S v Collen and Another (214/86) [1987] ZASCA 29 (27 March 1987)

S v Collen and Another (214/86) [1987] ZASCA 29 (27 March 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred by failing to assess the cumulative evidence regarding the voluntariness of the confessions. The court held that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the confessions of both appellants were made voluntarily, given the allegations of assault, the improbability of spontaneous confessions after years of denial, and inconsistencies between the confessions and objective facts. The court further found that, in the absence of other sufficient evidence linking the appellants to the murder, their convictions could not stand. Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and the convictions and sentences set aside.

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 29
Parties
Appellant: Pieter van Collen; Appellant: Robert Pickering; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 1987
Case Number
214/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Joubert, Smalberger, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Voluntariness of Confession, Burden of Proof, Assault by Police, Evidentiary Value of Confession
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Voluntariness of Confession Burden of Proof Assault by Police Evidentiary Value of Confession

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter van Collen

Appellant

Robert Pickering

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confessions made by the appellants were voluntary and admissible.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly assessed the cumulative evidence regarding voluntariness.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions for murder can stand in the absence of other sufficient evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred by failing to assess the cumulative evidence regarding the voluntariness of the confessions. The court held that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the confessions of both appellants were made voluntarily, given the allegations of assault, the improbability of spontaneous confessions after years of denial, and inconsistencies between the confessions and objective facts. The court further found that, in the absence of other sufficient evidence linking the appellants to the murder, their convictions could not stand. Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and the convictions and sentences set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

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