Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ngxabazi v S - Appeal (CA&R 188/19) [2023] ZAECMKHC 124 (7 November 2023)
The High Court upheld an appeal against rape conviction and life sentence after finding the child witnesses were not properly assessed for oath competency.
Ramontja v S (CAF04/2005) [2020] ZANWHC 10; 2020 (1) SACR 556 (NWM) (13 February 2020)
The court found that the trial court failed to properly appoint and swear in an intermediary for the child complainants as required by section 170A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The record did not reflect the intermediary's name, qualifications, or an oath or affirmation, nor did it show that the intermediary undertook to convey the general purport of questions to the witnesses. This failure constituted a material irregularity, rendering the proceedings a nullity. As a result, the evidence of the complainants was not properly before the court and could not be relied upon. The remaining evide…
Source excerpt
Van Der Bank v S (A498/2008) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1017 (19 December 2014)
The court held that the appointment of an intermediary for the complainant, who was over 18 but had a mental age of approximately eight years, was justified to protect her from undue mental stress. The interpretation of section 170A(1) must be generous and consistent with constitutional values and international law, prioritizing the rights of vulnerable witnesses. Expert evidence established that the complainant was mentally disabled and incapable of giving informed consent, and the appellant was aware of her condition. The trial court's acceptance of the complainant's evidence was reasonable…
Source excerpt
AG v S (A534/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 784 (18 August 2014)
The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in appointing an intermediary for the fourteen-year-old complainant, given the traumatic nature of the charges and the risk of undue mental stress. The court found that the trial court did not improperly refuse cross-examination regarding previous sexual experience, as such evidence was inadmissible under section 227(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and no application was made to admit it. The previous consistent statements made by the complainant were admissible and relevant to rebut fabrication, and the trial court correc…
Source excerpt
S v Coetzee (A90/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 572 (11 February 2010)
High Court review on whether a formal state application was needed to appoint an intermediary for a 7-year-old complainant in a sexual offence case.
Explore more
