S v Nomzaza (563/95) [1996] ZASCA 57; ; [1996] 3 All SA 57 (A); (29 May 1996)

S v Nomzaza (563/95) [1996] ZASCA 57; ; [1996] 3 All SA 57 (A); (29 May 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that evidence given by an accused at a bail application is admissible against him at his subsequent trial, provided it is otherwise admissible and relevant. The privilege against self-incrimination does not automatically exclude such evidence, especially where the accused is legally represented and voluntarily testifies. The trial court erred in excluding the bail application evidence on grounds of irrelevance and improper cross-examination, as the respondents themselves made their admissions relevant and the prosecutor was entitled to clarify the scope of their guilty pleas. The failure of the magistrate to inform the accused of the privilege against...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 57
Parties
Appellant: The State; Respondent: Tando Nomzaza; Respondent: Mthuthuzeli Mpande
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1996
Case Number
563/95
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal; Reserved Questions of Law Under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
All four reserved questions of law are answered in favour of the State, but no order for a retrial is made; the acquittal stands.
Judges
Botha, Van Heerden, Vivier, Marais, Zulman
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Bail Evidence, Self Incrimination Privilege, Relevance of Admissions, Criminal Procedure Act Section 235, Judicial Discretion on Retrial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Bail Evidence Self Incrimination Privilege Relevance of Admissions Criminal Procedure Act Section 235 Judicial Discretion on Retrial

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Appellant

Tando Nomzaza

Respondent

Mthuthuzeli Mpande

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal; Reserved Questions of Law Under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence given by an accused at a bail application is admissible against him at his subsequent trial.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court was correct in excluding the bail application evidence on grounds of irrelevance and improper cross-examination.
  3. 3 Whether the failure of the magistrate to inform the accused of the privilege against self-incrimination rendered the bail evidence inadmissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that evidence given by an accused at a bail application is admissible against him at his subsequent trial, provided it is otherwise admissible and relevant. The privilege against self-incrimination does not automatically exclude such evidence, especially where the accused is legally represented and voluntarily testifies. The trial court erred in excluding the bail application evidence on grounds of irrelevance and improper cross-examination, as the respondents themselves made their admissions relevant and the prosecutor was entitled to clarify the scope of their guilty pleas. The failure of the magistrate to inform the accused of the privilege against...

Court Disposition

All four reserved questions of law are answered in favour of the State, but no order for a retrial is made; the acquittal stands.

Orders

  • All four reserved questions of law are answered in favour of the State.
  • No order is made for a retrial; the acquittal of the respondents is not set aside.