LR and Another v S (A333/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 219; 2019 (2) SACR 216 (FB) (14 December 2018)

LR and Another v S (A333/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 219; 2019 (2) SACR 216 (FB) (14 December 2018)

The trial court failed to rule on the admissibility of hearsay and confession evidence, which is a fundamental procedural safeguard. The confession by the second appellant was inadmissible against both accused under section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The hearsay evidence was provisionally admitted but not confirmed by the witnesses, and the trial court did not make any ruling on its admissibility. The complainant's evidence, while detailed and consistent, was not sufficiently corroborated by admissible evidence. The conviction for attempted rape was not supported by the facts, as the conduct described did not meet the legal threshold for attempt. The cumulative effect of these...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 219
Parties
Appellant: L R; Appellant: Motsuhi Mathloko; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Case Number
A333/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Full Bench Appeal Against Conviction After Trial in the High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions against both appellants set aside.
Judges
Opperman, Reinders, Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Confession Against Co Accused, Fair Trial Rights, Sexual Offences, Appeal Principles
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Confession Against Co Accused Fair Trial Rights Sexual Offences Appeal Principles

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L R

Appellant

Motsuhi Mathloko

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Full Bench Appeal Against Conviction After Trial in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants received a fair trial in light of the admission of hearsay and confession evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to rule on the admissibility of hearsay and confession evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported a conviction for attempted rape on count 3.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court failed to rule on the admissibility of hearsay and confession evidence, which is a fundamental procedural safeguard. The confession by the second appellant was inadmissible against both accused under section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The hearsay evidence was provisionally admitted but not confirmed by the witnesses, and the trial court did not make any ruling on its admissibility. The complainant's evidence, while detailed and consistent, was not sufficiently corroborated by admissible evidence. The conviction for attempted rape was not supported by the facts, as the conduct described did not meet the legal threshold for attempt. The cumulative effect of these...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions against both appellants set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal by both the appellants is upheld.
  • The convictions against the first and second appellants are set aside.