S v Viviers (345/86) [1987] ZASCA 139 (26 November 1987)

S v Viviers (345/86) [1987] ZASCA 139 (26 November 1987)

The court held that the cross-examination regarding the appellant's prior payment of an admission of guilt fine did not amount to a material irregularity, as the magistrate explicitly stated that he did not take this aspect into account when determining guilt. Furthermore, any privileged communication between the appellant and his attorney was disclosed voluntarily by the appellant during re-examination, amounting to a waiver of privilege. On the merits, the court found the complainants' evidence to be coherent and supported by medical testimony, while the appellant's version was unconvincing and improbable. The court was satisfied that the conviction was justified and that no grounds...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 139
Parties
Appellant: Johan Viviers; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1987
Case Number
345/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Grosskopf, Jacobs, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Admissibility of Evidence, Privilege of Legal Communications, Cross Examination Irregularity
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Admissibility of Evidence Privilege of Legal Communications Cross Examination 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Viviers

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cross-examination regarding the payment of an admission of guilt fine constituted an irregularity warranting the setting aside of the conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's privilege in legal communications with his attorney was violated.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported the conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the cross-examination regarding the appellant's prior payment of an admission of guilt fine did not amount to a material irregularity, as the magistrate explicitly stated that he did not take this aspect into account when determining guilt. Furthermore, any privileged communication between the appellant and his attorney was disclosed voluntarily by the appellant during re-examination, amounting to a waiver of privilege. On the merits, the court found the complainants' evidence to be coherent and supported by medical testimony, while the appellant's version was unconvincing and improbable. The court was satisfied that the conviction was justified and that no grounds...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.