S v Zakade and Others (129/96) [1996] ZASCA 129 (18 November 1996)

S v Zakade and Others (129/96) [1996] ZASCA 129 (18 November 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in admitting the confessions. The evidence showed that four of the appellants bore injuries consistent with assault at the time of their confessions, and the State failed to provide a credible explanation for these injuries or to exclude the reasonable possibility that they were inflicted to elicit confessions. The trial court misplaced the onus by requiring the appellants to prove a causal link between the assaults and the confessions, whereas it was for the State to prove voluntariness. The recorded admissions of voluntariness in the confession forms were not sufficiently reliable to overcome the reasonable doubt raised by the...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 129
Parties
Appellant: Harry Banneng Zakade; Appellant: Simon Siphiue Peter; Appellant: Nicolaas Kamqua; Appellant: Johannes Dabula; Appellant: Eric Mokoena; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 1996
Case Number
129/96
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Trial
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Nestadt, Howie, Scott
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Onus of Proof, Police Assault, Voluntariness of Statements
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Confessions Onus of Proof Police Assault Voluntariness of Statements

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Banneng Zakade

Appellant

Simon Siphiue Peter

Appellant

Nicolaas Kamqua

Appellant

Johannes Dabula

Appellant

Eric Mokoena

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written confessions by the appellants were properly admitted as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the State discharged its onus to prove the confessions were made voluntarily and without undue influence.
  3. 3 Whether injuries sustained by the appellants were causally linked to the making of the confessions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in admitting the confessions. The evidence showed that four of the appellants bore injuries consistent with assault at the time of their confessions, and the State failed to provide a credible explanation for these injuries or to exclude the reasonable possibility that they were inflicted to elicit confessions. The trial court misplaced the onus by requiring the appellants to prove a causal link between the assaults and the confessions, whereas it was for the State to prove voluntariness. The recorded admissions of voluntariness in the confession forms were not sufficiently reliable to overcome the reasonable doubt raised by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeals of all the appellants are allowed.
  • All their convictions and sentences are set aside.