South Africa Case Law

S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006)

S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 382; 2022 (1) SACR 88 (GJ) (26 March 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 40/2006

Judge

Spilg

High Court ruling admitting Hong Kong documents obtained by letters of request as trade and business records under s 5(2)(b) of the ICCMA.

• Admissibility Of Documentary Evidence
• International Cooperation In Criminal Matters Act
• Hearsay Exception
• Fair Trial Rights
• Chain Of Evidence
• Iccma

Vilakazi v S (A868/2011)

Vilakazi v S (A868/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 135 (28 June 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A868/2011

Judges

Khumalo, Raulinga

The appeal against conviction for attempted rape was dismissed, but the sentence was reduced after the court found the trial court had overlooked 18 months in custody.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Child Witness
• Attempted Rape
• Sentencing Principles
• Hearsay Exception
• Minimum Sentences

Mathonsi v S (AR 294/10)

Mathonsi v S (AR 294/10) [2011] ZAKZPHC 33; 2012 (1) SACR 335 (KZP) (26 July 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 294/10

Judges

Madondo, Sishi

The court held that the previous inconsistent statement made by the hostile witness, Cele, was admissible as substantive evidence due to sufficient guarantees of reliability: it was made under oath, the witness was cross-examined by both parties, and the police officer who recorded the statement testified as to its circumstances. The statement was found to be the product of the witness's personal knowledge and not police fabrication. The court found no evidence of coercion or involuntariness. The statement, together with corroborating evidence such as ballistic links between the firearms and…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Prior Inconsistent Statements
• Hostile Witness
• Hearsay Exception
• Probative Value
• Fair Trial Rights

S v Mangena and Another (2012 (2) SACR 170 (GSJ))

S v Mangena and Another (2012 (2) SACR 170 (GSJ)) [2011] ZAGPJHC 255; [2011] ZAGPJHC 8 (28 February 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

32/2009

Judge

Spilg

The court found that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the written statement made by accused no. 1 was voluntarily made. The evidence showed that accused no. 1 was assaulted and threatened prior to making the statement, and the police failed to account for significant periods during which the accused was in their custody. The court rejected the State's explanation for the time discrepancies and found the accused's version credible, supported by physical evidence of injury and inconsistencies in police testimony. The court further held that, under common law and section…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Voluntariness Of Admissions
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Common Purpose Liability
• Hearsay Exception
• Trial Within A Trial