S.S v S (AR220/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 7 (1 March 2019)

S.S v S (AR220/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 7 (1 March 2019)

The magistrate's single question to the complainant regarding her knowledge of the difference between truth and lies was insufficient to establish her competency as a witness under section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that more was required to determine whether the complainant understood the importance of speaking the truth and the consequences of lying. Without such an inquiry, the complainant could not be properly admonished to speak the truth, rendering her evidence inadmissible. As her evidence formed the basis of the conviction, both the conviction and sentence could not stand and were set aside.

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 7
Parties
Appellant: S S; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2019
Case Number
AR220/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Competency of Child Witness, Admissibility of Evidence, Rape, Criminal Procedure Act Section 164
Criminal Law Competency of Child Witness Admissibility of Evidence Rape Criminal Procedure Act Section 164

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S S

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant was a competent witness under section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate properly established the complainant's understanding of truth and lies.
  3. 3 Whether the complainant's evidence was admissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's single question to the complainant regarding her knowledge of the difference between truth and lies was insufficient to establish her competency as a witness under section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that more was required to determine whether the complainant understood the importance of speaking the truth and the consequences of lying. Without such an inquiry, the complainant could not be properly admonished to speak the truth, rendering her evidence inadmissible. As her evidence formed the basis of the conviction, both the conviction and sentence could not stand and were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.