S v Ntantiso and Others (CC04/2015) [2017] ZAECMHC 43 (23 August 2017)

S v Ntantiso and Others (CC04/2015) [2017] ZAECMHC 43 (23 August 2017)

The court found that the statements and pointing-outs made by all three accused were obtained in circumstances where there was a reasonable possibility of undue influence and violation of constitutional rights. The evidence established that the accused were subjected to promises of release, physical violence, and intimidation during pretrial investigations. The magistrate failed to ensure that accused No 1's confession was made freely and voluntarily, particularly after the accused requested legal representation and was promised bail in exchange for a statement. The evidence against accused No 2 and No 3 revealed similar patterns of coercion, including suffocation and assault. The court...

Citation
[2017] ZAECMHC 43
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Wandile Ntantiso; Respondent: Accused No 2; Respondent: Accused No 3
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2017
Case Number
CC04/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application at Close of State Case
Outcome
Applications for discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act were granted for all accused on all counts except count 3 against accused No 1. Accused No 1's application for discharge on count 3 was dismissed; he must answer the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.
Judges
RWN Brooks
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Bill of Rights Violation, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Section 174 Discharge, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Admissibility of Confessions Bill of Rights Violation Unlawful Possession of Firearm Section 174 Discharge 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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Wandile Ntantiso

Respondent

Accused No 2

Respondent

Accused No 3

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application at Close of State Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements and pointing-outs made by the accused were admissible as evidence, having regard to alleged violations of constitutional rights.
  2. 2 Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain convictions on any of the charges at the close of its case.
  3. 3 Whether the accused are entitled to discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements and pointing-outs made by all three accused were obtained in circumstances where there was a reasonable possibility of undue influence and violation of constitutional rights. The evidence established that the accused were subjected to promises of release, physical violence, and intimidation during pretrial investigations. The magistrate failed to ensure that accused No 1's confession was made freely and voluntarily, particularly after the accused requested legal representation and was promised bail in exchange for a statement. The evidence against accused No 2 and No 3 revealed similar patterns of coercion, including suffocation and assault. The court...

Court Disposition

Applications for discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act were granted for all accused on all counts except count 3 against accused No 1. Accused No 1's application for discharge on count 3 was dismissed; he must answer the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

Orders

  • Accused No 1 is found not guilty and discharged on counts 1, 2, 4, and 5.
  • Accused No 1's application for discharge on count 3 (unlawful possession of a firearm) is dismissed.