South Africa Case Law

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 241; 2024 (2) SACR 157 (WCC) (14 September 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court held that the recent amendments to section 170A of the Criminal Procedure Act significantly broadened the categories of witnesses eligible for intermediary assistance, extending protection beyond children to adults suffering from psychological, mental, or emotional conditions, regardless of age. The court found that both witnesses, although now adults, suffered from PTSD and psychological trauma as a result of witnessing the crimes as minors. Expert evidence established that one witness had a diminished mental age and the other was mildly intellectually impaired. The court determine…

Source excerpt

• Child Witness Protection
• Intermediary Appointment
• Closed Court Proceedings
• Constitutional Rights Of Witnesses
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 170a
• Ongoing Protection For Child Witnesses

Mabalane v S (CA41/19)

Mabalane v S (CA41/19) [2023] ZANWHC 97 (15 June 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA41/19

Judges

Petersen, Reddy

Appeal partly succeeded after the court found procedural non-compliance with intermediary rules and unreliable identification evidence on count 2.

• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Child Witness Protection
• Intermediary Appointment
• Identification Evidence
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Firearms Control Act

Masuku v S (A261/16)

Masuku v S (A261/16) [2018] ZAGPJHC 488; 2019 (1) SACR 276 (GJ) (6 September 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A261/16

Judges

Vally, Van der Linde, Keightley

The appellate court found that the evidence of BK, SK, and the medical expert was clear, consistent, and credible, establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant raped BK. The appellant's version was rejected as a manufactured falsehood, unsupported by any credible evidence or motive for false accusation. The trial court's approach to cross-examination of child witnesses was criticised for failing to protect their dignity and wellbeing, but this did not affect the reliability of their evidence. On sentence, the court held that the trial court misdirected itself by trivialising the se…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minor
• Minimum Sentencing
• Child Witness Protection
• Cross Examination Ethics
• Constitutional Rights Of Children

Sibeko v S (A39/2011)

Sibeko v S (A39/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 667 (1 September 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A39/2011

Judges

Modiba, Bertelsmann

The court found that the complainant, a 14-year-old girl, did not consent to sexual intercourse with the appellant, who was 30 years old at the time. The medical evidence corroborated that the complainant suffered grievous bodily harm and was sexually penetrated for the first time. The appellant's version was rejected as not reasonably possibly true, particularly given his change of story regarding the assault. The contradictions in the complainant's statements were considered minor and attributable to her age and the time lapse between the incident and her testimony. The court held that the…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of A Minor
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Minimum Sentencing
• Child Witness Protection
• Register Of Sexual Offenders

Nedzamba v S (911/2012)

Nedzamba v S (911/2012) [2013] ZASCA 69; 2013 (2) SACR 333 (SCA) (27 May 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

911/2012

Judges

NAVSA, BRAND, TSHIQI, PETSE, ZONDI

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the omission of reference to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 in the indictment did not invalidate the conviction, as the crime of rape was preserved and the appellant was not prejudiced. However, the trial was fundamentally flawed due to a series of irregularities: the trial judge's unjustified interventions, leading questions by the prosecutor on critical elements, failure to ensure the child witness understood the oath, and improper restriction of cross-examination. These irregularities, individually and c…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Child Witness Protection
• Fair Trial Rights
• Charge Sheet Amendment

S v S.I.N (A1029/11, PSH 122/11)

S v S.I.N (A1029/11, PSH 122/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 217; 2012 (2) SACR 317 (GNP) (14 December 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A1029/11, PSH 122/11

Judges

S P Mothle, M F Legodi

High Court review on whether an unqualified intermediary used for child witnesses invalidated criminal proceedings under section 170A of the CPA.

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 170a
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Intermediary Qualification
• Child Witness Protection
• Criminal-procedure
• Child-witnesses