Ramyonyane and Another v S (AR253/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 56 (28 June 2016)

Ramyonyane and Another v S (AR253/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 56 (28 June 2016)

The court found that the confessions and pointing-out evidence were not made freely and voluntarily, but were the result of sustained assaults and threats by police officers. The police officers' testimony was riddled with contradictions and lacked credibility, and the medical examination was inadequate and compromised by police presence. The Section 204 witness, Mr Dlamini, was also assaulted and coerced, rendering his evidence unreliable. The court held that the trial court erred in admitting the confession of the Second Appellant and in relying on the evidence of Mr Dlamini. With no admissible evidence remaining against the appellants, their convictions could not stand. The appeal was...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZPHC 56
Parties
Appellant: Tsepiso Sthembiso Ramyonyane; Appellant: Bonginkosi Eric Nyawose; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Case Number
AR253/15
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Kruger, Vahed, Hemraj
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confession, Trial Within Trial, Police Misconduct, Section 204 Witness, Exclusion of Evidence
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confession Trial Within Trial Police Misconduct Section 204 Witness Exclusion of 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

Tsepiso Sthembiso Ramyonyane

Appellant

Bonginkosi Eric Nyawose

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confessions and pointing-out evidence were admissible.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions were supported by admissible and reliable evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the police affected the voluntariness of the confessions and statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the confessions and pointing-out evidence were not made freely and voluntarily, but were the result of sustained assaults and threats by police officers. The police officers' testimony was riddled with contradictions and lacked credibility, and the medical examination was inadequate and compromised by police presence. The Section 204 witness, Mr Dlamini, was also assaulted and coerced, rendering his evidence unreliable. The court held that the trial court erred in admitting the confession of the Second Appellant and in relying on the evidence of Mr Dlamini. With no admissible evidence remaining against the appellants, their convictions could not stand. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The convictions and sentences against both appellants are set aside.