S v Ramalope (690/93) [1995] ZASCA 37; [1995] 4 All SA 116 (A) (29 March 1995)

S v Ramalope (690/93) [1995] ZASCA 37; [1995] 4 All SA 116 (A) (29 March 1995)

The trial magistrate's refusal to allow re-examination of the appellant on matters raised during cross-examination was a procedural irregularity contrary to section 166(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. While the refusal to allow re-examination on the issue of police assault did not result in a failure of justice, as it was irrelevant to the appellant's guilt and was admitted by the State, the refusal to allow re-examination on the issue of identification in relation to the theft charge (count 2) was prejudicial. The identification evidence was the only link between the appellant and the theft, and the denial of re-examination deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to challenge this...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 37
Parties
Appellant: Kenneth Ramalope; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1995
Case Number
690/93
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal against the conviction on count 1 (armed robbery) is dismissed. The appeal against the conviction on count 2 (theft) is allowed; the conviction and sentence on count 2 are set aside.
Judges
Nestadt, Steyn, Olivier
Legal Topics
Right to Reexamination, Criminal Procedure Act Section 166, Failure of Justice, Prejudicial Irregularity
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Right to Reexamination Criminal Procedure Act Section 166 Failure of Justice Prejudicial Irregularity

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Ramalope

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate's refusal to allow re-examination of the appellant amounted to an irregularity.
  2. 2 What are the legal consequences of such an irregularity under section 166(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the irregularity resulted in a failure of justice warranting the setting aside of the conviction and sentence on count 2.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial magistrate's refusal to allow re-examination of the appellant on matters raised during cross-examination was a procedural irregularity contrary to section 166(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. While the refusal to allow re-examination on the issue of police assault did not result in a failure of justice, as it was irrelevant to the appellant's guilt and was admitted by the State, the refusal to allow re-examination on the issue of identification in relation to the theft charge (count 2) was prejudicial. The identification evidence was the only link between the appellant and the theft, and the denial of re-examination deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to challenge this...

Court Disposition

The appeal against the conviction on count 1 (armed robbery) is dismissed. The appeal against the conviction on count 2 (theft) is allowed; the conviction and sentence on count 2 are set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction on count 1 is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the conviction on count 2 is allowed.