S v Moloi and Others (22/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 14 (3 November 2005)

S v Moloi and Others (22/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 14 (3 November 2005)

The court found that the State had discharged its onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements made by accused 2 and accused 4 were made freely and voluntarily, without undue influence, and in their sound and sober senses. The evidence of the State witnesses was credible and corroborated in all material respects, while the accuseds' versions were inconsistent, improbable, and lacked credibility. The court further held that the magistrate's recording of the confession by accused 2 was not hearsay, as the magistrate understood the language spoken by the accused, and the absence of the interpreter's testimony did not render the confession inadmissible. The legal principles from...

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 14
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Thabiso Johannes Moloi; Respondent: Thulani Moses Moloi; Respondent: Sias Herrie Moloi; Respondent: Oupa William Moloi
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2005
Case Number
22/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Trial Within a Trial on Admissibility of Confessions
Outcome
The confessions of accused 2 and accused 4 were ruled admissible as evidence.
Judges
H.M. Musi
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Hearsay Evidence, Voluntariness of Statements, Criminal Procedure Act Section 217
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Hearsay Evidence Voluntariness of Statements Criminal Procedure Act Section 217

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Thabiso Johannes Moloi

Respondent

Thulani Moses Moloi

Respondent

Sias Herrie Moloi

Respondent

Oupa William Moloi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Trial / Trial Within a Trial on Admissibility of Confessions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confessions made by accused 2 and accused 4 were admissible as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without undue influence as required by section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's recording of the confession is hearsay and inadmissible if the interpreter is not called to testify.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State had discharged its onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements made by accused 2 and accused 4 were made freely and voluntarily, without undue influence, and in their sound and sober senses. The evidence of the State witnesses was credible and corroborated in all material respects, while the accuseds' versions were inconsistent, improbable, and lacked credibility. The court further held that the magistrate's recording of the confession by accused 2 was not hearsay, as the magistrate understood the language spoken by the accused, and the absence of the interpreter's testimony did not render the confession inadmissible. The legal principles from...

Court Disposition

The confessions of accused 2 and accused 4 were ruled admissible as evidence.

Orders

  • The statements made by accused 2 and accused 4 to the magistrates are admitted as evidence in the trial.
  • The trial is to proceed with the confessions forming part of the evidentiary record.