South Africa Case Law

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24)

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24) [2025] ZAKZPHC 55 (12 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 247/24

Judges

Harrison, Radebe, P Bezuidenhout

The court found that the appellant's confession was inadmissible because the police were aware that he had legal representation and failed to allow him to consult with his attorney prior to making the statement. The evidence of the attorney, Mr Manzini, that he was to be present for any statement was never challenged or rejected. The conviction was based solely on the confession, and the absence of proper consultation constituted a material breach of the appellant's constitutional rights under section 35 of the Constitution. The admission of the confession rendered the trial unfair and was de…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Section 35 Constitution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial

Hlabathi v S (A120/2020)

Hlabathi v S (A120/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 260 (25 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A120/2020

Judges

KJ Mogale, B Neukircher

The High Court upheld an automatic criminal appeal, finding a material irregularity because the appellant was not warned of his section 35 rights and his confession was inadmissible.

• Right To Fair Trial
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Constitutional Rights On Arrest
• Unlawful Arrest
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Criminal-appeal

Nhlabathi v S (A525/2016)

Nhlabathi v S (A525/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 752 (17 December 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A525/2016

Judges

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, H.M. Msimang

The High Court upheld a murder appeal, holding that a confession was inadmissible after alleged police assault and threats, and that the remaining evidence was insufficient.

• Admissibility Of Confession
• Common Purpose Liability
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Murder
• Admissibility-of-confession

Beja and Another v S (17424/2011)

Beja and Another v S (17424/2011) [2016] ZAWCHC 195 (15 December 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17424/2011

Judges

Pillay, Boqwana

The court found that both appellants' warning statements and the First Appellant's pointing out were not proved to have been made freely and voluntarily. Multiple police witnesses observed injuries on the First Appellant prior to the pointing out and statement, yet failed to investigate the circumstances or possible influence of those injuries on the voluntariness of the statements. The First Appellant's version of assault was reasonably possibly true and should have been fully interrogated before admitting the evidence. In the case of the Second Appellant, although no injuries were observed,…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Voluntariness Of Statements
• Common Purpose
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Trial Within A Trial
• Exclusion Of Evidence

Ramyonyane and Another v S (AR253/15)

Ramyonyane and Another v S (AR253/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 56 (28 June 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR253/15

Judges

Kruger, Vahed, Hemraj

The appeal against murder and robbery convictions succeeded after the court found the confessions, pointing-out, and Section 204 evidence were coerced and inadmissible.

• Admissibility Of Confession
• Trial Within Trial
• Police Misconduct
• Section 204 Witness
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Admissibility-of-confession

S v Mini and Others (B325/2013)

S v Mini and Others (B325/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 49 (30 April 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

B325/2013

Judges

Le Grange, Rogers

The court found that the admissions and confessions made by accused Nos 1 to 4 were not proved to be voluntary beyond reasonable doubt, given the undisputed assaults by security officers and the lack of proper inquiry into the timing of those assaults relative to the statements. The evidence obtained through coercion, including derivative confessions and identifications, was inadmissible. At the close of the State's case, there was no admissible evidence against accused Nos 1, 3, and 5, and they should have been discharged. The convictions and sentences of these accused were set aside. The co…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Fruit Of The Poisoned Tree
• Voluntariness Of Statements
• Constitutional Rights
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Assault By Security Officers

Mashengoane v S (A102/2013)

Mashengoane v S (A102/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 422; 2014 (2) SACR 623 (GP) (21 May 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A102/2013

Judges

Makhoba, Raulinga, Kollapen

The court found that the statement made by the appellant to the magistrate was not proved to have been made freely and voluntarily. The appellant was assaulted and threatened with further assault if he refused to make the statement, and the magistrate recorded visible injuries but proceeded to take the statement. The magistrate did not testify in either the trial within a trial or the main trial. The statement was the only evidence implicating the appellant, and its admission was not carefully and consciously considered by the trial court. The court held that admitting such evidence would ren…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Silence
• Unlawful Coercion
• Fair Trial Rights
• Burden Of Proof
• Exclusion Of Evidence

S v Mokwena and Another (CA & R 220/03)

S v Mokwena and Another (CA & R 220/03) [2004] ZANCHC 77 (15 September 2004)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 220/03

Judges

KGOMO, MAJIEDT

The court found that the confessions and indications made to Captain Koorzen were inadmissible because the constitutional and statutory requirements for admissibility were not met. The appellants were not properly informed of the consequences of waiving their right to silence, and there was no evidence that the confessions were made freely and voluntarily. Furthermore, the magistrate failed to hold a trial-within-a-trial to determine admissibility, which was a material irregularity. The remaining evidence, consisting mainly of the testimony of a single witness, was insufficient to sustain the…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Criminal Procedure
• Exclusion Of Evidence