Makhokha v S (258/13) [2013] ZASCA 171 (28 November 2013)

Makhokha v S (258/13) [2013] ZASCA 171 (28 November 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's written statement constituted a confession in respect of both charges. However, the confession was made to a police inspector who was not a commissioned officer and was not confirmed in the presence of a magistrate or justice, as required by s 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The trial court admitted the confession without a trial within a trial and without proper compliance with statutory requirements. This constituted a gross irregularity, rendering the trial unfair and vitiating the convictions and sentences imposed. The appeal was upheld and the convictions set aside.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 171
Parties
Appellant: Lucky Mashudu Makhokha; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2013
Case Number
258/13
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Convictions set aside.
Judges
Brand, Lewis, Cachalia
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Criminal Procedure Act Section 217, Irregular Trial, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Confessions Criminal Procedure Act Section 217 Irregular Trial Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucky Mashudu Makhokha

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's written statement constituted a confession under the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the confession was admissible as evidence under s 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
  3. 3 Whether the admission of the confession rendered the trial irregular and vitiated the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's written statement constituted a confession in respect of both charges. However, the confession was made to a police inspector who was not a commissioned officer and was not confirmed in the presence of a magistrate or justice, as required by s 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The trial court admitted the confession without a trial within a trial and without proper compliance with statutory requirements. This constituted a gross irregularity, rendering the trial unfair and vitiating the convictions and sentences imposed. The appeal was upheld and the convictions set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Convictions set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions of the appellant are set aside.