South Africa Case Law

S v Zikhali (Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23)

S v Zikhali (Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1844 (3 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC15/23

Judge

Cox

The court found that although the accused's general constitutional rights were explained to him, he was not specifically warned that he was not obliged to make a pointing out nor informed of the evidentiary consequences thereof. The officer conducting the pointing out, Col Scheepers, admitted to omitting these warnings. The court held that this omission constituted a material infringement of the accused's constitutional and fair trial rights. The evidence established that the accused was not assaulted or threatened by the officers present, but the failure to properly explain his rights in rel…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Pointing Out
• Section 35 Constitution
• Voluntariness Of Admissions

Kisten v S (AR686/13)

Kisten v S (AR686/13) [2015] ZAKZDHC 5 (28 January 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

AR686/13

Judges

Woodley, Moodley, Chetty

The High Court set aside a murder conviction and sentence after finding material procedural irregularities in the plea and sentencing process.

• Change Of Plea
• Section 112 Statement
• Section 113 Correction
• Voluntariness Of Admissions
• Procedural Irregularity
• Criminal-procedure

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

S v Moshodi and Others (A739/06)

S v Moshodi and Others (A739/06) [2008] ZAGPHC 189 (20 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A739/06

Judges

M F Legodi, T M Makgoka

The High Court upheld a criminal appeal, set aside convictions and sentences, and found procedural irregularities in the handling of pointing-out evidence and section 174 discharge.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial
• Section 174 Discharge
• Pointing Out
• Voluntariness Of Admissions
• Criminal-appeal

S v Shabalala (450/85)

S v Shabalala (450/85) [1986] ZASCA 84; [1986] 4 All SA 551 (AD) (28 August 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

450/85

Judges

Corbett, Trengove, Smalberger, Nicholas, Nestadt

The court held that the evidence of the police dog's identification of the appellant by scent was inadmissible, following the principle in R v Trupedo, as the scientific foundation and safeguards were insufficient to reduce its inherent unreliability. However, the exclusion of this evidence did not result in a failure of justice, as the remaining circumstantial evidence—comprising the appellant's voluntary admissions in section 119 proceedings, pointings-out at the crime scene, forensic findings of blood and hair on his overall, and his inability to satisfactorily explain his whereabouts—coll…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Dog Evidence
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Voluntariness Of Admissions
• Extenuating Circumstances
• Dolus Directus
• Pointings Out

S v Shezi (72/85)

S v Shezi (72/85) [1985] ZASCA 55; [1985] 2 All SA 423 (A) (30 May 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

72/85

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Trengove, Viljoen, Van Heerden

The court held that a detainee’s demonstration of how explosives worked was admissible as evidence of knowledge, not as an admission requiring voluntariness.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Admission By Conduct
• Pointing Out
• Internal Security Act
• Criminal Procedure
• Voluntariness Of Admissions