S v Saeed and Another (65/2009) [2012] ZAFSHC 153 (17 August 2012)

S v Saeed and Another (65/2009) [2012] ZAFSHC 153 (17 August 2012)

The court held that the interests of justice justified the admission of the hearsay evidence provisionally allowed during the prosecution's case. The original declarants, whose statements formed the hearsay evidence, were either deceased or, in the case of Rehman Khan, absent due to intimidation and threats, with evidence suggesting the accused were responsible for his disappearance. The court found that the hearsay evidence was corroborated by objective facts, including the discovery of the victims' bodies and cellular data, and that the accused should not benefit from their own unlawful conduct in preventing witnesses from testifying. The court applied the statutory test under section...

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 153
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Shahid Ebrahim Saeed
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2012
Case Number
65/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Midway Ruling on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence After Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
Hearsay evidence provisionally admitted during the prosecution's case is finally admitted as evidence and allowed as part of the state case, subject to specified limitations.
Judges
Rampai
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Criminal Gang Activity, Murder, Kidnapping, Robbery
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Criminal Gang Activity Murder Kidnapping Robbery

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

Parties

The State

Applicant

Shahid Ebrahim Saeed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Midway Ruling on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence After Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay evidence provisionally admitted during the prosecution's case should be finally admitted as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice justify the admission of hearsay evidence under section 3(1)(c) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 45 of 1988.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of the original declarants, due to death or intimidation, provides sufficient grounds for admitting hearsay evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the interests of justice justified the admission of the hearsay evidence provisionally allowed during the prosecution's case. The original declarants, whose statements formed the hearsay evidence, were either deceased or, in the case of Rehman Khan, absent due to intimidation and threats, with evidence suggesting the accused were responsible for his disappearance. The court found that the hearsay evidence was corroborated by objective facts, including the discovery of the victims' bodies and cellular data, and that the accused should not benefit from their own unlawful conduct in preventing witnesses from testifying. The court applied the statutory test under section...

Court Disposition

Hearsay evidence provisionally admitted during the prosecution's case is finally admitted as evidence and allowed as part of the state case, subject to specified limitations.

Orders

  • The hearsay evidence given by Ms N Awan and Ms Z Saleem is received as admissible evidence and allowed as part of the state case.
  • The hearsay evidence given by W/O E Van Zyl, Capt F J Laux, and W/O L Steyn concerning statements made by Rehman Khan is received as admissible evidence and allowed as part of the state case.