Suliman v Hansa

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Fannin J
• Judgment Date: 04 March 1971
• Citation: 1971 (2) SA 437 (D)
• Hearing Date: 03 March 1971
• Court: Durban and Coast Local Division

Suliman v Hansa
1971 (2) SA 437 (D)

1971 (2) SA p437

Citation	1971 (2) SA 437 (D)
Court	Durban and Coast Local Division
Judge	Fannin J
Heard	March 3, 1971
Judgment	March 4, 1971

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde D

Evidence — Police officer asked to disclose name of informer — Objection to upheld.

Headnote : Kopnota

When a police officer called by the plaintiff was asked to name the person who had purported to identify the plaintiff as a E wanted man and to disclose facts which tended to identify the informant, the defence objected.

Held, that the objection must be upheld.

Case Information

Trial action during which the defendant objected to certain evidence being led. The nature of the objection appears from the reasons for judgment.

G. I. Raftesath, for the plaintiff.

G. B. Muller, Q.C. (with him R. C. P. Allaway ), for the F defendant.

Cur adv vult.

Postea (March 4th).

Judgment

Fannin, J.:

Yesterday, at the commencement of the evidence of G the first witness called by the plaintiff, counsel for the plaintiff asked him to inform the Court of the name of a person said by him to have conveyed to him information to the effect that a man wanted by the police on a charge of fraud, by the H name of Cassim Temor Mahomed, was the plaintiff. He was also asked to identify a person, said to be the same person, who subsequently telephoned him with regard to the information which had already been conveyed to him by that person. Objection was then taken on behalf of the defendant that, as the witness was a police officer, a detective warrant officer in the South African Police, he could not be asked to identify the informer. I then heard argument on the question and reserved judgment until this morning. I

1971 (2) SA p438

Fannin J

would have liked to have had more time to consider the matter, but it seems to me that justice requires that I should give my ruling so that the case may proceed today. It may be necessary, therefore, for me to amplify the reasons which I shall briefly A mention today for the ruling which I give.

I rule that the police witness, W/O Botha, may not be asked to name the person who purported to identify the plaintiff as a wanted man, nor to disclose any facts which tend to identify his informant.

The rule relied upon by the defendant's counsel is derived from the English law and has received detailed examination in two B cases in the Appellate Division, namely the case of Rex v. van Schalkwyk, 1938 AD 543, and the case of Ex parte Minister of Justice: In re Rex v. Pillay and Others, 1945 AD 653. From those cases it appears that protection is afforded in certain circumstances to a person who can be described as an C "informer". In van Schalkwyk's case, STRATFORD, C.J., at p. 548, endeavoured, as he put it, to define the meaning of the term "an informer". He made it clear, however, that the attempted definition should not be regarded as a rigid one for, as he said:

"Definitions are often difficult to frame and their inflexibility is often a serious drawback and danger. It is much easier and safer to say, in given cases, who is and who is not an informer than accurately to describe the circle in which he is rigidly confined. My remarks above are, therefore, D intended to describe some of the essential characteristics of an informer."

The definition which he gave was in these terms:

"He is, first, one who gives information of a kind prejudicial to others whose enmity he may thereby provoke; secondly, that information must be of a kind which is (or may be) the cause of a criminal prosecution, and lastly, it must be given to the officers of justice."

E In the present case, of course, the information said to have been conveyed...