Nyathikazi v S (AR194/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 63 (28 June 2016)

Nyathikazi v S (AR194/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 63 (28 June 2016)

The trial court misdirected itself by placing the burden of proof on the accused in the trial-within-a-trial, contrary to constitutional and statutory requirements. The State failed to present any evidence that the appellant was properly warned of his constitutional rights prior to making the statement and pointing out. The only evidence linking the appellant to the crimes was the statement obtained in violation of his rights. In the absence of reliable evidence and given the constitutional imperatives, the statement and pointing out should have been excluded. Without this evidence, there was no case against the appellant, rendering the convictions unsafe and necessitating their setting...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZPHC 63
Parties
Appellant: Sbongiseni "Wala" Nyathikazi; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Case Number
AR194/15
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Seegobin, Poyo Dlwati, Hemraj
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Constitutional Rights, Onus of Proof, Trial Within a Trial, Exclusion of Conscriptive Evidence
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Constitutional Rights Onus of Proof Trial Within a Trial Exclusion of Conscriptive Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sbongiseni "Wala" Nyathikazi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's statement and pointing out were admissible as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was properly informed of his constitutional rights prior to making the statement.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misdirected itself regarding the burden of proof in the trial-within-a-trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court misdirected itself by placing the burden of proof on the accused in the trial-within-a-trial, contrary to constitutional and statutory requirements. The State failed to present any evidence that the appellant was properly warned of his constitutional rights prior to making the statement and pointing out. The only evidence linking the appellant to the crimes was the statement obtained in violation of his rights. In the absence of reliable evidence and given the constitutional imperatives, the statement and pointing out should have been excluded. Without this evidence, there was no case against the appellant, rendering the convictions unsafe and necessitating their setting...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences are set aside.