R v Diedericks

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jennett J and Van Der Riet J
• Judgment Date: 27 June 1957
• Hearing Date: 03 June 1957
• Court: Eastern Districts Local Division

F Jennett, J.:

Appellant had been summoned under sec. 83 of Act 56 of 1955 to attend before a magistrate, as a person likely to give material evidence in a case in which certain persons (named in the summons) are charged with 'a contravention of sec. 9 (1) of Act 44 of 1950 (attending a meeting in contravention of a banning order)'.

G She admitted that she had not been banned and that she knew one Barbara Stellenberg. Then the record reads:

'Barbara Stellenberg sê jy was op Saterdag 24/12/56 saam met haar op Groenbossies met 'n vragmotor is dit reg? Ek weier om die vraag te antwoord 'because it might possibly incriminate me' mens weet nooit nie. Hoe kan dit jou inkrimineer? Mens weet nooit nie. Het jy daardie aand vir Barbara Stellenberg gesien? Ek kan nie onthou nie. Waar was jy daardie aand gewees? Die kan ek nie sê, was ek by die huis of die H bioskoop of waar was ek nie. Was jy op Groenbossies daardie aand? Geen antwoord. Kon jy daardie aand op Groenbossies gewees het? Ek weier om die vraag te antwoord omdat dit my moontlik kan inkrimineer. Was jy verlede jaar enige tyd op Groenbossies? Ek was nooit op Groenbossies nie, ek weet nie waar Groenbossies is nie. As jy nie weet waar dit is nie hoe weet jy dat jy nog nie daar was nie? . . . etc. etc.'

The inquiry was postponed and resumed about six weeks later. At the resumed hearing the opening question was in terms similar to the

Jennett J

first question set out above and appellant refused to answer as 'dit mag my moontlik inkrimineer'. Further questions relating to her association with Barbara Stellenberg on 24/12/56 followed and appellant refused in each case to answer them because she might be incriminated. The final words of the examination are in these terms

A 'Was jy al ooit saam met Barbara Stellenberg op 'n vergadering buitekant die stad? Ek weier om te antwoord want dit kan my moontlik inkrimineer. Hoe kan dit jou inkrimineer? Ek weet nooit wat op die braaivleis kan gebeur het, daar kon iemand vermoor gewees het.'

The inquiry was then postponed for 7 days and appellant was committed to gaol for that period unless she 'consents sooner to do what is required of her'.

B A perusal of the record creates the clear impression that appellant's claim to protection was advanced without her ever envisaging really in what respect there was a danger of incrimination. Her answer that at the braaivleis a murder might have been committed illustrates that feature C ...