- Gino Sanchez’s initial punch was reasonably possibly an act of self-defence against an imminent attack.
- Slapping and kicking the unconscious complainant exceeded the limits of self-defence because he no longer posed a threat.
- The court replaced Sanchez’s grievous bodily harm conviction with common assault and imposed a wholly suspended fine of R3,000 or 30 days’ imprisonment.
A man who punched someone he said had repeatedly subjected him to unwanted sexual advances was acting in self-defence, the High Court in Western Cape has found, but his decision to slap and kick the unconscious man still amounted to a crime.
The court replaced Gino Sanchez’s conviction of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm with common assault, ruling that while he was entitled to defend his bodily integrity and dignity, the right to use force ended when his alleged attacker lost consciousness.
Repeated unwanted contact preceded the assault
Sanchez was initially charged with attempted murder in the Regional Court in Cape Town but was convicted of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and sentenced to three years’ correctional supervision. He subsequently obtained leave to appeal both his conviction and sentence.
Sanchez told the trial court that the complainant had approached him repeatedly at a party in Bantry Bay, making unwanted physical contact that he perceived as sexual in nature. He said he walked away from the complainant on three occasions before the confrontation moved to the patio.
During one encounter, Sanchez alleged that the complainant pressed his body against his back, stood on the heels of his shoes and breathed on his neck. Sanchez said he eventually asked two friends to intervene.
About 20 minutes later, he alleged that the complainant approached him on the dance floor, tried to grab him and again attempted to put his mouth on his neck. Sanchez said he left the house to distance himself, but the complainant followed him outside.
Sanchez punched the complainant once in the jaw, causing him to fall and lose consciousness. He admitted that he then slapped and kicked the complainant while he lay motionless on the ground.
The complainant suffered multiple brain haemorrhages, a fractured skull, a fractured nose, balance problems and hearing loss. He received treatment at Somerset Hospital before being transferred to a private medical facility.
Video footage challenged the trial court’s findings
Video footage showed the complainant following Sanchez onto the patio, removing his right hand from his pocket and making a movement towards him shortly before the punch. The complainant fell and remained motionless. Sanchez moved away briefly before returning to slap and kick him. The sequence unfolded within approximately 12 seconds.
The complainant had limited recollection of the incident and could not identify his attacker. His first police statement recorded that he had been hit from behind in the garden, but he later explained that his head injuries had affected his memory.
The trial magistrate accepted the complainant as an honest and truthful witness, suggesting that some contradictions could be explained by confabulation, a phenomenon in which the brain fills gaps in memory with information the person believes to be true.
Sanchez’s legal team argued that no expert medical evidence had been presented to support this explanation and that the defence had no opportunity to challenge it.
The appeal court found that the trial court had been unduly critical of Sanchez’s testimony. It held that discrepancies about where one encounter occurred and whether he remembered feeling frustrated when he slapped and kicked the complainant did not undermine the central part of his account.
Self-defence protected bodily integrity and dignity
Judge A Le Grange, with Judge ML Sher concurring and Acting Judge JS Anderssen dissenting, explained that self-defence is not limited to protecting a person against an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. It can also protect bodily integrity and dignity against an unlawful attack, provided the defensive force is necessary and reasonably proportionate to the threat.
The court found that Sanchez’s account of repeated unwanted physical contact was reasonably possibly true and had not been adequately discredited. The complainant followed him outside within seconds and moved towards him immediately before the punch.
The judgment held that Sanchez was not required to wait for the complainant to make physical contact again before defending himself. “Objectively viewed, having regard to the third incident on the dance floor, the complainant’s persistence, coupled with his advance on the patio, the appellant’s belief that an attack was imminent cannot be regarded as unreasonable or unjustified,” Judge Le Grange said.
The court concluded that a single punch delivered within a second of the complainant’s movement could not be considered disproportionate to the perceived threat to Sanchez’s bodily integrity and dignity. The State had therefore failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the initial punch was unlawful.
However, once the complainant lost consciousness, he no longer posed a threat to Sanchez. “The complainant was defenceless. There was no imminent threat to any legally protected interest,” Judge Le Grange said.
The subsequent slap and kick were therefore unlawful because the right to act in self-defence ends when the attack ceases.
Court rejects argument that blows were trivial
Sanchez argued that the slap and kick should be disregarded under the principle de minimis non curat lex, meaning the law does not concern itself with trivial matters.
His counsel argued that the blows were driven by anger and frustration following the alleged harassment. The defence also raised a hypothetical comparison involving how society might respond if a young woman had faced similar circumstances.
The State opposed the argument, maintaining that the blows were neither insignificant nor trivial because the complainant was unconscious and posed no threat.
The High Court rejected Sanchez’s reliance on the principle, emphasising that each case must be decided according to its own circumstances. Although minor physical contact may sometimes be too trivial to warrant criminal intervention, that does not mean every slap or kick qualifies.
The judgment warned that the law could not tolerate gross disproportionality between the interest being protected and the harm inflicted. Disregarding such conduct, it said, could encourage vigilantism and abuse of the law. “The doctrine of de minimis has no application here,” Judge Le Grange held.
The court found that the slap and kick constituted common assault because Sanchez intentionally applied unlawful force without the complainant’s consent. The blows did not cause the grievous bodily harm attributed primarily to the initial punch and the complainant’s fall.
Conviction replaced with common assault
The High Court upheld the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and replacing it with common assault.
In reconsidering the sentence, the court took into account Sanchez’s relative youth, his status as a first offender, the provocation he had experienced and the fact that the unlawful blows were momentary. It found that three years’ correctional supervision was disproportionate to the lesser offence.
Sanchez was sentenced to a fine of R3,000, alternatively 30 days’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years on condition that he is not convicted of assault committed during the suspension period. The sentence was backdated to the date of the original sentence.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
