S v Khoza en Andere
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Viljoen AR, Howard Wn AR en Hefer Wn AR |
| Judgment Date | 26 September 1983 |
| Citation | 1984 (1) SA 57 (A) |
| Hearing Date | 05 September 1983 |
| Court | Appellate Division |
Hefer Wn AR:
Die appellante, na wie ek duidelikheidshalwe as beskuldigdes nrs 1, 2, 4, 5 en 6 onderskeidelik sal verwys, se appèl is gemik teen hulle skuldigbevinding weens die roof op 2 Oktober 1980 van 'n rewolwer en R122 000 kontant van twee amptenare van die Bank van Athene in Marshallstraat, A Johannesburg.
Die enigste vraag wat in hierdie Hof beredeneer is, was of 'n bekentenis wat deur elk van die beskuldigdes gemaak is en wat by die verhoor as getuienis toegelaat is, inderdaad toelaatbaar was. Die advokate was dit eens dat, sou enige bekentenis ontoelaatbaar blyk te gewees het, die betrokke beskuldigde se B appèl moet slaag, en, indien toelaatbaar, dat die appèl afgewys moet word. Die vraag is verder beperk deur die feit dat die beskuldigdes se advokate-
anders as wat die geval op een stadium by die verhoor was, nie langer staatgemaak het op beweerde aanrandings op enige van die beskuldigdes as gevolg C waarvan hulle die bekentenisse sou gemaak het nie,
ook nie staatgemaak het op die getuienis van enige van die beskuldigdes betreffende die bekentenisse nie, en
hulle uitsluitlik verlaat het op "onreëlmatighede" ten opsigte van elke bekentenis.
Dit was 'n wyse besluit van die beskuldigdes se advokate om die D beweerde gronde van ontoelaatbaarheid in 1 en 2 hierbo genoem te abandoneer. Elke beskuldigde se getuienis is in sterk taal deur die Verhoorhof as leuenagtig verwerp en dit sou 'n totaal onbegonne taak wees om hierdie Hof te probeer oorreed dat die Verhoorhof in daardie opsig fouteer het. Ek noem dit omdat die beskuldigdes se leuenagtige getuienis, ook wat die oorweging E van moontlike onreëlmatighede betref, nie onbelangrik is nie.
Die "onreëlmatighede" wat te berde gebring is, sluit in die afneem van bekentenisse deur vrederegters in die persone van polisieoffisiere en, in een geval, deur die ondersoekbeampte, die gebruik van polisiemanne as tolke en die optrede...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
S v Mbatha en Andere
...S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) I at 743E - G; S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 184B - D and 184H - 185C; S v Khoza en Andere 1984 (1) SA 57 (A) at 59E - 60A; S v Smith and Others 1984 (1) SA 583 (A) at 593E - F and 592H - 593C; S v Theron 1984 (2) SA 868 (A) at 880H; S v Ngoma 198......
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...S v Ndlovu 1983 (4) SA 507 (ZS); R v Ndoyana and Another 1958 (2) SA 562 (E); S v Mkwanazi 1966 (1) SA 736 (A); S v Khoza and Others 1984 (1) SA 57 (A); S v Mbatha and Others 1987 (2) SA 272 (A); S v Dhlamini 1971 (1) SA 807 (A); S v Mpetha and Others G (2) 1983 (1) SA 576 (C); R v Difford ......
-
S v Mavela
...v Barlin 1926 AD 459 at 465-6; S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) at 743C-G; S v Mpetha and Others 1983 (1) SA 576 (C); S v Khoza en Andere 1984 (1) SA 57 (A) at 59; S v Mbatha en Andere 1987 (2) SA 272 (A). As to the question whether the State could claim privilege in respect of the G police do......
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...S v Ndlovu 1983 (4) SA 507 (ZS); R v Ndoyana and Another 1958 (2) SA 562 (E); S v Mkwanazi 1966 (1) SA 736 (A); S v Khoza and Others 1984 (1) SA 57 (A); S v Mbatha and Others 1987 (2) SA 272 (A); S v Dhlamini 1971 (1) SA 807 (A); S v Mpetha and Others G (2) 1983 (1) SA 576 (C); R v Difford ......
-
S v Mbatha en Andere
...S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) I at 743E - G; S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 184B - D and 184H - 185C; S v Khoza en Andere 1984 (1) SA 57 (A) at 59E - 60A; S v Smith and Others 1984 (1) SA 583 (A) at 593E - F and 592H - 593C; S v Theron 1984 (2) SA 868 (A) at 880H; S v Ngoma 198......
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...S v Ndlovu 1983 (4) SA 507 (ZS); R v Ndoyana and Another 1958 (2) SA 562 (E); S v Mkwanazi 1966 (1) SA 736 (A); S v Khoza and Others 1984 (1) SA 57 (A); S v Mbatha and Others 1987 (2) SA 272 (A); S v Dhlamini 1971 (1) SA 807 (A); S v Mpetha and Others G (2) 1983 (1) SA 576 (C); R v Difford ......
-
S v Mavela
...v Barlin 1926 AD 459 at 465-6; S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) at 743C-G; S v Mpetha and Others 1983 (1) SA 576 (C); S v Khoza en Andere 1984 (1) SA 57 (A) at 59; S v Mbatha en Andere 1987 (2) SA 272 (A). As to the question whether the State could claim privilege in respect of the G police do......
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...S v Ndlovu 1983 (4) SA 507 (ZS); R v Ndoyana and Another 1958 (2) SA 562 (E); S v Mkwanazi 1966 (1) SA 736 (A); S v Khoza and Others 1984 (1) SA 57 (A); S v Mbatha and Others 1987 (2) SA 272 (A); S v Dhlamini 1971 (1) SA 807 (A); S v Mpetha and Others G (2) 1983 (1) SA 576 (C); R v Difford ......