S v Mangena and Another (2012 (2) SACR 170 (GSJ)) [2011] ZAGPJHC 255; [2011] ZAGPJHC 8 (28 February 2011)

S v Mangena and Another (2012 (2) SACR 170 (GSJ)) [2011] ZAGPJHC 255; [2011] ZAGPJHC 8 (28 February 2011)

The court found that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the written statement made by accused no. 1 was voluntarily made. The evidence showed that accused no. 1 was assaulted and threatened prior to making the statement, and the police failed to account for significant periods during which the accused was in their custody. The court rejected the State's explanation for the time discrepancies and found the accused's version credible, supported by physical evidence of injury and inconsistencies in police testimony. The court further held that, under common law and section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act, an extra-curial admission by one accused after arrest is...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 255
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Mangena, Bongani Laurence; Defendant: Lambane, Hannies Mashamba
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2011
Case Number
32/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Trial Within a Trial; Admissibility of Extra Curial Statement
Outcome
The written statement made by accused no. 1 was ruled inadmissible as evidence against both accused.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Voluntariness of Admissions, Constitutional Rights of Accused, Common Purpose Liability, Hearsay Exception, Trial Within a Trial
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Voluntariness of Admissions Constitutional Rights of Accused Common Purpose Liability Hearsay Exception Trial Within a Trial

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mangena, Bongani Laurence

Defendant

Lambane, Hannies Mashamba

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Trial Within a Trial; Admissibility of Extra Curial Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written statement made by accused no. 1 was voluntarily made as required by section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged admission by accused no. 1 is admissible against accused no. 2 under common law or statutory exceptions.
  3. 3 Whether the procedures adopted in the trial within a trial were fair and respected the constitutional rights of both accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the written statement made by accused no. 1 was voluntarily made. The evidence showed that accused no. 1 was assaulted and threatened prior to making the statement, and the police failed to account for significant periods during which the accused was in their custody. The court rejected the State's explanation for the time discrepancies and found the accused's version credible, supported by physical evidence of injury and inconsistencies in police testimony. The court further held that, under common law and section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act, an extra-curial admission by one accused after arrest is...

Court Disposition

The written statement made by accused no. 1 was ruled inadmissible as evidence against both accused.

Orders

  • The extra-curial admission made by accused no. 1 after his arrest is excluded from evidence against accused no. 2.
  • The State is precluded from relying on the written statement of accused no. 1 as evidence in this trial.