Levack and Others v Regional Magistrate, Wynberg and Another (403/2000) [2002] ZASCA 146; [2003] 1 All SA 22 (SCA); 2004 (5) SA 573 (SCA); 2003 (1) SACR 187 (SCA) (28 November 2002)

Levack and Others v Regional Magistrate, Wynberg and Another (403/2000) [2002] ZASCA 146; [2003] 1 All SA 22 (SCA); 2004 (5) SA 573 (SCA); 2003 (1) SACR 187 (SCA) (28 November 2002)

Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is sufficiently broad to include the human voice as a characteristic or distinguishing feature of the body. The literal meaning of the provision covers voice samples, and there is no need for a purposive interpretation. Compelling accused persons to provide voice samples does not infringe their constitutional rights against self-incrimination or to a fair trial, as such evidence is physical and not testimonial. The magistrate had the power to grant the order under section 37(1)(c), and the police retained their powers under that section. Intervention in unconcluded proceedings is not warranted, as the order for voice samples is not final...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 146
Parties
Appellant: Hamilton Caesar Levack; Appellant: Lincoln Lebola; Appellant: Mervyn Hendricks; Appellant: Frederick William Le Roux; Respondent: Regional Magistrate, Wynberg; Respondent: Director, Public Prosecutions, Western Cape
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2002
Case Number
403/2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Review Dismissal; Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
The appeal of appellants 1 and 2 is dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for condonation of appellants 3 and 4 is dismissed.
Judges
Harms JA, Scott JA, Farlam JA, Cameron JA, Jones AJA
Legal Topics
Compelled Voice Samples, Self Incrimination, Fair Trial Rights, Criminal Procedure Act Section 37, Review of Unconcluded Proceedings
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Compelled Voice Samples Self Incrimination Fair Trial Rights Criminal Procedure Act Section 37 Review of Unconcluded Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamilton Caesar Levack

Appellant

Lincoln Lebola

Appellant

Mervyn Hendricks

Appellant

Frederick William Le Roux

Appellant

Regional Magistrate, Wynberg

Respondent

Director, Public Prosecutions, Western Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Review Dismissal; Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 empower a court to order accused persons to provide voice samples?
  2. 2 Does compelling voice samples violate the privilege against self-incrimination or fair trial rights under the Constitution?
  3. 3 Did the magistrate have the power to grant the order under section 37(1)(c) or section 37(3)(a)?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is sufficiently broad to include the human voice as a characteristic or distinguishing feature of the body. The literal meaning of the provision covers voice samples, and there is no need for a purposive interpretation. Compelling accused persons to provide voice samples does not infringe their constitutional rights against self-incrimination or to a fair trial, as such evidence is physical and not testimonial. The magistrate had the power to grant the order under section 37(1)(c), and the police retained their powers under that section. Intervention in unconcluded proceedings is not warranted, as the order for voice samples is not final...

Court Disposition

The appeal of appellants 1 and 2 is dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for condonation of appellants 3 and 4 is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of appellants 1 and 2 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The application for condonation of appellants 3 and 4 is dismissed.