S v Ngcobo

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1986 (1) SA 905 (N)

S v Ngcobo
1986 (1) SA 905 (N)

1986 (1) SA p905

Citation	1986 (1) SA 905 (N)
Court	Natal Provincial Division
Judge	Didcott J and Nienaber J
Heard	January 7, 1986
Judgment	January 7, 1986

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal procedure — Evidence — Of identification — Dangers of mistake re-iterated — Witness' certainty that identification correct no guarantee that he was not honestly J mistaken — Adequate corroboration required.

1986 (1) SA p906

Headnote : Kopnota

The Court, in automatic review proceedings in respect of the accused's conviction on two counts of robbery, re-iterated the dangers of mistaken identification by witnesses, a danger to which all judicial officers were or should certainly be alive. The danger of a mistaken identification was a grave and pervasive one and the Court pointed out how fallible the human powers of observation and recollection were.

B The Court set aside the accused's convictions, which were based on the evidence of identification by two victims of the robberies, holding that there was insufficient corroboration of their evidence and that their certainty in identification was no index of its reliability in the circumstances of the case.

Case Information

Review. C

Judgment

Didcott J:

Two men, Hoosen Mamoojee and Sadhavisan Govender, were robbed late one night in the streets of Durban. The robberies were committed separately, but within some 30 minutes of each other and in more or less the same part of town. The crimes themselves were also alike. Each was the work of three persons, a man who seized the victim, threatening and then D wounding him with a knife, and two women who rifled his pockets, taking money from them. That the same three did both jobs seems likely and will be assumed.

A policeman happened at the time to be patrolling nearby. Mamoojee and Govender came in turn upon him. He was told of the robberies. He set out in his van, looking for the robbers. E Mamoojee and Govender accompanied him. They travelled a couple of blocks. Jabulani Ngcobo was then seen, strolling along a street. He was pointed out at once by Mamoojee and Govender as the man who had robbed them. The policeman stopped the van and arrested him.

The sequel was the trial of Ngcobo before a magistrate on F charges of having participated in the robberies. He pleaded not guilty. Mamoojee, Govender and the policeman were the witnesses for the State. He alone testified in his defence. Mamoojee and Govender confirmed the identification of him as one of the robbers which they had made to the policeman, the identification which had led to his arrest. He on the other hand challenged it, denying any role in or knowledge of either G robbery. But the magistrate rejected his evidence, believing Mamoojee and Govender instead. He was therefore convicted and sentenced on both counts. As a result we now have the case before us on automatic review.

Mamoojee and Govender were quite convinced in their own minds that Ngcobo was the man who had taken part in the robberies. So H much is clear. The man had been, however, a total stranger to each of them. So was Ngcobo. That they might have made a mistake in identifying him as the man for whom they were looking, an honest mistake, but a mistake none the less, was thus a possibility inherent in the situation.

The danger of mistaken identification is one to which all judicial officers are or should certainly be alive. Enough has I been said and...