S v Gqoki and Others (CC14/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 63; 2025 (1) SACR 465 (ECM) (26 February 2020)

S v Gqoki and Others (CC14/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 63; 2025 (1) SACR 465 (ECM) (26 February 2020)

The court found that there was a reasonable possibility that all three accused had been assaulted by police in the manner described, resulting in their confessions and the pointing out not being made freely and voluntarily. Consequently, these statements were ruled inadmissible. The remaining evidence, consisting mainly of circumstantial accounts regarding the movement of accused 1's vehicle and historic conflict between accused 3 and the deceased, did not directly or sufficiently link any accused to the offences. Applying the cardinal rules for inference from circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that other reasonable inferences could not be excluded and that the accused must be...

Citation
[2020] ZAECMHC 63
Parties
Applicant: State; Defendant: Lawrence Gqoki; Defendant: David Zongezile Manqana; Defendant: Malibongwe Jange Msokolo
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Case Number
CC14/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Close of State Case; Section 174 Discharge Application
Outcome
All accused found not guilty and discharged on all counts at the close of the State case under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges
RWN Brooks
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Police Brutality, Minimum Sentence Legislation, Trial Within a Trial, Section 174 Discharge
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Police Brutality Minimum Sentence Legislation Trial Within a Trial Section 174 Discharge

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State

Applicant

Lawrence Gqoki

Defendant

David Zongezile Manqana

Defendant

Malibongwe Jange Msokolo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Close of State Case; Section 174 Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confessions and pointing out by the accused were made freely and voluntarily and are admissible as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence, excluding inadmissible confessions, to convict the accused on any of the charges.
  3. 3 Whether the accused are entitled to discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act at the close of the State case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a reasonable possibility that all three accused had been assaulted by police in the manner described, resulting in their confessions and the pointing out not being made freely and voluntarily. Consequently, these statements were ruled inadmissible. The remaining evidence, consisting mainly of circumstantial accounts regarding the movement of accused 1's vehicle and historic conflict between accused 3 and the deceased, did not directly or sufficiently link any accused to the offences. Applying the cardinal rules for inference from circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that other reasonable inferences could not be excluded and that the accused must be...

Court Disposition

All accused found not guilty and discharged on all counts at the close of the State case under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Accused 1 is found not guilty and discharged on Count 1 (murder), Count 2 (attempted murder), Count 3 (unlawful possession of a firearm), and Count 4 (unlawful possession of ammunition).
  • Accused 2 is found not guilty and discharged on all counts.