South Africa Case Law

Hall v S (A173/21)

Hall v S (A173/21) [2021] ZAWCHC 231 (12 November 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A173/21

Judges

Goliath, Montzinger

The appeal court found that the evidence of Officer Botla regarding the time of blood draw was uncontested and supported by his pocketbook and affidavit, establishing that the blood was drawn within the statutory two-hour period. The inference that Dr Naidoo was a registered medical practitioner was justified by objective facts and not challenged by the appellant. The chain of custody was proven, as the seals were intact and no evidence of tampering was presented. The presumption under section 65(4) of the National Road Traffic Act applied, as there was no evidence of contamination. The secti…

Source excerpt

• Driving Under Influence
• Chain Of Custody
• Blood Alcohol Analysis
• Presumption Of Cleanliness
• Calibration Of Instruments

Eke v S (CA&R 163/14)

Eke v S (CA&R 163/14) [2015] ZAECGHC 16; 2016 (1) SACR 135 (ECG) (26 March 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 163/14

Judges

Plasket, Makaula, Lowe

The court held that a certificate issued under section 212(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which sets out the qualifications of the analyst, describes the process used, explains reliability, and provides the result, constitutes prima facie proof of both the blood alcohol concentration and the proper calibration of the gas chromatographs. Section 212(10) does not apply in the absence of ministerial prescription regarding gas chromatographs. The appellant's plea explanation, which merely placed the accuracy of the result in issue, did not amount to evidence and was insufficient to disturb the…

Source excerpt

• Blood Alcohol Analysis
• Certificate Evidence
• Calibration Of Instruments
• Prima Facie Proof
• Road Traffic Offences

Ross v S (A33/12)

Ross v S (A33/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 171; 2013 (1) SACR 77 (WCC) (25 September 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A33/12

Judges

Bozalek, Olivier

The High Court upheld an appeal against a drunk-driving conviction after finding the State had not properly proved calibration of the blood-testing instruments.

• Driving Under Influence
• Proof By Certificate
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Calibration Of Instruments
• Driving-under-influence
• Proof-by-certificate

De Villers Mouton v S (A449/10)

De Villers Mouton v S (A449/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 357 (1 January 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A449/10

Judges

Weinkove, Cleaver

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a drunk-driving conviction, holding that a section 212 blood-alcohol affidavit was admissible and sufficient prima facie proof.

• Driving Under Influence
• Admissibility Of Expert Evidence
• Prima Facie Proof
• Calibration Of Instruments
• Drunk-driving
• Criminal-appeal

Price v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co. Ltd (2052/2003)

Price v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co. Ltd (2052/2003) [2005] ZAECHC 36; 2005 (1) SACR 501 (SE); 2007 (4) SA 51 (SE) (6 September 2005)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

2052/2003

Judge

Sangoni

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus to prove that the plaintiff drove his vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, or while his blood alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit. The evidence regarding the calibration and operation of the Lion S-D2 breathalyser was insufficiently reliable and inadequately explained, casting doubt on the accuracy of the reading. The court held that the defendant was required to establish the plaintiff’s individual partition ratio for converting breath alcohol to blood alcohol, and had not done so. Th…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Exclusion Clause
• Burden Of Proof
• Breathalyser Evidence
• Partition Ratio
• Calibration Of Instruments