THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA STATEMENT – CASE HEARING IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
 
Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Viljoen

Supreme Court of Appeal -411/03 Hearing date: 12 November 2004
  Judgment date: 2 December 2004
Appeal against acquittal of accused - judge a quo erred (a) in relying on hearsay statements contained in documents handed in during bail proceedings but not admitted during the trial; (b) in ruling against the admissibility of evidence without affording the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of the relevant factual issues; (c) in ruling that the admissibility of a confession cannot be determined by way of a trial within a trial where the admissibility is contested on constitutional grounds; and (d) in holding that the accused's fundamental right to remain silent had been violated - proceedings may be instituted de novo.
Media Summary of Judgment

From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, TRANSVAAL v PIETER NICOLAAS JACOBUS VILJOEN

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

* * *

The Supreme Court of Appeal today upheld an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal against a judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court. In terms of the judgment Pieter Nicolaas Jacobus Viljoen was acquitted on a charge of murder.

The High Court held that a confession by Viljoen and his plea of guilty in the magistrate’s court was inadmissible as evidence against him because there had been a violation of his fundamental human rights which would render it unfair and detrimental to the administration of justice to admit such evidence. The violation of constitutional rights found by the High Court consisted of a failure to inform Viljoen of his right to remain silent and to be legally represented. In the absence of any other evidence implicating Viljoen he was acquitted.

In upholding the appeal against the judgment of the High Court the SCA held that the High Court erred:

In relying on hearsay statements contained in documents handed in during bail proceedings but not admitted during the trial;

  • In ruling against the admissibility of evidence without affording the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of the relevant factual issues;
  • In ruling that the admissibility of a confession cannot be determined by way of a trial within a trial where the admissibility is contested on constitutional grounds;
  • In holding that Viljoen’s fundamental right to remain silent had been violated.

Having found in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal in the aforesaid respects the SCA ordered that proceedings may again be instituted against Viljoen as if he had not previously been acquitted.