South Africa Case Law

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

S v Murphy and Others - Search and Seizure (CC27/2018)

S v Murphy and Others - Search and Seizure (CC27/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 184; 2024 (1) SACR 138 (WCC) (12 July 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC27/2018

Judge

D M Davis

The court held that the first and third searches were lawful under s 22(b) of the CPA, as the police had reasonable grounds to believe a warrant would be issued and delay would defeat the object of the search. The second search was unlawful because the consent obtained was not informed, amounting to a violation of the right to privacy, and the police officer showed ignorance and disregard for the law. The evidence from the second search was excluded as its admission would be detrimental to the administration of justice. The fourth search was unlawful because the officer who seized the drugs w…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Right To Privacy
• Warrantless Search
• Informed Consent
• Exclusionary Rule

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng, Pretoria v Molefe and Another (A280/2021)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng, Pretoria v Molefe and Another (A280/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 688 (5 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A280/2021

Judges

K Phahlamohlaka, PD Phahlane

The court held that the magistrate was correct in excluding the evidence obtained under a defective search warrant, as the police acted in bad faith and flagrantly disregarded the respondents' constitutional rights. The admission of such evidence would have rendered the trial unfair and been detrimental to the administration of justice, as required by section 35(5) of the Constitution. The magistrate properly interpreted and applied the judgment in S v Malherbe, which established that material seized under an invalid warrant is inadmissible. The appellant's arguments regarding alternative rem…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Constitutional Rights
• Exclusionary Rule
• Trial Fairness

S v Ndlovu and Others (CC90/2017)

S v Ndlovu and Others (CC90/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 123 (26 November 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CC90/2017

Judge

Pickering

Trial-within-a-trial on whether evidence from a warrantless search of chalet 8 at Makana Resort should be excluded in a rhino poaching prosecution.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Unlawful Search And Seizure
• Protected Species Poaching
• Derivative Real Evidence
• Constitutional Right To Privacy
• Exclusionary Rule

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

Magwaza v S (20169/2014)

Magwaza v S (20169/2014) [2015] ZASCA 36; [2015] 2 All SA 280 (SCA); 2016 (1) SACR 53 (SCA) (25 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20169/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Maya, Mhlantla, Zondi, Meyer

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant was not properly informed of his constitutional rights upon arrest, specifically the right to remain silent, the consequences of not remaining silent, and the right to legal representation at state expense. The evidence of the police officers regarding the warnings given was unclear and inadequate. The subsequent warning by Captain Eva occurred only after the appellant had already confessed, rendering it ineffective to cure the initial deficiency. The self-incriminating evidence obtained from the appellant was conscriptive and would not hav…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Right To Silence
• Self Incrimination
• Section 35 Constitution
• Exclusionary Rule