S v Sampson and Another (342/87) [1989] ZASCA 49; [1989] 4 All SA 699 (AD) (31 March 1989)

S v Sampson and Another (342/87) [1989] ZASCA 49; [1989] 4 All SA 699 (AD) (31 March 1989)

The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that their confessions were improperly obtained. The evidence did not establish that the police used prohibited confrontation methods or undue influence as described in Judges' Rule 10. The allegations of assault and coercion were not substantiated by medical or witness evidence. The Regional Magistrate and the Transvaal Provincial Division correctly evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities, and there was no error in admitting the confessions. The confessions, together with other evidence, established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 49
Parties
Appellant: Johnny Sampson; Appellant: Raymond Farred; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1989
Case Number
342/87
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
Judges
Milne, Hoexter, Botha
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Onus of Proof, Judges Rules, Police Interrogation Methods
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Onus of Proof Judges Rules Police Interrogation Methods

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnny Sampson

Appellant

Raymond Farred

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confessions made by the appellants were properly admitted as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants discharged the onus of proving that their confessions were not made freely and voluntarily.
  3. 3 Whether improper police interrogation methods rendered the confessions inadmissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that their confessions were improperly obtained. The evidence did not establish that the police used prohibited confrontation methods or undue influence as described in Judges' Rule 10. The allegations of assault and coercion were not substantiated by medical or witness evidence. The Regional Magistrate and the Transvaal Provincial Division correctly evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities, and there was no error in admitting the confessions. The confessions, together with other evidence, established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.

Orders

  • The appeals of both appellants are dismissed.