South Africa Case Law

Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Netshidzivhe and Others (HCAA 08/2024)

Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Netshidzivhe and Others (HCAA 08/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 20 (10 February 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA 08/2024

Judges

Pillay AJ, Mashamba AJ, Nkoana AJ

The court held that the requirements in paragraph 12 of the entrapment application form are not statutory requirements under section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act. Non-compliance with section 252A affects only the admissibility of evidence, which is a matter for the criminal trial court, not for review under PAJA. The decision to prosecute is specifically excluded from the definition of administrative action in PAJA and is only reviewable on grounds of legality and rationality, not under PAJA. The court a quo erred by usurping the powers of the criminal trial court and by granting orders…

Source excerpt

• Entrapment
• Review Of Prosecutorial Decisions
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 252a

Nkonsi v Minister of Police and Another (43325/2019)

Nkonsi v Minister of Police and Another (43325/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1485 (28 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43325/2019

Judge

Coertse

The court found that the plaintiff's arrest and detention were lawful, effected pursuant to a properly authorised entrapment operation under section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act, and based on a reasonable suspicion of corruption. The evidence established that marked money was found under the plaintiff's control in the official police vehicle, corroborating the allegations. The prosecution was instituted with reasonable and probable cause, and there was no evidence of malice on the part of the prosecuting authority. The plaintiff's discharge from the police service resulted from his own…

Source excerpt

• Wrongful Arrest
• Malicious Prosecution
• Entrapment
• Loss Of Earnings
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Balance Of Probabilities

August v S (962/2022)

August v S (962/2022) [2023] ZASCA 170 (4 December 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

962/2022

Judges

Molemela, Carelse, Matojane, Musi, Binns-Ward

The appellant failed to satisfy the requirements for condonation due to an inordinate delay and a grossly inadequate explanation for that delay. The prospects of success on appeal were found to be negligible, as the evidence obtained by entrapment was properly admitted: the appellant himself initiated the transaction and solicited payment, negating any claim of improper inducement. The lack of authorisation for the entrapment or electronic monitoring was not, on the facts, sufficient to exclude the evidence, as there was no flagrant violation of the law or unfairness to the appellant. The app…

Source excerpt

• Entrapment
• Exclusionary Rule
• Condonation
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Criminal Appeal Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights

Bilankulu and Another v S (188/2020)

Bilankulu and Another v S (188/2020) [2020] ZASCA 114 (29 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

188/2020

Judges

Petse, Makgoka, Nicholls, Eksteen, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the undercover operation did not go beyond providing an opportunity to commit the offences, and thus the evidence of Khosa was automatically admissible under s 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The late disclosure of cell phone records did not prejudice the appellants' right to a fair trial, as they were given sufficient time to study the records and no actual prejudice was demonstrated. The court found that the appellants had the requisite legal intent (dolus indeterminatus) for murder, as they must have foreseen the possibility of a shoot-out with ran…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Unlawful Hunting Of Rhinoceros
• Entrapment
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Dolus Eventualis
• Non Parole Period

Frank v S (AR100/18)

Frank v S (AR100/18) [2019] ZAKZPHC 31 (7 June 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR100/18

Judges

Poyo Dlwati, Bezuidenhout

The High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction and sentence in a drug-dealing appeal, holding that section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act had to be applied.

• Plea Procedure
• Entrapment
• Section 113 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 252a Criminal Procedure Act
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Criminal-procedure-act

Viljoen v S (663/2018)

Viljoen v S (663/2018) [2019] ZASCA 22 (27 March 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

663/2018

Judges

Navsa, Van Der Merwe, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the police trap did not exceed providing an opportunity to offend, so the diamond-sale evidence was admissible and the appeal failed.

• Trap Evidence
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Diamonds Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Entrapment
• Sentencing Principles

S v Khathutshelo and Another (38/2018, R D2/2016)

S v Khathutshelo and Another (38/2018, R D2/2016) [2018] ZALMPTHC 2; 2019 (1) SACR 480 (LT) (26 June 2018)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

38/2018, R D2/2016

Judges

Mangena, NF Kgomo

The High Court held that the special review application was not properly brought, as it was not initiated by the magistrate and lacked a substantive application supported by affidavit as required by the Uniform Rules. Even if the procedure had been correct, the court found no basis to interfere with the magistrate's exercise of discretion in refusing a trial-within-a-trial, as section 252A(7) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows the presiding officer to determine the procedure for admissibility of trap evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that intervention in uncompleted proceedings i…

Source excerpt

• Entrapment
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial
• Judicial Discretion
• Review Of Interlocutory Rulings

Myoli and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape and Others (593/2014)

Myoli and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape and Others (593/2014) [2015] ZAECBHC 33 (22 September 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

593/2014

Judge

Alkema

The court held that section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act does not infringe the right to a fair trial as protected by the Constitution. The section provides an exclusionary rule that ensures evidence obtained through traps or undercover operations is only admissible if it does not render the trial unfair or is not detrimental to the administration of justice. The tension between public interest in combating crime and the accused's constitutional rights is recognized and resolved through section 36, which allows for reasonable and justifiable limitations. The applicants failed to identify…

Source excerpt

• Entrapment
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusionary Rule
• Limitation Of Rights
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 252a

Davids v S (A145/2012)

Davids v S (A145/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 343 (30 October 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A145/2012

Judges

M J Dolamo, Y S Meer

The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence for corruption and drug-related offences, finding the trial court had misdirected itself on unsupported facts.

• Corruption By Public Officer
• Sentencing Principles
• Entrapment
• Drug Offences
• Sentencing-principles
• Corruption-by-public-officer

S v Viljoen (CA&R 110/11)

S v Viljoen (CA&R 110/11) [2012] ZANCHC 10 (4 May 2012)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 110/11

Judges

Lacock, R, Williams, R

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction for illicit diamond dealing, upheld the admissibility of undercover evidence, and reduced the direct imprisonment term.

• Entrapment
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Illicit Diamond Dealing
• Sentencing Principles
• Compensation Order
• Criminal-law