S v Kannemeyer and Another (SS50/99) [1999] ZAWCHC 3 (8 July 1999)

S v Kannemeyer and Another (SS50/99) [1999] ZAWCHC 3 (8 July 1999)

The court held that, in circumstances where the nature of a statement made by an accused to a peace officer is disputed—specifically, whether it is a confession or an admission—the correct procedure is for the court to first determine, sitting alone and without assessors, whether the statement constitutes a confession. If it is a confession, it is inadmissible under section 217(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act unless the statutory requirements are met. The court found that the authorities relied upon by the State were distinguishable, as they did not address the procedural question at issue. The court accepted the submissions of accused number 2's counsel, supported by direct...

Citation
[1999] ZAWCHC 3
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Giovanni Kannemeyer; Defendant: Ricardo van Vuuren
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 July 1999
Case Number
SS50/99
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Admissibility of Statement
Outcome
The court ruled that it must first determine whether the statement constitutes a confession before any further procedure is adopted.
Judges
Immerman
Legal Topics
Confession Admissibility, Criminal Procedure Act Section 217, Trial Within a Trial, Admission Vs Confession
Criminal Law Confession Admissibility Criminal Procedure Act Section 217 Trial Within a Trial Admission Vs 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Giovanni Kannemeyer

Defendant

Ricardo van Vuuren

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Ruling on Admissibility of Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by accused number 2 to Inspector Jonker constitutes a confession or an admission.
  2. 2 Whether the statement is admissible in evidence under section 217(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the correct procedure is to determine the nature of the statement before a trial-within-a-trial on voluntariness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in circumstances where the nature of a statement made by an accused to a peace officer is disputed—specifically, whether it is a confession or an admission—the correct procedure is for the court to first determine, sitting alone and without assessors, whether the statement constitutes a confession. If it is a confession, it is inadmissible under section 217(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act unless the statutory requirements are met. The court found that the authorities relied upon by the State were distinguishable, as they did not address the procedural question at issue. The court accepted the submissions of accused number 2's counsel, supported by direct...

Court Disposition

The court ruled that it must first determine whether the statement constitutes a confession before any further procedure is adopted.

Orders

  • The court will sit alone, without assessors, to determine whether the document constitutes a confession.
  • The request made on behalf of accused number 2 is granted.