Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v Kekana and Others (SS65/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1065 (7 March 2022)
The High Court admitted CCTV/video footage in a criminal trial within a trial, finding the State proved originality and no tampering through witness evidence.
S v Pheka (263/2018) [2019] ZANWHC 4 (6 February 2019)
The High Court reviewed and set aside criminal proceedings after finding serious irregularities in a trial-within-a-trial, including the defence leading state witnesses.
Ramyonyane and Another v S (AR253/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 56 (28 June 2016)
The appeal against murder and robbery convictions succeeded after the court found the confessions, pointing-out, and Section 204 evidence were coerced and inadmissible.
Heaney v S (A464/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 257 (19 April 2016)
The court found that the search warrant issued for the appellant's premises was invalid on multiple grounds: it failed to identify a specific police official, did not specify the offence or article with sufficient clarity, and was based on an unsigned and uncommissioned affidavit. The magistrate erred by not conducting a trial-within-trial to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained through the search, relegating the issue to one of credibility rather than legality. The respondent conceded the invalidity of the warrant, and the court reaffirmed that such defects constitute a violation…
Source excerpt
S v Tswai (A229/14, DCA76/2013, 1018) [2014] ZAGPPHC 213 (1 April 2014)
High Court review set aside a theft conviction and sentence after finding multiple material procedural irregularities in the magistrates’ court trial.
Motata v Nair No and Another (7023/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 53 (11 June 2008)
The court held that the High Court should be slow to intervene in incomplete criminal proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, except in rare cases where grave injustice would result. In this case, the applicant failed to demonstrate that grave injustice or a failure of justice would ensue if the video and audio recordings were played during the trial-within-a-trial. The authenticity and originality of the recordings are properly matters for determination in the trial-within-a-trial, and the Magistrate is entitled and obliged to listen to the recordings to assess their admissibility. Judicial o…
Source excerpt
Motata v Nair NO and Another (7023/2008) [2008] ZAGPHC 215 (11 June 2008)
The High Court held that it should not intervene in incomplete criminal proceedings except in rare cases of grave injustice, which was not established here. The trial-within-a-trial was properly ordered to test the authenticity and admissibility of the video recordings. The playing of the recordings was necessary for the court to determine their authenticity, and judicial officers are trained to disregard evidence later ruled inadmissible. The analogy to confessions was rejected, as the recordings did not constitute confessions and the issue was not voluntariness but authenticity. The applica…
Source excerpt
S v Masakale and Another (CC280/05) [2007] ZAGPHC 348 (23 August 2007)
The court held that the state may cross-examine a witness on inconsistencies between evidence given in a trial within a trial and the main trial.
S v Ndika and Others (436/99) [2001] ZASCA 143; 2002 (1) SACR 250 (SCA) (30 November 2001)
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld convictions for armed robbery, found the confessions admissible, accepted identification evidence, and dismissed the State’s sentence appeal.
S v Shezi (244/93) [1994] ZASCA 20 (22 March 1994)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the confession was admissible and voluntary, and that the evidence of Detective Sergeant Sibisi, even if recalled late, did not prejudice the appellant. The court found that the confession, corroborated by other evidence, sufficiently implicated the appellant in the murders. The doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied. The trial court acted prudently, if not overcautiously, in recalling Sibisi, but there was no need to do so as the confession and corroborating evidence were sufficient. The principle that evidence from a trial-within-a-trial shoul…
Source excerpt
Explore more
