S v More and Another (132/83) [1984] ZASCA 31 (28 March 1984)

S v More and Another (132/83) [1984] ZASCA 31 (28 March 1984)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the confession of accused No 1 did not sufficiently identify the deceased Aaron Mlambo as the victim, nor did it specify the dates or location of the crimes charged. The trial court did not proceed on the basis that the confession referred to the deceased, and there was no reliable admission by counsel or evidence to support such a connection. Regarding accused No 2, the court held that the State failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that her confession was induced by police assault, rendering it inadmissible. The requirements of section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Act were not satisfied, as there was no proof outside the confession of the...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 31
Parties
Appellant: J More; Appellant: D Mlambo; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 1984
Case Number
132/83
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Convictions and sentences of both accused set aside.
Judges
Rabie, Trengove, Nicholas, Smuts, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Confession Admissibility, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Attempted Murder, Murder With Extenuating Circumstances, Onus of Proof, Section 209 Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Confession Admissibility Conspiracy to Commit Murder Attempted Murder Murder With Extenuating Circumstances Onus of Proof Section 209 Criminal Procedure Act

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J More

Appellant

D Mlambo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confession of accused No 1 referred to the deceased Aaron Mlambo and could be relied upon for conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the confession of accused No 2 was made freely and voluntarily and was admissible in evidence.
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence, outside of the confessions, to connect the accused to the crimes charged.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the confession of accused No 1 did not sufficiently identify the deceased Aaron Mlambo as the victim, nor did it specify the dates or location of the crimes charged. The trial court did not proceed on the basis that the confession referred to the deceased, and there was no reliable admission by counsel or evidence to support such a connection. Regarding accused No 2, the court held that the State failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that her confession was induced by police assault, rendering it inadmissible. The requirements of section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Act were not satisfied, as there was no proof outside the confession of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Convictions and sentences of both accused set aside.

Orders

  • The convictions and sentences in respect of both accused are set aside.