination either of wounds (a) and (b) independently could have caused the death of the deceased. However, death from haemorrhage must have ensued within minutes of the infliction of wound (b).

Arising out of this incident Shapiro was arraigned in June 1992 in the Witwatersrand Local Division on a charge of murder H before a Court consisting of Schabort J and two assessors. He pleaded not guilty. He did not make a statement in terms of s 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 but made certain formal admissions. After a trial lasting several days he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years, four years of which were conditionally suspended. I

In terms of s 316B of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and with the leave of the trial Judge the Attorney General of the Witwatersrand Local Division now appeals to this Court against the sentence. At the hearing of the appeal Mr R J Chinner, who was prosecuting counsel at the trial, appeared for the Attorney J General and Mr A F Marais appeared pro deo on behalf of Shapiro.

Nicholas AJA

A A main actor in the events which led up to Williams' death was Miss Carol Elana Bloch ('Carol'), who gave evidence for the State. At the time of the trial in June 1992 she was 30 years old. She is a qualified public relations officer registered with the Public Relations Institute of South Africa, and has studied film production and fashion design. She has been B friendly with Shapiro since they were children. They became lovers and started living together about seven years before the trial. Their relationship was interrupted in October 1989 when Shapiro moved to Durban to open a compact disc shop. Carol had a good job in Johannesburg and continued to live there. She C stayed in the house of Noëlene and Jonathan Kingsley-Hall. There she met Williams, a man of 37 years, who was a frequent visitor to the house.

Williams, she learned, was a dealer in cocaine, who operated a network of drug distributors which extended to Durban, Cape Town and Botswana. He was reputed to be the biggest drug dealer D in Johannesburg. He introduced her to cocaine. She found him to be a very likeable person - 'when sober' - and they became friendly. As will appear, however, when Williams was going through episodes of cocaine-abuse, he became a monster.

In March 1990 Carol and Shapiro became engaged, and she joined him in Durban where they again lived together. In April, E Williams visited Durban and he telephoned Carol and arranged to meet her. He told her:

'I want you to deal cocaine for me in the area. I have got a lot of clients here, and I need someone here to do that.'

She refused. When she reported this incident to Shapiro, he was angry and insisted that she have nothing to do with cocaine F dealing. A few days later Carol and Shapiro met Williams for drinks at the Malibu Hotel. The question of drug-dealing was again raised but Shapiro and Carol said that they were not interested. Williams warned them:

'I know where to find you both and if you mention any of this to anybody I will kill you both.'

Shapiro's business did not prosper. It went insolvent, and he G and Carol returned to Johannesburg, where they were given a temporary refuge in a house in Eksteen Street, Observatory, occupied by Nerina Harmse and two others. Williams was a frequent visitor - he would come and go at all hours of the day and night. He supplied Nerina with cocaine for sale by her. From time to time Carol and Shapiro used cocaine provided H gratis by Williams, but Shapiro was unhappy about the set-up - 'He did not like to be around these people who were coming and delivering and fetching and taking - he did not want to be involved with that.' Nevertheless a friendly relationship developed between Williams and Shapiro. During this period incidents occurred, of which it is unnecessary to give details, I but which showed that Williams did not shrink from violence to enforce his will. He was ruthless towards those who crossed him, or failed to pay him what he thought his due. Carol formed the opinion that he 'was not the type of man to stop [at] anything . . . when he was violent and in a bad mood he was not worth interfering with, because he was not really easy to control'.

In February 1991 Carol visited Israel. She returned to J South Africa in March. Shapiro had by then acquired an interest in a restaurant

Nicholas AJA

A called Arlecchino's in Rosebank which was open until late at night.

In May 1991 Carol and Shapiro moved into a flat in Olympia Place which is adjacent to the Sunningdale Hotel in Corlett Drive. At this stage, Carol said, Shapiro and Williams were friends. Williams visited the restaurant with increasing frequency and he used also to visit the flat whenever he felt B like it at any hour of the day or night. It was however 'a casual friendship'. Due to the nature of his business Williams did not like to get too close to anybody - he did not really trust many people - but came to trust Shapiro more and more, and he spent most of his time with the couple. 'He would come at all hours of the night to sleep after like a two-day binge or whatever and he C felt safe to sleep there without being disturbed by anybody.'

In the time that Carol knew Williams he went through two periods when he seriously abused drugs. One was during the few months preceding his death. During this time he got worse and D worse, she said. He was aggressive and making threats against all and sundry. He threatened to burn Nerina's house down if she did not pay money she owed him. He went round saying that he was the boss of Johannesburg. He accused a number of people, whom Carol named, and also Carol herself, of stealing his drugs. She said variously: drugs made him almost schizophrenic; he had mood swings - his moods were totally unpredictable; E there was no way of telling what he was going to do next; he was totally erratic; he was in a real megalomania trip at that point; he had become totally paranoic.

Carol described a number of illustrative incidents.

One occurred at the end of June. Williams arrived at the restaurant in an intoxicated condition and caused trouble. This F was not good for business, and Carol offered to take him home. After they had travelled a short distance Williams suddenly sobered up. He took over the steering wheel and drove to Halfway House. At a house there he dug up a container with a large quantity of cocaine, which he showed to Carol. They used cocaine together. Williams wanted to have sex with her, but she refused, and locked herself in another room. On the following morning she telephoned Shapiro while Williams was still asleep G and asked him to come and fetch her. But Williams woke up and took her home, acting as if nothing had happened. She told Shapiro what had occurred, but he decided to do nothing about it.

H On several occasions during the ten days preceding 24 August 1991 Williams accused Carol of stealing his cocaine. The first was on a Thursday when he threatened to kill her if he did not get his cocaine back. On the following Tuesday, notwithstanding requests by Shapiro not to do so, she had gone to the restaurant. Williams was there and threatened to kill her. She dared him to do it. He caught hold of her shoulder and slapped her face twice with the flat of his hand. Shapiro and his I partner separated them.

Shapiro and Carol then decided that she should go to Israel until the dust settled, because they feared for her life. She was due to leave on Saturday, 24 August 1991.

On the next Thursday, 22 August, Williams came to the flat by arrangement with Shapiro in order to search for the cocaine J which was said to be

Nicholas AJA

A missing. Although it had been agreed that she would keep away, Carol arrived and asked if Williams had found the cocaine. When he said no, Carol, who was tired of the whole situation, lost her temper. She told Williams she found it strange that on one day...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • S v Mnisi
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...3 All SA 220): applied E S v McDonald 2000 (2) SACR 493 (N): considered S v Potgieter 1994 (1) SACR 61 (A): referred to S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A): dictum at 123c - f S v Smith 1990 (1) SACR 130 (A): dictum at 135b - e applied S v Wiid 1990 (1) SACR 561 (A): referred to. F Legislatio......
  • 2010 index
    • South Africa
    • South African Criminal Law Journal No. , August 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...132, 150-151, 160, 174-175S v Shabalala 1995 (2) SACR 761 (CC) ................................................ 263-267S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A) ..................................................... 160, 169S v Sharp 2002 (1) SACR 360 (Ck) .................................................
  • Comment: Road rage and reasoning about responsibility
    • South Africa
    • South African Criminal Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 24 May 2019
    ...SACR 631 (A) where automatism was in issue, and in S v Van Vuuren 1983 (1) SA 12 (A), S v Campher 1987 (1) SA 940 (A), S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A), S v Ingram 1995 (1) SACR 1 (A), S v Kensley 1995 (1) SACR 646 (A), S v Nursingh 1995 (2) SACR 331 (D), S v Di Blasi 1996 (1) SACR 1 (A), ......
  • S v Van der Westhuizen
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...dictum at 754F – H applied S v Shaik and Others 2008 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (2008 (2) SA 208; 2007 (12) BCLR 1360): referred to S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A): dictum at 123c – f applied C S v Smith 1990 (1) SACR 130 (A): dictum at 135b – g Smyth v Ushewokunze and Another 1998 (3) SA 1125 (ZSC)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • S v Mnisi
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...3 All SA 220): applied E S v McDonald 2000 (2) SACR 493 (N): considered S v Potgieter 1994 (1) SACR 61 (A): referred to S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A): dictum at 123c - f S v Smith 1990 (1) SACR 130 (A): dictum at 135b - e applied S v Wiid 1990 (1) SACR 561 (A): referred to. F Legislatio......
  • S v Van der Westhuizen
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...dictum at 754F – H applied S v Shaik and Others 2008 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (2008 (2) SA 208; 2007 (12) BCLR 1360): referred to S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A): dictum at 123c – f applied C S v Smith 1990 (1) SACR 130 (A): dictum at 135b – g Smyth v Ushewokunze and Another 1998 (3) SA 1125 (ZSC)......
  • S v Mnisi
    • South Africa
    • Supreme Court of Appeal
    • 19 March 2009
    ...[2] 1987 (1) SA 940 (A) at 964C - H and 967D - E. [3] 1988 (1) SA 163 (A) at 173F - G. [4] 1990 (1) SACR 130 (A) at 135b - e. [5] 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A) at 123c - f. [6] 1995 (1) SACR 1 (A) at 8d - i. [7] 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) (2001 (2) SA 1222; [2001] 3 All SA 220). [8] I use these words ......
  • S v Dyantyi
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...to be adopted in an appeal such as this is reflected in the following passage in the judgment of Nicholas AJA in S v Shapiro C 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A) at 119j – "Itmay well be that this Court would have imposed on the accused a heavier sentence than that imposed by the trial Judge. But even i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • 2010 index
    • South Africa
    • South African Criminal Law Journal No. , August 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...132, 150-151, 160, 174-175S v Shabalala 1995 (2) SACR 761 (CC) ................................................ 263-267S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A) ..................................................... 160, 169S v Sharp 2002 (1) SACR 360 (Ck) .................................................
  • Comment: Road rage and reasoning about responsibility
    • South Africa
    • South African Criminal Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 24 May 2019
    ...SACR 631 (A) where automatism was in issue, and in S v Van Vuuren 1983 (1) SA 12 (A), S v Campher 1987 (1) SA 940 (A), S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A), S v Ingram 1995 (1) SACR 1 (A), S v Kensley 1995 (1) SACR 646 (A), S v Nursingh 1995 (2) SACR 331 (D), S v Di Blasi 1996 (1) SACR 1 (A), ......
  • Recent Case: Sentencing
    • South Africa
    • South African Criminal Law Journal No. , August 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Venter 2009 (1) SACR 165 (SCA). The cour t emphasised the striking dictum from S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A) at 124, that the ‘concatenation of circumstances was highly unusual and is unlikely to occur again’.How the use of alcohol should be ref‌lecte......
29 provisions
  • S v Mnisi
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...3 All SA 220): applied E S v McDonald 2000 (2) SACR 493 (N): considered S v Potgieter 1994 (1) SACR 61 (A): referred to S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A): dictum at 123c - f S v Smith 1990 (1) SACR 130 (A): dictum at 135b - e applied S v Wiid 1990 (1) SACR 561 (A): referred to. F Legislatio......
  • 2010 index
    • South Africa
    • South African Criminal Law Journal No. , August 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...132, 150-151, 160, 174-175S v Shabalala 1995 (2) SACR 761 (CC) ................................................ 263-267S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A) ..................................................... 160, 169S v Sharp 2002 (1) SACR 360 (Ck) .................................................
  • Comment: Road rage and reasoning about responsibility
    • South Africa
    • South African Criminal Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 24 May 2019
    ...SACR 631 (A) where automatism was in issue, and in S v Van Vuuren 1983 (1) SA 12 (A), S v Campher 1987 (1) SA 940 (A), S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A), S v Ingram 1995 (1) SACR 1 (A), S v Kensley 1995 (1) SACR 646 (A), S v Nursingh 1995 (2) SACR 331 (D), S v Di Blasi 1996 (1) SACR 1 (A), ......
  • S v Van der Westhuizen
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...dictum at 754F – H applied S v Shaik and Others 2008 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (2008 (2) SA 208; 2007 (12) BCLR 1360): referred to S v Shapiro 1994 (1) SACR 112 (A): dictum at 123c – f applied C S v Smith 1990 (1) SACR 130 (A): dictum at 135b – g Smyth v Ushewokunze and Another 1998 (3) SA 1125 (ZSC)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT