Masuku and Another v S (AA12/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 23 (8 June 2018)

Masuku and Another v S (AA12/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 23 (8 June 2018)

The trial court failed to properly separate the issue of voluntariness of the second appellant's written statement and pointing out from the main trial, resulting in a material irregularity. The evidence showed that the statement and pointing out were not made freely and voluntarily, and the second appellant was denied the opportunity to secure legal representation. Injuries observed on the second appellant's wrists and back were not adequately probed, and the process was tainted by police assault and coercion. The written statement and pointing out should have been excluded. Regarding the first appellant, the only evidence against him was the testimony of Isaac Pako, which was...

Citation
[2018] ZALMPPHC 23
Parties
Appellant: Steady Thapelo Masuku; Appellant: Lodrick Makhathini Ngobeni; Respondent: The State
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2018
Case Number
AA12/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; both appellants found not guilty and discharged on all charges.
Judges
Kganyago, Semenya, Mokgohloa
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Confession, Trial Within a Trial, Voluntariness, Constitutional Rights, Alibi
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Confession Trial Within a Trial Voluntariness Constitutional Rights Alibi

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steady Thapelo Masuku

Appellant

Lodrick Makhathini Ngobeni

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written statement and pointing out by the second appellant were admissible as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court properly separated the issue of voluntariness from the main trial.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence against the first appellant was credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court failed to properly separate the issue of voluntariness of the second appellant's written statement and pointing out from the main trial, resulting in a material irregularity. The evidence showed that the statement and pointing out were not made freely and voluntarily, and the second appellant was denied the opportunity to secure legal representation. Injuries observed on the second appellant's wrists and back were not adequately probed, and the process was tainted by police assault and coercion. The written statement and pointing out should have been excluded. Regarding the first appellant, the only evidence against him was the testimony of Isaac Pako, which was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; both appellants found not guilty and discharged on all charges.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is upheld.
  • The conviction of both appellants on charges of housebreaking and attempted robbery, murder, attempted murder, possession of firearm and ammunition are set aside.