S v De Vries and Others (67/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 38; 2009 (1) SACR 613 (C) (11 June 2008)

S v De Vries and Others (67/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 38; 2009 (1) SACR 613 (C) (11 June 2008)

The court found that the section 205 subpoenas for cell phone records were issued without proper judicial discretion and thus any evidence obtained therefrom was inadmissible. The warrants of arrest were technically defective due to lack of territorial jurisdiction by the issuing magistrate, but the affidavits before the magistrate provided sufficient information to form a reasonable suspicion of the accused's involvement in the robberies. The searches and seizures conducted without search warrants were not per se unlawful, as all accused consented to the searches and the seizures fell within statutory exceptions. The technical defect in the arrest warrants did not amount to mala fide...

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 38
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Selwyn Winston De Vries; Respondent: Virgil Lennith De Vries; Respondent: Julian Michael Van Heerden; Respondent: Vernon Noel Victor; Respondent: Alex Anna; Respondent: Gary Williams; Respondent: Llewellyn Smith; Respondent: Francis James Ngarinoma; Respondent: Edward Moagi; Respondent: Darryl Pitt; Respondent: Achmat Mather
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2008
Case Number
67/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Trial Within a Trial; Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
Evidence obtained from section 205 subpoenas relating to the four cell phone numbers attributed to the accused is inadmissible. All evidence seized pursuant to the arrests and searches of the accused and their premises is admissible.
Judges
LJ Bozalek
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Search and Seizure, Warrants of Arrest, Right to Privacy, Section 205 Subpoena, Constitutional Exclusion Rule
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Search and Seizure Warrants of Arrest Right to Privacy Section 205 Subpoena Constitutional Exclusion Rule

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Selwyn Winston De Vries

Respondent

Virgil Lennith De Vries

Respondent

Julian Michael Van Heerden

Respondent

Vernon Noel Victor

Respondent

Alex Anna

Respondent

Gary Williams

Respondent

Llewellyn Smith

Respondent

Francis James Ngarinoma

Respondent

Edward Moagi

Respondent

Darryl Pitt

Respondent

Achmat Mather

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Trial Within a Trial; Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence obtained via section 205 subpoenas for cell phone records is admissible.
  2. 2 Whether warrants of arrest issued by a magistrate lacking territorial jurisdiction are valid.
  3. 3 Whether searches and seizures conducted without search warrants are lawful and constitutional.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the section 205 subpoenas for cell phone records were issued without proper judicial discretion and thus any evidence obtained therefrom was inadmissible. The warrants of arrest were technically defective due to lack of territorial jurisdiction by the issuing magistrate, but the affidavits before the magistrate provided sufficient information to form a reasonable suspicion of the accused's involvement in the robberies. The searches and seizures conducted without search warrants were not per se unlawful, as all accused consented to the searches and the seizures fell within statutory exceptions. The technical defect in the arrest warrants did not amount to mala fide...

Court Disposition

Evidence obtained from section 205 subpoenas relating to the four cell phone numbers attributed to the accused is inadmissible. All evidence seized pursuant to the arrests and searches of the accused and their premises is admissible.

Orders

  • Evidence derived from section 205 subpoenas relating to the four telephone numbers attributed to the accused is excluded and inadmissible.
  • All evidence seized during the arrests and searches of the accused and their premises is admitted and deemed admissible.