S v Abbott (26/97) [1999] ZASCA 8; [1999] 2 All SA 175 (A) (8 March 1999)

S v Abbott (26/97) [1999] ZASCA 8; [1999] 2 All SA 175 (A) (8 March 1999)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly found, on the evidence, that the appellant was not assaulted and that his indications and associated statements were made voluntarily and without coercion. The only evidence of force was the stepping on the appellant's back during arrest, which was not relied upon by the appellant as the basis for his claim of assault. The alleged failure by Superintendent Myburgh to ask further questions regarding the assault did not, in itself, render the indications inadmissible. The duty to determine voluntariness rests with the trial court, which must consider all relevant evidence. The administrative rules and recommended procedures for...

Citation
[1999] ZASCA 8
Parties
Appellant: Johnny M Abbott; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 1999
Case Number
26/97
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Limited Leave Granted on Admissibility of Indications and Associated Statements
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Judges
Hefer, F H Grosskopf, Marais
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Voluntariness of Statements, Confession Procedure, Burden of Proof, Constitutional Rights
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Voluntariness of Statements Confession Procedure Burden of Proof Constitutional 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnny M Abbott

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Limited Leave Granted on Admissibility of Indications and Associated Statements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's indications and associated statements were made voluntarily and without coercion.
  2. 2 Whether the failure of Superintendent Myburgh to further investigate the alleged assault rendered the indications inadmissible.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly found that the appellant was not assaulted and that the indications were voluntary.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly found, on the evidence, that the appellant was not assaulted and that his indications and associated statements were made voluntarily and without coercion. The only evidence of force was the stepping on the appellant's back during arrest, which was not relied upon by the appellant as the basis for his claim of assault. The alleged failure by Superintendent Myburgh to ask further questions regarding the assault did not, in itself, render the indications inadmissible. The duty to determine voluntariness rests with the trial court, which must consider all relevant evidence. The administrative rules and recommended procedures for...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.