S v Shaba en 'n Ander

JudgeSpoelstra R
Judgment Date08 August 1997
Citation1998 (1) SACR 16 (T)
Hearing Date06 August 1997
CounselN J Potgieter namens beskuldigde 1 L Jenkins namens beskuldigde 2 C R Taute namens die Staat
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division

Spoelstra R:

Die Staat is besig om getuienis te lei oor sekere uitwysings met gepaardgaande mededelings wat deur die twee beskuldigdes gemaak is in die verhoor van die beskuldigdes op 'n aanklag van moord en 'n aanklag van E roof met verswarende omstandighede. Op hierdie stadium vind 'n binneverhoor plaas oor die vraag of die getuienis rondom die uitwysings toelaatbaar is.

Mnr Potgieter, namens beskuldigde 1, en me Jenkins, namens beskuldigde 2, voer aan dat die getuienis wat die F Staat tot dusver aangebied het, aantoon dat die getuienis ontoelaatbaar is en dat dit 'n onnodige verkwisting van tyd sal wees om die aspek verder te voer. Die grondslag vir hierdie betoog word gevind in die beslissing van Claassen R in S v Mathebula and Another1997 (1) SACR 10 (W), waarin onder meer beslis is dat elke belangrike stap voor die verhoor op sigself vereis dat aan die bepalings van die Grondwet voldoen moet word, tensy 'n duidelike G afstanddoening van die regte blyk vir doeleindes van 'n identifiseerbare verdere proses waar die vereiste waarskuwing nie herhaal is nie.

Die waarskuwing waaroor dit daar gegaan het en wat ook hier ter sprake is, is die reg op regsbystand soos H uiteengesit in art 25 van die Grondwet. Vir doeleindes van die huidige beslissing moet aanvaar word dat beide beskuldigdes van daardie regte deur Sersant Crafford ingelig is tydens hulle arrestasie, maar dat dit nie herhaal is nie deur die offisiere wat die beskuldigdes op die uitwysings vergesel het. Volgens Claassen R is dit 'n fatale gebrek wat die getuienis ontoelaatbaar maak, omdat...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
6 practice notes
  • S v Shongwe en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...van die Kanadese gesag bevestig het). 4. Die Mathebula-beslissing is oorweeg en nie gevolg nie in S v Shaba en Andere 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T). In F laasvermelde saak is bevind dat alhoewel dit moontlik wenslik was om 'n aangehoudende elke keer van sy regte op regsverteenwoordiging en sy reg to......
  • Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Viljoen
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...S v Mthwana 1992 (1) SA 343 (A) S v Sampson and Another 1989 (3) SA 239 (A) D S v Sebejan and Another 1997 (1) SACR 626 (W) S v Shaba 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T) (1998 (2) BCLR 220) S v Shikongo and Others 2000 (1) SACR 190 (NmS) S v Shikunga 2000 (1) SA 616 (NmS) (1997 (9) BCLR 1321) S v Shongwe ......
  • S v Monyane and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...every occasion before an accused says or does something incriminating. (See Mathebula (supra at 19h), Marx (supra at 149b), S v Shaba 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T).) Not all evidence unconstitutionally obtained will be ruled inadmissible and it is for the trial court to decide on the particular D se......
  • S v Monyane and Others
    • South Africa
    • Transvaal Provincial Division
    • 11 August 1999
    ...every occasion before an accused says or does something incriminating. (See Mathebula (supra at 19h), Marx (supra at 149b), S v Shaba 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T).) Not all evidence unconstitutionally obtained will be ruled inadmissible and it is for the trial court to decide on the particular D se......
  • Get Started for Free
6 cases
  • S v Shongwe en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...van die Kanadese gesag bevestig het). 4. Die Mathebula-beslissing is oorweeg en nie gevolg nie in S v Shaba en Andere 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T). In F laasvermelde saak is bevind dat alhoewel dit moontlik wenslik was om 'n aangehoudende elke keer van sy regte op regsverteenwoordiging en sy reg to......
  • Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Viljoen
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...S v Mthwana 1992 (1) SA 343 (A) S v Sampson and Another 1989 (3) SA 239 (A) D S v Sebejan and Another 1997 (1) SACR 626 (W) S v Shaba 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T) (1998 (2) BCLR 220) S v Shikongo and Others 2000 (1) SACR 190 (NmS) S v Shikunga 2000 (1) SA 616 (NmS) (1997 (9) BCLR 1321) S v Shongwe ......
  • S v Monyane and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...every occasion before an accused says or does something incriminating. (See Mathebula (supra at 19h), Marx (supra at 149b), S v Shaba 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T).) Not all evidence unconstitutionally obtained will be ruled inadmissible and it is for the trial court to decide on the particular D se......
  • S v Monyane and Others
    • South Africa
    • Transvaal Provincial Division
    • 11 August 1999
    ...every occasion before an accused says or does something incriminating. (See Mathebula (supra at 19h), Marx (supra at 149b), S v Shaba 1998 (1) SACR 16 (T).) Not all evidence unconstitutionally obtained will be ruled inadmissible and it is for the trial court to decide on the particular D se......
  • Get Started for Free