Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:18:13Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:18:13Z
dc.date.created 2015-01-19 en
dc.identifier.citation [2015] ZACC 19
dc.identifier.citation 2015 (2) SACR 323 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2015 (8) BCLR 887 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3778
dc.title Mhlongo v S; Nkosi v S en
dc.title.alternative CCT148/14; CCT149/14 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT148/14 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT149/14
dc.date.hearing 10 March 2015
dc.contributor.judge Theron AJ
dc.date.judgment 25 June 2015
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3778/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28241%20Kb%29-23109.pdf?sequence=9&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis 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).
dc.concourt.casehistory 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).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account