R v Koch

• Judge: Murray J, and Neser J
• Judgment Date: 28 April 1952
• Citation: 1952 (3) SA 26 (T)
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Neser, J.:

Appellant was charged before a magistrate of Pretoria with the contravention of sec. 45(1) of Ord. 17 of 1939 (Transvaal) the particulars of the charge being: -

'Deurdat op of omtrent of gedurende die tydperk 24ste November 1950 tot 31ste Januarie 1951, en te Pretoria, in die distrik van Pretoria, die beskuldigde, synde 'n Raadslid van die Stadsraad van Pretoria, 'n stadsraad in terme van art. 6 (1) van die genoemde Ordonnansie, wederregtelik,

Neser J

onwettiglik en op korrupte wyse, vir homself, van Abraham Erasmus Pienaar, geld voordeel en beloning (geldelik of andersins) gevra en ontvang en ooreengekom het om te ontvang as aansporing en as vergoeding of andersins om iets te doen of na te laat om iets te doen in verband met 'n saak wat ook al of transaksie (werklik of voorgestel) waarby die genoemde raad betrokke was, te wete die verkryging van 'n lisensie en 'n kontrole sertifikaat vir die verkoop van 'hot-dogs' vanaf ander dan A vaste persele ten gunste van die genoemde Abraham Erasmus Pienaar en vir die hernuwing daarvan.'

Appellant pleaded not guilty.

[The learned Judge after analysing the evidence in which it appeared that Pienaar who had applied for a certificate for a licence to hawk B meat pies had been handed certain notes by a member of the police force and had in his conversation with the appellant used a dictaphone, then proceeded.]

The dictaphone which had been used was an exhibit and so, too, were the various dictaphone records which Stoltz had from time to time removed C from Pienaar's premises as also the wire recorder of the telephone conversations from Maritime House, all of which were positively identified. The Crown called three typists who using earphones had had these records played over to them, who testified that they had to the best of their ability recorded what they had heard. According to their D evidence they had had to have certain portions played over a number of times before they could ascertain what the records had recorded, and in some cases they were unable to state what had been recorded particularly when two persons appeared to have been talking at the same time.

The Town Clerk Preiss testified that he had listened through earphones E to the records being played and that in the records taken in Pienaar's premises he recognized the voice of appellant.

Winters, a recording telephone engineer, explained the working of the dictaphone and the telephone wire recorder and stated that both types of F recordings are a faithful reproduction of what has been said.

From the evidence of Detective Head Constable Mare who was present when Preiss was listening to the records being played it appears that only the person who was listening through earphones could hear the replay of the dictaphone records.

G Appellant did not give evidence.

The magistrate convicted appellant and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment with hard...