S v Katoo (642/2002) [2004] ZASCA 109; [2006] 4 All SA 348 (SCA); 2005 (1) SACR 522 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

S v Katoo (642/2002) [2004] ZASCA 109; [2006] 4 All SA 348 (SCA); 2005 (1) SACR 522 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in excluding the complainant's evidence solely on the basis of her mental retardation. Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires both proof of mental illness or imbecility due to intoxication or drugs and deprivation of the proper use of reason. The psychologist's evidence did not establish mental illness or deprivation of reason, only limited mental capacity. The trial court failed to properly investigate the cause of the complainant's alleged incompetence and did not comply with the presumption of competence under section 192. The exclusion of her evidence was a serious irregularity, depriving the State of admissible...

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 109
Parties
Appellant: The State; Respondent: Nkululeko Sidney Katoo
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2004
Case Number
642/2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Acquittal; Application for Reservation of Question of Law
Outcome
The application for reservation of the question of law is granted. The reserved question is answered in the affirmative. The respondent may be retried on count 2 (rape/sexual intercourse with an imbecile).
Judges
Harms, Cameron, Mthiyane, Cloete, Jafta
Legal Topics
Competency of Witnesses, Mental Disability, Sexual Offences Act, Criminal Procedure Act, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Competency of Witnesses Mental Disability Sexual Offences Act Criminal Procedure Act Admissibility of Evidence

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Appellant

Nkululeko Sidney Katoo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Acquittal; Application for Reservation of Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court was correct in law in refusing the State an opportunity to present the evidence of the complainant on the charges preferred.
  2. 2 Whether section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 renders a mentally retarded complainant incompetent to testify.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 194 were properly investigated and satisfied by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in excluding the complainant's evidence solely on the basis of her mental retardation. Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires both proof of mental illness or imbecility due to intoxication or drugs and deprivation of the proper use of reason. The psychologist's evidence did not establish mental illness or deprivation of reason, only limited mental capacity. The trial court failed to properly investigate the cause of the complainant's alleged incompetence and did not comply with the presumption of competence under section 192. The exclusion of her evidence was a serious irregularity, depriving the State of admissible...

Court Disposition

The application for reservation of the question of law is granted. The reserved question is answered in the affirmative. The respondent may be retried on count 2 (rape/sexual intercourse with an imbecile).

Orders

  • The application for the reservation of the question of law is granted in terms of section 317(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  • The reserved question of law is answered in the affirmative.