Shezi and Another v S (AR 437/2008) [2009] ZAKZPHC 5 (12 March 2009)

Shezi and Another v S (AR 437/2008) [2009] ZAKZPHC 5 (12 March 2009)

The statement made by the first appellant to Inspector Wolfaard constituted a confession, but it was inadmissible under section 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it was not confirmed and reduced to writing before a magistrate or justice. The magistrate erred in admitting the confession, but this irregularity did not result in a failure of justice because the admissible evidence, unaffected by the confession, formed a complete and conclusive mosaic establishing the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances and reckless driving were justified on the admissible evidence. The sentences imposed were appropriate, taking into...

Citation
[2009] ZAKZPHC 5
Parties
Appellant: Mlungisi Shezi; Appellant: Vusi Petros Jila; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2009
Case Number
AR 437/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal against conviction and sentence by both appellants is refused.
Judges
Gorven, Marnewick
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Minimum Sentencing, Criminal Procedure Act, Failure of Justice, Reckless Driving
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Minimum Sentencing Criminal Procedure Act Failure of Justice Reckless Driving

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mlungisi Shezi

Appellant

Vusi Petros Jila

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by the first appellant to the police amounted to a confession.
  2. 2 Whether the confession was admissible in evidence under section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the irregular admission of the confession resulted in a failure of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The statement made by the first appellant to Inspector Wolfaard constituted a confession, but it was inadmissible under section 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it was not confirmed and reduced to writing before a magistrate or justice. The magistrate erred in admitting the confession, but this irregularity did not result in a failure of justice because the admissible evidence, unaffected by the confession, formed a complete and conclusive mosaic establishing the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances and reckless driving were justified on the admissible evidence. The sentences imposed were appropriate, taking into...

Court Disposition

The appeal against conviction and sentence by both appellants is refused.

Orders

  • The appeal of each appellant against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.