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
S v Zikhali (Second Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1851 (4 August 2023)
The High Court held that the State failed to prove a confession by the accused was freely and voluntarily made, so it was ruled inadmissible.
S v Maduane (CC82/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 156 (15 March 2021)
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the disappearance of Florah Mahlo, witness testimony regarding screams and suspicious conduct by the accused, and the accused's possession of the deceased's cell phone, pointed to the accused as the perpetrator of the murder. The confession made by the accused to his sister, friend, and the deceased's mother was admitted as evidence, as it was made freely and voluntarily, prompted by the accused's troubled conscience and not as a result of coercion, intoxication, or police influence. The presence of a police officer did not prejudice…
Source excerpt
Blysma v S (CC 56/2018) [2021] ZANWHC 10 (18 February 2021)
The court found that the applicant's statements to Colonel Coglin and Colonel Lange were properly admitted after a trial-within-a-trial, and that reasons for admission were appropriately provided in the main judgment. The applicant was not prejudiced or caught unaware, and his rights to a fair trial and legal representation were not infringed, as he made an informed decision to waive legal representation. The decision not to call the truck driver as a witness was a collective and informed choice by the applicant and his legal team, and there was no indication that the witness was essential to…
Source excerpt
Langa and Others v S (A968/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 45 (10 February 2017)
The appeal succeeded because the trial court failed to follow the correct procedures for admitting the appellants' statements as evidence. The court did not conduct proper trials-within-a-trial despite allegations of assault, coercion, and procedural irregularities. The prosecution and the trial court displayed uncertainty regarding the nature and admissibility of the statements, and failed to ensure that the appellants' constitutional rights to a fair trial were protected. The convictions and sentences, which were based solely on the disputed statements, could not stand in light of these fai…
Source excerpt
Smith v S (CAF 10/13) [2013] ZANWHC 84 (11 December 2013)
Appeal upheld where the State failed to prove a confession was made by the appellant. With no independent evidence, the convictions and sentences were set aside.
Makhokha v S (258/13) [2013] ZASCA 171 (28 November 2013)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a confession admitted contrary to s 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act rendered the trial irregular and set aside the convictions.
S v Moloi and Others (22/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 14 (3 November 2005)
The court found that the State had discharged its onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements made by accused 2 and accused 4 were made freely and voluntarily, without undue influence, and in their sound and sober senses. The evidence of the State witnesses was credible and corroborated in all material respects, while the accuseds' versions were inconsistent, improbable, and lacked credibility. The court further held that the magistrate's recording of the confession by accused 2 was not hearsay, as the magistrate understood the language spoken by the accused, and the absence of…
Source excerpt
S v Molangeni (312/2001) [2001] ZANCHC 14 (22 June 2001)
The court found that the accused's statement, in the context of the surrounding circumstances—namely, the discovery of a substantial quantity of dagga, the lack of ownership claimed by other passengers, and the accused's absence of luggage—amounted to a confession rather than a mere admission. As the confession was made to a peace officer and did not comply with the requirements of section 217(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it was inadmissible as evidence. The conviction, which was based solely on this inadmissible confession, was therefore unsound in law and could not stand.
Source excerpt
S v Kannemeyer and Another (SS50/99) [1999] ZAWCHC 3 (8 July 1999)
The court held it must first decide whether an accused’s statement is a confession or an admission before any further admissibility inquiry, and sat without assessors.
S v Hendricks en Andere (264/90) [1992] ZASCA 14 (6 March 1992)
The court set aside the third appellant’s conviction after finding his confession inadmissible and the identification evidence unreliable. The other two appeals were dismissed.
Explore more
