S v Goosen (278/1987) [1988] ZASCA 31; [1988] 4 All SA 491 (AD) (29 March 1988)

S v Goosen (278/1987) [1988] ZASCA 31; [1988] 4 All SA 491 (AD) (29 March 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in admitting the record of proceedings from S v Mazibuko and Others as evidence in the appellant's trial. Section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that further evidence be received in a recognized manner, typically by viva voce testimony, not merely by admitting the record of another case. The requirements of section 316(3) were not properly satisfied, and the order admitting the record was ultra vires and void. Furthermore, the separation of trials was not lawfully ordered, as neither the prosecution nor any accused applied for such separation, contrary to section 157(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The matter was...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 31
Parties
Appellant: Machiel Adriaan Goosen; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1988
Case Number
278/1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Leave to Appeal and Admission of Further Evidence
Outcome
The appeal was not decided on the merits. The matter was remitted to the trial court to reconsider the appellant's applications under section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and to issue appropriate orders.
Judges
Van Heerden, Nestadt, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Admission of Further Evidence on Appeal, Murder, Robbery, Separation of Trials, Dolus Directus, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Admission of Further Evidence on Appeal Murder Robbery Separation of Trials Dolus Directus Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Machiel Adriaan Goosen

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Leave to Appeal and Admission of Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court was empowered to admit the record of proceedings from a related case as evidence in the appellant's trial.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act for admission of further evidence were satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the separation of trials was lawfully ordered without an application from the prosecution or accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in admitting the record of proceedings from S v Mazibuko and Others as evidence in the appellant's trial. Section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that further evidence be received in a recognized manner, typically by viva voce testimony, not merely by admitting the record of another case. The requirements of section 316(3) were not properly satisfied, and the order admitting the record was ultra vires and void. Furthermore, the separation of trials was not lawfully ordered, as neither the prosecution nor any accused applied for such separation, contrary to section 157(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The matter was...

Court Disposition

The appeal was not decided on the merits. The matter was remitted to the trial court to reconsider the appellant's applications under section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and to issue appropriate orders.

Orders

  • The matter is remitted to the trial court to reconsider the appellant's applications under section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  • The appellant must take steps within one month to place the applications on the roll.