S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 382; 2022 (1) SACR 88 (GJ) (26 March 2021)

S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 382; 2022 (1) SACR 88 (GJ) (26 March 2021)

The court found that the documents obtained under letters of request from Hong Kong, and identified in the affidavits of Messrs Gordon, Lintern-Smith, and Mercer, are admissible under s 5(2)(b) of the ICCMA as trade and business records of the entities from whom they were obtained. The accused were given sufficient opportunity to inspect and challenge the documents but elected not to do so, and their right to remain silent does not constitute prejudice in this context. The chain of evidence was satisfactorily demonstrated, and the documents are admitted as what they purport to be, without further proof, but not as to the truth of their contents at this stage. The accused retain the right...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 382
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Gary Patrick Porritt; Defendant: Susan Hilary Bennett
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Case Number
SS 40/2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Under S 5(2)(b) ICCMA
Outcome
Documents obtained under letters of request and identified in the affidavits are admitted into evidence as trade and business records of the entities from whom they were obtained, subject to the accused's right to challenge specific documents and without prejudice to the State relying on other grounds for...
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Documentary Evidence, International Cooperation in Criminal Matters Act, Hearsay Exception, Fair Trial Rights, Chain of Evidence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Documentary Evidence International Cooperation in Criminal Matters Act Hearsay Exception Fair Trial Rights Chain of Evidence

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Gary Patrick Porritt

Defendant

Susan Hilary Bennett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Under S 5(2)(b) ICCMA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents obtained via letters of request under s 2(2) of the ICCMA are admissible under s 5(2)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the accused were prejudiced by the admission of these documents without cross-examination of foreign deponents.
  3. 3 Whether the accused were given sufficient opportunity to inspect and challenge the documents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the documents obtained under letters of request from Hong Kong, and identified in the affidavits of Messrs Gordon, Lintern-Smith, and Mercer, are admissible under s 5(2)(b) of the ICCMA as trade and business records of the entities from whom they were obtained. The accused were given sufficient opportunity to inspect and challenge the documents but elected not to do so, and their right to remain silent does not constitute prejudice in this context. The chain of evidence was satisfactorily demonstrated, and the documents are admitted as what they purport to be, without further proof, but not as to the truth of their contents at this stage. The accused retain the right...

Court Disposition

Documents obtained under letters of request and identified in the affidavits are admitted into evidence as trade and business records of the entities from whom they were obtained, subject to the accused's right to challenge specific documents and without prejudice to the State relying on other grounds for...

Orders

  • The documents obtained by letter of request and identified in the affidavits of Messrs Gordon, Lintern-Smith, and Mercer are admissible under s 5(2)(b) of the ICCMA as trade and business records of the entities from whom they were obtained in Hong Kong, only to the extent that they are what they purport to be...
  • Admission is subject to the accused's entitlement to challenge the admissibility or genuineness of any such document if the State refers any witness to its contents.