Recent Case: Evidence
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Published date | 24 May 2019 |
Date | 24 May 2019 |
Author | P J Schwikkard |
Citation | (2001) 14 SACJ 259 |
Pages | 259-265 |
Recent Cases • Vonnisse
259
Evidence
PJ Schwikkard
University of Cape Town
Admissions and confessions
The four accused, at a trial-within-a-trial, in
S v Monyane
CO objected to the admissibility of the following matters of evidence: (1) The
contents of a verbal statement made by accused number 4, shortly after his
arrest, during interrogation at the police station; (2) A written confession
made by accused number 1; (3) Pointings out of the scene of the crime by
accused numbers 1, 2 and 3. The objections were based firstly, on the
accused's allegations that they had not been properly informed of their right
to legal representation prior to making the statements or pointings out.
Secondly, they had been assaulted shortly after their arrest which induced
them to make the statements and pointings out.
The court found that the accused's constitutional rights had been infringed
in that the accused's right to legal representation had not been
fully
explained to them. Although the contents of s 25 of the interim Constitution
had been repeatedly read to the accused the accused had not been told that if
they could not afford legal representation that they could apply for legal
representation at state expense
prior
to the statements or pointings out being
made. The manner in which the accused's rights had been explained to them
had led them to understand that they could only apply for legal
representation at their first court appearance.
The court held that to admit the evidence in issue would render the trial
unfair. In reaching this conclusion the court took into account that there were
indications that the confession might be unreliable. It also took cognisance of
the fact that the constitutional breach was not intentional. However, Borchers
J held that this did not necessarily weigh in favour of admissibility and
commented as follows (at 122
e-f):
it is not only necessary that the public should be educated into accepting the
value of the Constitution ..., the police, too, must be brought to understand that
violations of an accused's constitutional rights where such can be avoided will not
always be viewed charitably by the courts, for it would be facile for a court to insist
on the maintenance of high standards of justice at the trial itself but to turn a blind
eye to low standards during the pre-trial investigative procedures.'
In
S v Ndhlovu
2001 (1) SACR 85 (W) two of the accused challenged the
admissibility of certain statements and a pointing out on the basis that they
(2001) 14 SACJ 259
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial