S v M (397/2001) [2002] ZASCA 75; [2002] 3 All SA 599 (A); 2003 (1) SA 341 (SCA); 2002 (2) SACR 411 (SCA) (31 May 2002)

S v M (397/2001) [2002] ZASCA 75; [2002] 3 All SA 599 (A); 2003 (1) SA 341 (SCA); 2002 (2) SACR 411 (SCA) (31 May 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the remittal for further evidence was improperly granted, as the proposed evidence from Ngema and Khumbuza was irrelevant to the central issue of the appellant's identity as the perpetrator. The evidence of Ngema regarding the complainant's sexual history was inadmissible under s 227(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as it lacked relevance and served only to attack her credibility. The conduct of the investigating officer in intimidating Ngema was a serious irregularity, but did not result in a failure of justice because Ngema's evidence was inherently unreliable and did not assist the appellant's case. The admission of the letter sent by the...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 75
Parties
Appellant: J.M.; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2002
Case Number
397/2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Harms, Brand, Heher
Legal Topics
Rape, Admissibility of Evidence, Recall of Witness, Cross Examination, Sexual History Evidence, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Rape Admissibility of Evidence Recall of Witness Cross Examination Sexual History Evidence Fair Trial Rights

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 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.M.

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the remittal for further evidence was properly considered and justified.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in refusing to recall the complainant for further cross-examination.
  3. 3 Whether the admission of evidence regarding the complainant's sexual history was permissible under s 227(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the remittal for further evidence was improperly granted, as the proposed evidence from Ngema and Khumbuza was irrelevant to the central issue of the appellant's identity as the perpetrator. The evidence of Ngema regarding the complainant's sexual history was inadmissible under s 227(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as it lacked relevance and served only to attack her credibility. The conduct of the investigating officer in intimidating Ngema was a serious irregularity, but did not result in a failure of justice because Ngema's evidence was inherently unreliable and did not assist the appellant's case. The admission of the letter sent by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.