S v Langa and Others (C 40/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 303 (7 March 2025)

Key Facts

Issues

• The dock identifications by victims were based on viewing video recordings or photos derived from them, rather than their own recollection. This method of identification was questioned for its reliability.
• The victims did not provide detailed descriptions of the suspects in their initial witness statements, which were used to identify the accused. This lack of detail was a key issue in determining the reliability of identifications.
• The prosecution failed to prove the authenticity of the video recordings, which are crucial for identifying the accused. This lack of proof affected the admissibility and reliability of the footage.
• The reliability of the identification of the accused was questioned due to incorrect identifications during the parade or dock identifications, as well as the use of poor quality photos for identification purposes.
• The identification parade for the Ratanda robbery was not conducted fairly, as conceded by the prosecution. This raised concerns about the reliability of any identifications made during this parade.
• The Facial Image Analyses Report by Warrant Officer Dirk van Eeden did not provide a positive identification of any accused, as the poor quality and camera angles prevented a sufficient comparison.

Holdings

• Count 2: Application granted for accused 1, 3, 4, and 6 as the prosecution tendered no proof the firearm used in the robbery complied with Act 60 of 2000.
• Count 9: Application refused for accused 3, 4, 6, and 9. Granted for accused 2.
• Count 10: Application refused for accused 3. Granted for accused 2, 4, 6, and 9. The prosecution failed to prove joint possession for accused 4, 6, and 9.
• Count 1: Application refused for accused 1 and 6. Granted for accused 3 and 4.
• Count 3: Application refused for accused 1 and 5. Granted for accused 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
• Count 8: Application refused for accused 1 and 5. Granted for accused 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
• Count 6: Application refused for accused 1 and 5. Granted for accused 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
• Count 11: Application refused for accused 4 and 9. Granted for accused 2, 3, and 6. The prosecution failed to prove accused 3 and 6 had knowledge of the stolen BMW or were involved in its theft.
• Count 5: Application refused for accused 1. Granted for accused 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
• Judgment: Accused 2, 7, and 8 are found not guilty and discharged. Accused 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 have a case to answer.
• Count 4: Application refused for accused 1. Granted for accused 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The prosecution failed to prove the firearm in accused 5’s possession complied with Act 60 of 2000 and provided no evidence of joint possession for accused 5.
• Count 7: Application refused for accused 1 and 5. Granted for accused 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.

Remedies

• Accused 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 have a case to answer to.
• Accused 2, 7, and 8 were found not guilty and discharged in terms of section 174 of Act 51 of 1977, and can stand down.

Legal Principles

• The admissibility of CCTV footage and identification evidence is evaluated under principles from S v Ramgobin and S v Baleka, emphasizing the need to prove the authenticity of recordings and the fairness of identification procedures.
• The doctrine of common purpose and joint possession is applied to determine the liability of multiple accused for the same offense, even if direct evidence links only some to the crime.
• The prosecution bears the burden to prove the identity of the accused as perpetrators. This includes providing evidence through witness testimony, CCTV footage, identification parades, and other corroborative means to establish a reliable link between the accused and the crimes.
• The court applies the 'no evidence' standard from R v Shein 1925 AD 6, requiring that there be no possibility of conviction based on the evidence presented. The prosecution must demonstrate that a reasonable person acting carefully could convict the accused.

Precedent Name

• S v Ramgobin and Others
• S v Mdlongwa
• S v Mohlathe
• S v Mahlangu & another
• S v Mthetwa
• S v Gentle
• S v Matwa
• R v Shein
• S v Baleka and Others
• S v Lubaxa
• S v Miggel

Cited Statute

• Firearms Control Act, Act 60 of 2000
• Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977

Judge Name

Passage Text

• It is the view of this Court that the quality of photo 1969 is of such poor quality that no facial features can be seen. It is the view of the Court that the identification is not reliable.
• The Court is of the view that the person depicted in both of these photos is indeed accused 1. The evidence of Ms Mashinini in respect of the identification of accused 3 is corroborated by the evidence of Ms Mametse and Sergeant Sithole.
• 1. Refused in respect of accused 1 and 5. 2. Granted in respect of accused 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.