S v Melani en Andere

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation1995 (2) SACR 141 (E)

S v Melani en Andere
1995 (2) SACR 141 (E)

1995 (2) SACR p141


Citation

1995 (2) SACR 141 (E)

Court

Oos-Kaapse Afdeling

Judge

Froneman R

Heard

March 29, 1995

Judgment

March 29, 1995

Counsel

P Daubermann namens die beskuldigdes
N Henning namens die Staat

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Getuienis — Toelaatbaarheid — Getuienis verkry op ongeoorloofde manier — Die 'gepaste regshulp' soos beoog deur art 7(4) van die Grondwet 200 van I 1993 by nie-nakoming van art 25(2)(a) van die Grondwet — Regter het 'n diskresie om sodanige getuienis uit te sluit na gelang van die feite van die geval — Uitsluiting van die getuienis verkry in verbreking van 'n fundamentele reg soos vervat in art 25(2) (a) egter slegs afgewyk kan word as sodanige uitsluiting die regsadministrasie in diskrediet of oneer sal bring.

J Fundamentele regte — Reg om gewaarsku te word van die gevolge van die

1995 (2) SACR p142

aflegging van enige verklaring — Artikel 25(2)(a) van die Grondwet 200 van 1993 — Effek van nie-nakoming van — Die 'gepaste regshulp' soos beoog deur art 7(4)(a) — Uitwysing deur beskuldigde — Beskuldigde wel gewaarsku dat hy nie 'n uitwysing hoef te maak maar nie uitdruklik gewaarsku van die gevolge daaraan verbonde nie — Polisiebeampte het te goeie trou B opgetree en op 'n wyse, geoordeel aan die posisie in 1992 voor die inwerkingtreding van die Grondwet 200 van 1993, wat geregverdig was — Hof het in die omstandighede bevind dat uitsluiting van getuienis oor die uitwysing die regsadministrasie in diskrediet sou bring en tot oneer sou strek — Getuienis van uitwysing toelaatbaar. C

Headnote : Kopnota

In 'n verhoor binne 'n verhoor moes die Hof beslis oor die toelaatbaarheid van 'n uitwysing gemaak deur 'n beskuldigde wat nie vooraf gewaarsku is van die gevolge van die maak van sodanige uitwysing nie. Dit is namens die beskuldigde aangevoer dat die uitwysing ontoelaatbaar was weens die bepalings van art 25(2)(a) van die Grondwet D 200 van 1993. Dit het geblyk dat die uitwysing op 10 Julie 1992 gemaak is, dit wil sê, voor die inwerkingtreding van die Grondwet op 27 April 1994. Die saak teen die beskuldigde het 'n aanvang geneem maar is terruggetrek in 1993 en is heringestel na die inwerkingtreding van die Grondwet. Die Hof was van mening dat gemeenregtelike uitsonderings op die vermoede teen terugwerkendheid van die bepalings van die Grondwet op die huidige feite van toepassing was. Die bepalings van die Grondwet was E derhalwe van toepassing in die onderhawige geval.

Aangaande die vraag of die nie-nakoming van die bepalings van art 25(2)(a) van die Grondwet ten opsigte van die uitwysing noodwendig tot die uitsluiting van daardie getuienis moes lei, was die Hof van mening dat art 25 nie gesien moes word as bloot bevestiging van die beginsels F van die gemenereg nie. Die Hof het beslis dat daar drie verskillende wyses was waarop die Grondwet uitgelê kon word by die vraag wat die 'gepaste regshulp' ingevolge art 7(4)(a) daarvan by nie-nakoming van byvoorbeeld art 25(2)(a) van die Grondwet was. Hierdie drie wyses is as volg: (1) Die rigiede benadering dat die getuienis toelaatbaar is, hoe dit ook al verkry is, solank die getuienis relevant is; (2) die rigiede benadering dat alle getuienis wat op ongeoorloofde wyse verkry is, G uitgesluit moet word; en (3) 'n kompromis-benadering, deur 'n diskresie aan die Regter te gee om sodanige getuienis uit te sluit na gelang van die feite van die geval. Na die mening van die Hof was die derde benadering die gewenste uitleg weens die volgende redes: (a) Die eerste benadering is gewortel in regstelsels waar die Grondwet nie die oppergesag van die reg is nie. Deur hierdie benadering te volg word die 'gepaste regshulp' wat 'n hof moet toestaan ingevolge art 7(4)(a) van die H Grondwet, ontdaan van enige wesenlike effek. (b) Die tweede benadering verleen nie behoorlike gewig aan die legitieme belange van die gemeenskap as 'n geheel nie, naamlik dat die regte van 'n indiwidu nie onbeperk en tot nadeel van die gemeenskap uitgeoefen behoort te word nie. (c) Selfs in die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak voor die inwerkingtreding van die I Grondwet is daar raakpunte vir die ontwikkeling van so 'n kompromis-benadering. (d) Hierdie benadering bied die beste geleentheid om 'n behoorlike ewewig te tref tussen die regmatige belange van 'n beskuldigde en die van die gemeenskap as 'n geheel.

Die Hof het verder beslis dat in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks die 'gepaste regshulp', naamlik uitsluiting van die getuienis verkry in verbreking van 'n fundamentele reg soos vervat in art 25(2)(a), egter slegs van afgewyk kan word as sodanige uitsluiting die regsadministrasie in diskrediet of J oneer sal bring. In die

1995 (2) SACR p143

A onderhawige saak waar die beskuldigde wel gewaarsku is dat hy nie 'n uitwysing hoef te maak nie maar nie uitdruklik gewaarsku is van die gevolge daaraan verbonde nie het hierdie versuim neergekom op 'n verbreking van sy regte ingevolge art 25(2)(a) van die Grondwet wat hom geregtig gemaak het op 'gepaste regshulp' ingevolge art 7(4)(a) van die Grondwet. Aangesien die polisiebeampte te goeie trou opgetree het en op 'n wyse wat, geoordeel aan die posisie in 1992 voor die inwerkingtreding B van die Grondwet, geregverdig was en die betrokke nie-nakoming van art 25(2)(a) in die besondere omstandighede van die saak nie van 'n besonder ernstige aard was nie sou die uitsluiting van getuienis oor die beweerde uitwysing die regsadministrasie in diskrediet bring en tot oneer strek. Die Hof het gevolglik bevind dat die getuienis toelaatbaar was.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Evidence — Admissibility — Evidence obtained in unauthorised manner — The 'relief' as intended by s 74 of the Constitution Act 200 of 1993 in the event of non-compliance with s 25(2)(a) of the Constitution — Judge has a D discretion to exclude such evidence depending on the circumstances of the case — Exclusion of evidence obtained as result of infringement of a fundamental right as contained in s 25(2)(a) can only be deviated from if such exclusion brings the administration of justice into discredit or dishonour.

Fundamental rights — Right to be warned of the consequences of making a E statement — Section 25(2)(a) of the Constitution Act 200 of 1993 — Effect of non-compliance with — The 'appropriate relief' as intended by s 7(4)(a) — Pointing out by accused — Accused warned that he did not have to make a pointing out but not expressly warned of the consequences arising from such pointing out — The police officer having acted in good F faith and in a manner, determined with regard to the position in 1992 before the coming into operation of the Constitution Act, which was justified — Court finding in the circumstances that exclusion of evidence concerning the pointing out would discredit and dishonour the administration of justice — Evidence of pointing out admissible. G

Headnote : Kopnota

In a trial within a trial the Court was required to determine the admissibility of a pointing out made by an accused who had not been previously warned of the consequences of making such pointing out. It was contended on behalf of the accused that the pointing out was H inadmissible because of the provisions of s 25(2)(a) of the Constitution Act 200 of 1993. It appeared that the pointing out was made on 10 July 1992, that is before the coming into operation of the Constitution on 27 April 1994. The case against the accused commenced but was withdrawn in 1993 and was reinstated after the coming into operation of the Constitution. The Court was of the opinion that the common-law exceptions to the presumptions against retrospectivity of the provisions I of the Constitution were applicable to the present facts. The provisions of the Constitution were accordingly applicable in the instant case.

Concerning the question whether the non-compliance with the provisions of s 25(2)(a) of the Constitution necessarily resulted in the exclusion of the evidence of the pointing out, the Court was of the opinion that s 25 ought not to be seen merely as confirmation of the principles of the common law. The Court held that there was three different ways in which J the Constitution could

1995 (2) SACR p144

A be interpreted as to the question of what the 'appropriate relief' was in terms of s 7(4)(a) in respect of non-compliance with a provision such as s 25(2)(a). These three ways were as follows: (1) The rigid approach that the evidence was admissible however it was obtained as long as the evidence was relevant; (2) the rigid approach that all evidence acquired in an unauthorised manner had to be excluded; and (3) a compromise B approach in terms of which a discretion was given to the Judge to exclude such evidence depending on the circumstances of the case. In the opinion of the Court the third approach was the ideal approach for the following reasons: (a) The first approach was rooted in legal systems where the Constitution was not the supreme authority of the law. In following this approach the 'appropriate relief' which a court had to grant in terms of s 7(4)(a) of the Constitution was rendered of no real effect. (b) The C second approach did not accord sufficient weight to the legitimate interests of the community as a whole, namely that the rights of an individual were not unrestricted and could not be exercised to the detriment of the community. (c) Even in South African law before the coming into operation of the Constitution Act 200 of 1993 there were points of contact for the development of such a compromise approach. (d) D This approach offered the best opportunity to find a proper balance between the legitimate interests of an accused and those of the community at large.

The Court held further that in the South African context the 'appropriate relief', namely exclusion of the evidence obtained in breach of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 1; 1995 (6) BCLR 665) S v Mbatha 1985 (2) SA 26 (D) S v Melani en Andere 1995 (4) SA 412 (E) (1995 (2) SACR 141) S v Mhlungu and Others 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 277; 1995 (7) BCLR 793) G S v Mkanzi en 'n Ander 1979 (2) SA 757 (T) S v Mphahlele ......
  • S v Pillay and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (2) SACR 1 (CC) (1995 (3) SA 391;1995 (6) BCLR 665): referred toS v Melane 1995 (2) SACR 141 (E) (1995 (4) SA 412): comparedS v Mphala and Another 1998 (1) SACR 654 (W): referred toS v Naidoo and Another 1998 (1) SACR 479 (N) (1998 ......
  • S v Nombewu
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...of s 25 of the Constitution Act 200 of 1993. In support, he refers to J 1996 (2) SACR p400 Jones J S v Melani and Others (1) 1995 (2) SACR 141 (E) and S v Melani and Others (2) 1996 (1) BCLR 174 (E). A Section 25 sets out the constitutional rights of detained, arrested and accused persons. ......
  • S v Shongwe en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...B The judgments in S v Zuma and Others 1995 (1) SACR 568 (CC) in para [16] at 579h (1995 (2) SA 642 at 652D), S v Melani 1995 (2) SACR 141 (E), Key v Attorney-General, Cape Provincial Division, and Another 1996 (2) SACR 113 (CC) in para [13] at 120h (1996 (4) SA 187 at 195G), and S v Desai ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 1; 1995 (6) BCLR 665) S v Mbatha 1985 (2) SA 26 (D) S v Melani en Andere 1995 (4) SA 412 (E) (1995 (2) SACR 141) S v Mhlungu and Others 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 277; 1995 (7) BCLR 793) G S v Mkanzi en 'n Ander 1979 (2) SA 757 (T) S v Mphahlele ......
  • S v Pillay and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (2) SACR 1 (CC) (1995 (3) SA 391;1995 (6) BCLR 665): referred toS v Melane 1995 (2) SACR 141 (E) (1995 (4) SA 412): comparedS v Mphala and Another 1998 (1) SACR 654 (W): referred toS v Naidoo and Another 1998 (1) SACR 479 (N) (1998 ......
  • S v Nombewu
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...of s 25 of the Constitution Act 200 of 1993. In support, he refers to J 1996 (2) SACR p400 Jones J S v Melani and Others (1) 1995 (2) SACR 141 (E) and S v Melani and Others (2) 1996 (1) BCLR 174 (E). A Section 25 sets out the constitutional rights of detained, arrested and accused persons. ......
  • S v Shongwe en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...B The judgments in S v Zuma and Others 1995 (1) SACR 568 (CC) in para [16] at 579h (1995 (2) SA 642 at 652D), S v Melani 1995 (2) SACR 141 (E), Key v Attorney-General, Cape Provincial Division, and Another 1996 (2) SACR 113 (CC) in para [13] at 120h (1996 (4) SA 187 at 195G), and S v Desai ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT