South Africa Case Law

Vermaak v Magistrate Page and Another (45121/14)

Vermaak v Magistrate Page and Another (45121/14) [2018] ZAGPJHC 721 (14 June 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

45121/14

Judges

Windell, Vally

The court found that the magistrate did not commit any gross irregularity by rejecting the applicant's version in her section 220 statement where it contradicted the accepted evidence of the complainant and Shaun. Section 220 admissions do not bind the court to the accused's version if it is inconsistent with other evidence. During sentencing, the magistrate exercised proper discretion in refusing to revisit the merits, as the applicant had elected not to testify during trial and the court was bound by its factual findings. The alleged bias was unfounded, as the magistrate's comments were mis…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Criminal Proceedings
• Gross Irregularity
• Admissions In Criminal Trial
• Mitigation Of Sentence
• Bias Of Judicial Officer
• Attempted Murder

Rudman v Cooney NO and Others (CA 1404/08)

Rudman v Cooney NO and Others (CA 1404/08) [2010] ZAECGHC 130 (3 December 2010)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA 1404/08

Judges

E Revelas, JD Pickering

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any incompetence or breach of mandate by his former attorney, Prinsloo. Prinsloo's affidavit was admissible due to imputed waiver of privilege, as fairness required the court to consider his response to allegations of incompetence. The record showed that Prinsloo acted on the applicant's instructions, consulted adequately, and cross-examined witnesses appropriately. The admissions made during the trial were confirmed by the applicant and were not prejudicial, as they reflected facts already established by evidence. The applicant's complai…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
• Criminal Review
• Admissions In Criminal Trial

Thibane v S (A546/2006)

Thibane v S (A546/2006) [2008] ZAWCHC 294 (14 November 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A546/2006

Judges

Slabbert, Cleaver

The cumulative effect of the magistrate's misdirections and irregularities, including the improper restriction of cross-examination, misunderstanding of the scope of admissions, failure to ensure production of original witness statements, and inappropriate conduct during sentencing, resulted in a failure of justice and an unfair trial. The appellant's constitutional rights to a fair trial were infringed, and the conviction and sentence cannot stand. The appeal succeeds and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The Director of Public Prosecutions may prosecute the appellant de novo if so…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination
• Admissions In Criminal Trial
• Ballistics Evidence
• Attorney Client Privilege

S v Mathlare (389/99)

S v Mathlare (389/99) [2000] ZASCA 186 (29 September 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

389/99

Judges

Marais, Scott, Zulman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that defence cross-examination impliedly admitted the blood samples were properly linked to the appellant, complainant and child.

• Admissions In Criminal Trial
• Dna Evidence
• Cross Examination
• Informal Admissions
• Criminal-law
• Dna-evidence