Griffiths v S (AR189/2016) [2017] ZAKZPHC 13 (6 April 2017)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court a quo relied on the appellant's pointing out of the deceased's body to police officers as evidence of her knowledge of the crime. The appeal questioned whether this act was voluntary, given the appellant's allegations of police abuse, and whether it could independently establish guilt without a trial-within-a-trial to determine its admissibility under constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
• The court a quo admitted hearsay evidence from witnesses Marais and Riddle regarding statements made by the deceased, despite the absence of a detailed rationale for its admissibility. The appeal challenged this decision, focusing on whether the evidence met the 'best interests of justice' threshold and the reliability of the deceased's statements given his mental state and the lack of corroboration.
• The State's case against the appellant rested on circumstantial evidence, including financial transactions, alleged domestic abuse, and the pointing out. The appeal argued that the State failed to prove these intermediate facts (e.g., assault, abduction, financial manipulation) beyond reasonable doubt, and that the hypotheses connecting them to the crimes were not logically or factually supported, leaving room for innocent explanations.

Holdings

• The appeal was upheld, and the conviction and sentence for murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances were set aside. The court a quo's misdirection in admitting inadmissible evidence and failing to exclude prejudicial material resulted in a serious failure of justice.
• The court determined that the court a quo improperly admitted hearsay evidence under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Act because the State failed to prove the deceased's reliability and sound mind when making the statements, and the evidence lacked corroboration. The deceased's mental state (bipolar disorder, alcohol consumption) and inconsistencies in witness testimony rendered the hearsay legally irrelevant.
• The court held that the appellant's 'pointing out' of the deceased's body, relied on by the court a quo under s 218(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was not freely and voluntarily made. The State did not conduct a trial-within-a-trial to establish voluntariness, and the pointing out originated from an inadmissible confession to non-commissioned police officers.
• The court concluded that the State's circumstantial evidence (alleged physical abuse, financial control, and abduction) failed to establish a logical connection to the appellant's guilt. The intermediate facts were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the State presented no direct evidence of her participation in the crimes.

Remedies

• The appeal against conviction on both counts is upheld.
• Both conviction and sentence imposed by the court a quo are set aside.

Legal Principles

• The court a quo admitted hearsay evidence under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Act, finding it in the best interests of justice despite its general inadmissibility. Additionally, the court considered the admissibility of the appellant's pointing out of the deceased's body under section 218(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows evidence of discoveries made via an accused's information even if the information forms part of an inadmissible confession.
• The judgment highlights the necessity of proving the appellant's guilt 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' The court a quo concluded the State met this standard, but the appeal argues that the evidence did not exclude reasonable doubt due to insufficient corroboration and procedural irregularities.
• The court emphasized the State's burden to prove the voluntariness of the appellant's pointing out and the reliability of the hearsay evidence. The State failed to conduct a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether the confession leading to the pointing out was made freely, undermining the fairness of the proceedings.

Precedent Name

• S v Mokoena and others
• S v Magwaza
• S v Matlou and another
• S v Mpofu
• S v Molimi
• S v Mthembu
• S v Nel
• S v Chabalala
• S v Ndlovu and another
• S v Ndhlovu and others
• S v Shaik and others
• S v Melani and others

Cited Statute

• Law of Evidence Act 45 of 1988
• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Judge Name

• Steyn
• Van Zyl
• Madondo

Passage Text

• The court a quo rejected the version of the appellant as false beyond all reasonable doubt and accepted the evidence of the State witnesses... It took the view that it was in the best interests of justice to accept such hearsay evidence in terms of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Act.
• The State did not tender any direct evidence tending to prove that the appellant had unlawfully and intentionally robbed and killed the deceased... There was no admissible evidence against the appellant justifying her conviction on the charges of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances.
• The court a quo found that the discovery of the deceased's body would never have taken place without the help from information presented by the appellant... Accordingly, it concluded that the voluntariness on the part of the appellant when such pointing out was made had been proved.