CCT148/14

CCT149/14

[2015] ZACC 19

2015 (2) SACR 323 (CC)

2015 (8) BCLR 887 (CC)

Theron AJ

10 March 2015

25 June 2015

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3778

Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the North West High Court: Matjeke and Others v S (08/2012) [2013] ZANWHC 95 (18 April 2013).

Extra-curial admissions of an accused inadmissible against a co-accused — not admissible in terms of section 3 of the Law of 2 Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 — admission of extra-curial admissions but not confessions violates section 9(1) of the Constitution — common law position restored. Application for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, North West Division, Mahikeng on the constitutional validity of admitting an accused’s extra-curial statement, classified as an admission, as evidence against a co-accused. The applicants filed separate applications for leave to appeal with identical legal submissions. The Court found that the common law position before the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 was that both admissions and confessions of an accused were inadmissible against a co-accused. The Act did not alter this. The Court considered the principle that an accused’s confession is inadmissible against co-accused whereas an admission may be admissible, and held that distinguishing between the two types of statements was irrational. Thus the differentiation between a co-accused implicated by a confession as opposed to an admission unjustifiably violates that co-accused’s rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Accordingly the applicants’ convictions and sentences were set aside. The Court directed that the applicants be released from prison immediately. Judgment: Theron AJ (unanimous).