S v Dielele (CC18/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 155 (6 September 2023)

S v Dielele (CC18/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 155 (6 September 2023)

The court found that the requirements of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act were satisfied. The statement of Ms Bodumele and the oral statements of the two state witnesses were relevant and sought to corroborate evidence already heard. Although the accused could not cross-examine Ms Bodumele, the interests of justice dictated that the evidence should be admitted, as the court was not at this stage concerned with the blameworthiness of the accused but with the admissibility of the statements. The court held that the probative value, reliability, and truthfulness of the statements would be weighed against other evidence in due course. The interests of justice outweighed...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 155
Parties
Applicant: THE STATE; Respondent: JOHANNES DEMPSEY DIELELE
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2023
Case Number
CC18/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application / Application for Admission of Hearsay Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Application granted; the statement of the deceased and the oral statements of the two state witnesses are admitted into evidence.
Judges
S Mfenyana
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Law of Evidence Amendment Act, Admissibility of Statements, Interests of Justice
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Law of Evidence Amendment Act Admissibility of Statements Interests of Justice

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

THE STATE

Applicant

JOHANNES DEMPSEY DIELELE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application / Application for Admission of Hearsay Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of the deceased Mamokgalo Annah Bodumele and the oral statements made by Nthabiseng Kujane and Caroline Kujane should be admitted into evidence as hearsay under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the admission of such hearsay evidence would prejudice the accused and threaten his constitutional rights under section 35 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice outweigh any prejudice to the accused in admitting the statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the requirements of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act were satisfied. The statement of Ms Bodumele and the oral statements of the two state witnesses were relevant and sought to corroborate evidence already heard. Although the accused could not cross-examine Ms Bodumele, the interests of justice dictated that the evidence should be admitted, as the court was not at this stage concerned with the blameworthiness of the accused but with the admissibility of the statements. The court held that the probative value, reliability, and truthfulness of the statements would be weighed against other evidence in due course. The interests of justice outweighed...

Court Disposition

Application granted; the statement of the deceased and the oral statements of the two state witnesses are admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • The statement of the deceased Mamokgalo Annah Bodumele and the oral statements made by Nthabiseng Kujane and Caroline Kujane are admitted into evidence in terms of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, No.45 of 1988.