S v Sheehama (261/89) [1991] ZASCA 45; 1991 (2) SA 860 (AD); [1991] 2 All SA 235 (A) (28 March 1991)

S v Sheehama (261/89) [1991] ZASCA 45; 1991 (2) SA 860 (AD); [1991] 2 All SA 235 (A) (28 March 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's confessions and pointing out were not made freely and voluntarily, but were the result of sustained assault, threats, and psychological pressure by police and military personnel. The warnings given before the pointing out were grossly inadequate and misleading, as the interpreter distorted the content, creating the impression that the appellant was compelled to cooperate. The Court found that the State failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that the appellant's fear of further violence or death induced his cooperation. The Court rejected the prevailing precedent that evidence of pointing out is admissible even if obtained under...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 45
Parties
Appellant: Leonard Natange Sheehama; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 1991
Case Number
261/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal against convictions and sentences on the murder charges (counts 1 to 5) is upheld and those convictions and sentences are set aside. The appeal against convictions and sentences on the sabotage charges (counts 7 and 8) is dismissed.
Judges
Hoexter, EM Grosskopf, Steyn, FH Grosskopf, Goldstone
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Pointing Out Under Duress, Voluntariness of Statements, Evidence Exclusion, Safety and Security Legislation
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Pointing Out Under Duress Voluntariness of Statements Evidence Exclusion Safety and Security Legislation

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

Parties

Leonard Natange Sheehama

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's confessions and pointing out were admissible as evidence given allegations of duress and improper conduct.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's convictions for murder and sabotage were supported by admissible and reliable evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in accepting certain witness testimony and excluding others.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's confessions and pointing out were not made freely and voluntarily, but were the result of sustained assault, threats, and psychological pressure by police and military personnel. The warnings given before the pointing out were grossly inadequate and misleading, as the interpreter distorted the content, creating the impression that the appellant was compelled to cooperate. The Court found that the State failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that the appellant's fear of further violence or death induced his cooperation. The Court rejected the prevailing precedent that evidence of pointing out is admissible even if obtained under...

Court Disposition

The appeal against convictions and sentences on the murder charges (counts 1 to 5) is upheld and those convictions and sentences are set aside. The appeal against convictions and sentences on the sabotage charges (counts 7 and 8) is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal against convictions on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 succeeds; those convictions and sentences are set aside.
  • The appellant's appeal against convictions and sentences on counts 7 and 8 is dismissed; those convictions and sentences stand.