S v Murphy and Others - Reasons for Reconsideration of Previous Ruling (CC27/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 185; 2023 (2) SACR 341 (WCC) (12 July 2023)

S v Murphy and Others - Reasons for Reconsideration of Previous Ruling (CC27/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 185; 2023 (2) SACR 341 (WCC) (12 July 2023)

The court held that the statutory prohibitions in sections 219 and 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act apply broadly to extra-curial confessions and admissions, regardless of whether the maker is a co-accused or an accomplice who becomes a State witness under section 204. The Law of Evidence Amendment Act does not override these prohibitions, as section 3(2) expressly prevents hearsay evidence from being admitted if another law renders it inadmissible. The Constitutional Court in Mhlongo and subsequent cases authoritatively restored the common law position that extra-curial statements by an accused, whether admissions or confessions, are inadmissible against co-accused or any other person...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 185
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Fadwaan Murphy; Respondent: Shafieka Murphy; Respondent: Glenda Bird; Respondent: Dominic Davidson; Respondent: Leon Paulsen; Respondent: Ulterior Trading Solutions CC (represented by Fadwaan Murphy); Respondent: Desmond Donovan Jacobs
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 July 2023
Case Number
CC27/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Ruling / Reconsideration of Interlocutory Hearsay Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
The previous ruling admitting Wenn's section 204 statement as hearsay evidence is set aside. The statement is inadmissible against the accused by virtue of sections 219 and 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges
D Davis
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Hearsay Evidence, Criminal Procedure Act Section 219, Hostile Witness, Section 204 State Witness, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Hearsay Evidence Criminal Procedure Act Section 219 Hostile Witness Section 204 State Witness 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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Fadwaan Murphy

Respondent

Shafieka Murphy

Respondent

Glenda Bird

Respondent

Dominic Davidson

Respondent

Leon Paulsen

Respondent

Ulterior Trading Solutions CC (represented by Fadwaan Murphy)

Respondent

Desmond Donovan Jacobs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Ruling / Reconsideration of Interlocutory Hearsay Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a written statement made by an accused who becomes a section 204 State witness and recants at trial can be admitted as hearsay under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.
  2. 2 Whether section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act precludes the admission of such a statement if it amounts to a confession.
  3. 3 Whether the distinction between statements by co-accused and accomplice witnesses affects admissibility under the CPA and Hearsay Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statutory prohibitions in sections 219 and 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act apply broadly to extra-curial confessions and admissions, regardless of whether the maker is a co-accused or an accomplice who becomes a State witness under section 204. The Law of Evidence Amendment Act does not override these prohibitions, as section 3(2) expressly prevents hearsay evidence from being admitted if another law renders it inadmissible. The Constitutional Court in Mhlongo and subsequent cases authoritatively restored the common law position that extra-curial statements by an accused, whether admissions or confessions, are inadmissible against co-accused or any other person...

Court Disposition

The previous ruling admitting Wenn's section 204 statement as hearsay evidence is set aside. The statement is inadmissible against the accused by virtue of sections 219 and 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Orders

  • The ruling made on 4 November 2019 admitting Wenn's section 204 statement as proof of the contents thereof in terms of section 3(1)(c) of the Hearsay Act is set aside.
  • Wenn's section 204 statement is inadmissible against the accused by virtue of the provisions of section 219 and section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.