S v Shezi (72/85) [1985] ZASCA 55; [1985] 2 All SA 423 (A) (30 May 1985)

S v Shezi (72/85) [1985] ZASCA 55; [1985] 2 All SA 423 (A) (30 May 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the demonstration given by the appellant was not an admission by conduct requiring proof of voluntariness for admissibility. Instead, it was evidence of an act revealing the appellant's knowledge of explosives, from which an inference of guilt could be drawn. The Court found no real difference in principle between evidence of a pointing out and a demonstration. Such evidence is admitted to show knowledge, not as an extra-curial admission. The authorities cited, including R v Samhando and S v Tsotsobe, support the admissibility of such evidence without the need for proof of voluntariness, unless specifically required by statute. The appeal was...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 55
Parties
Appellant: Nthokozisi Nobleman Shezi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1985
Case Number
72/85
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Trengove, Viljoen, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Admission by Conduct, Pointing Out, Internal Security Act, Criminal Procedure, Voluntariness of Admissions
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Admission by Conduct Pointing Out Internal Security Act Criminal Procedure Voluntariness of Admissions

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nthokozisi Nobleman Shezi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the demonstration by the appellant constituted an admission by conduct requiring proof of voluntariness before admissibility.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of the demonstration was properly admitted without proof that it was freely and voluntarily given.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the demonstration given by the appellant was not an admission by conduct requiring proof of voluntariness for admissibility. Instead, it was evidence of an act revealing the appellant's knowledge of explosives, from which an inference of guilt could be drawn. The Court found no real difference in principle between evidence of a pointing out and a demonstration. Such evidence is admitted to show knowledge, not as an extra-curial admission. The authorities cited, including R v Samhando and S v Tsotsobe, support the admissibility of such evidence without the need for proof of voluntariness, unless specifically required by statute. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.