South Africa Case Law

Sekwae v S (CA 47/2023)

Sekwae v S (CA 47/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 172 (10 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 47/2023

Judges

Hendricks, Petersen

The appeal was upheld because the trial court materially misdirected itself by relying on admissions made under section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which were shown to be erroneous and not properly explained to the appellant. The identification evidence was unreliable, as the key witness's contemporaneous statement contradicted his later dock identification, and the arresting officer could not confirm the appellant as the person found in possession of the firearm. The State failed to prove the chain of custody and ballistic linkage between the firearm and the spent cartridges beyond re…

Source excerpt

• Admissions In Criminal Procedure
• Identification Evidence
• Firearms Control Act
• Fair Trial Rights
• Section 220 Admissions

Liebenberg v S (CCT 145/22)

Liebenberg v S (CCT 145/22) [2023] ZACC 33; [2024] 1 BLLR 1 (CC); 2024 (1) BCLR 132 (CC); 2024 (2) SACR 269 (CC) (10 October 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 145/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J, Van Zyl AJ

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the alleged constitutional violations were not substantiated by the record. The evidence from disciplinary hearings did not play any role in the conviction, which was based on the applicant's formal section 220 admissions. There was no indication of bias or unfairness in the trial or sentencing process. The applicant's arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, bias, and sentence did not raise constitutional matters or points of law of general public importance. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Section 220 Admissions
• Fair Trial Rights
• Disciplinary Hearing Evidence
• Constitutional Jurisdiction

Raphoko and Another v S (A94/2020)

Raphoko and Another v S (A94/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 261 (27 November 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A94/2020

Judges

Mbhele, Raikane

The High Court upheld a sentence appeal, finding the trial court failed to properly weigh mitigation, remorse, and time in custody before imposing minimum sentences.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Section 220 Admissions
• Remorse
• Mitigation Of Sentence
• Minimum-sentencing

Macane v S (A55/2018)

Macane v S (A55/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 206 (20 May 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A55/2018

Judges

Maier-Frawley, Adams

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a life sentence for rape, holding that the appellant had been properly warned and that no substantial and compelling circumstances justified departure.

• Minimum Sentences
• Rape
• Section 220 Admissions
• Sentencing Discretion
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Minimum-sentences

S v Flobela (17258)

S v Flobela (17258) [2018] ZAWCHC 31 (12 March 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17258

Judges

Henney, Samela

Review judgment setting aside a housebreaking conviction after improper admission of hearsay evidence against an unrepresented accused.

• Admission Of Hearsay Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Section 220 Admissions
• Section 3 Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Hearsay-evidence

Magabara v S (A800/2015)

Magabara v S (A800/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 117 (21 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A800/2015

Judges

Mali, Khumalo

The court found that the appellant was legally represented and that the trial court took sufficient steps to inform him of the charges and the possibility of life imprisonment. The trial court's explanation of the sentencing regime was thorough, and the appellant was given opportunities to address any misunderstandings. The statutory provisions under the Criminal Law Amendment Act were correctly interpreted and applied, as the appellant was convicted of multiple rape offences before sentencing, triggering the minimum sentence of life imprisonment. There was no procedural unfairness or misdire…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Rape
• Fair Trial Rights
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Section 220 Admissions

Nkuna v Mashimbye and Another (A217/2015)

Nkuna v Mashimbye and Another (A217/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 220 (17 August 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A217/2015

Judges

Van der Linde, Mlaba

The court found that the appellant was legally represented at all stages and voluntarily changed legal representatives. The section 220 admissions were made in open court, confirmed by the appellant, and accepted by the magistrate. There was no evidence of duress or undue influence. The appellant was capable of terminating his legal representative's mandate and did so previously. The purpose of section 220 is to allow proof of facts not in dispute, and the admissions were properly made. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with justice. Regarding sentence, the Regional Magistrate cons…

Source excerpt

• Attempted Murder
• Section 220 Admissions
• Fair Trial Rights
• Competence Of Legal Representatives
• Sentence Appeal

Mohoje v Visser and Another (A249/2014)

Mohoje v Visser and Another (A249/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 98 (14 May 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A249/2014

Judges

Daffue, Williams

High Court review dismissed after finding no proof that the applicant’s guilty plea was induced by duress or misconduct by his lawyer.

• Right To Legal Representation
• Reviewable Irregularity
• Duress In Plea
• Competence Of Counsel
• Section 220 Admissions
• Criminal-procedure-review

S v Smith and Another (CC 18/10)

S v Smith and Another (CC 18/10) [2010] ZAGPJHC 177 (4 November 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

CC 18/10

Judge

Meyer R

The court found that both accused conspired and agreed to kill the deceased, and that their actions before, during, and after the murder demonstrated a common purpose and direct intent. The evidence of Veronica Steyn, though that of a single witness and a co-perpetrator, was found credible and corroborated by other witnesses and forensic findings. The injuries inflicted on the deceased were severe and consistent with a deliberate intent to kill, not merely to assault. The accused's versions were rejected as false and tailored. The court held that both accused were guilty of murder and robbery…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Common Purpose
• Mens Rea
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Section 220 Admissions

S v Mbatha (69/08)

S v Mbatha (69/08) [2009] ZAECHC 4 (15 January 2009)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

69/08

Judge

M.W. Mkhize

The court admitted the accuseds’ statements and convicted all seven on housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, while acquitting on conspiracy and theft to avoid duplication.

• Housebreaking
• Theft
• Recent Possession
• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Section 220 Admissions
• Criminal Procedure Act