Miya and Others v S (SS163/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 148; [2017] 3 All SA 906 (GJ); 2017 (2) SACR 461 (GJ) (7 June 2017)

Miya and Others v S (SS163/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 148; [2017] 3 All SA 906 (GJ); 2017 (2) SACR 461 (GJ) (7 June 2017)

The court held that Section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act must be interpreted according to its plain language, which does not distinguish between accused and witnesses. The phrase 'in any subsequent proceedings' is broad and not limited to the trial of the accused in the bail matter. Since Mr Grigorov was not warned in the Sandton bail proceedings, his affidavit from those proceedings cannot be used against him in any subsequent proceedings, including the present case where he appears as a Section 204 witness. The protection afforded by Section 60(11B)(c) extends to Mr Grigorov in this matter, and allowing the use of his affidavit for cross-examination would undermine the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 148
Parties
Applicant: Siboniso Miya and Four Others; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2017
Case Number
SS163/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application / Objection During Trial Regarding Use of Bail Affidavit for Cross Examination
Judges
M W Msimeki
Legal Topics
Bail Proceedings, Admissibility of Evidence, Section 204 Witness, Statutory Interpretation, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Proceedings Admissibility of Evidence Section 204 Witness Statutory Interpretation Fair Trial Rights

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siboniso Miya and Four Others

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application / Objection During Trial Regarding Use of Bail Affidavit for Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a witness who was previously an accused and not warned under Section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act is protected from having their bail affidavit used for cross-examination in subsequent proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the protection under Section 60(11B)(c) extends to a witness in a different case where the bail warning was not given.
  3. 3 How the phrase 'in any subsequent proceedings' in Section 60(11B)(c) should be interpreted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act must be interpreted according to its plain language, which does not distinguish between accused and witnesses. The phrase 'in any subsequent proceedings' is broad and not limited to the trial of the accused in the bail matter. Since Mr Grigorov was not warned in the Sandton bail proceedings, his affidavit from those proceedings cannot be used against him in any subsequent proceedings, including the present case where he appears as a Section 204 witness. The protection afforded by Section 60(11B)(c) extends to Mr Grigorov in this matter, and allowing the use of his affidavit for cross-examination would undermine the...