issue. Two bases were raised in support of the objection. The first was that the police had gained knowledge of the fact that the money was possibly in the house of accused 10 by means of having illegally monitored telephone conversations of accused 10. Her telephone had been â€˜tappedâ€™ on the authority of a court order or direction obtained in terms of s 2(2) the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act 127 of 1992. Such direction was obtained by a Captain Van der Vyver of the Priority Crime Unit, who had been asked to assist in the investigations. Because of the magnitude of the case, the investigating officer, Captain Neville Barnard Eva (Eva), had enlisted the assistance of members of the police attached to various units. The investigations had revealed that cellphones had been used in the area of the SBV premises during or around the time of the robbery. Following upon the securing of information pertaining to telephone numbers contacted through the cellphones before, during or after the robbery, Captain Van der Vyver applied for an order that certain telephone lines be monitored. [77] The State accepted that the order granting permission to the police to monitor the telephone conversations of accused 10 was obtained on false information contained in the affidavit in support of the application for such order and that therefore the order concerned had been illegally sought and obtained. The subsequent acts of monitoring by the police had thus been illegal. The trial court accepted that the illegal monitoring of the telephone conversations of accused 10 was in breach of accused 10 and 11â€™s right to privacy, but held that excluding the evidence concerned would bring the administration of justice into disrepute (s 35(5) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996) (the Constitution).[78] Before us it was submitted that the police would not have found the money had they not unlawfully monitored the telephone conversations of accused 10. It was argued further that the degree to which her rights (to privacy) were breached far outweighs her complicity in the offence. The case of accused 10 is distinguishable from that of Rajan and Yegan Naidoo, who were acquitted following the refusal by McCall J to admit
issue. Two bases were raised in support of the objection. The first was that the police had gained knowledge of the fact that the money was possibly in the house of accused 10 by means of having illegally monitored telephone conversations of accused 10. Her telephone had been â€˜tappedâ€™ on the authority of a court order or direction obtained in terms of s 2(2) the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act 127 of 1992. Such direction was obtained by a Captain Van der Vyver of the Priority Crime Unit, who had been asked to assist in the investigations. Because of the magnitude of the case, the investigating officer, Captain Neville Barnard Eva (Eva), had enlisted the assistance of members of the police attached to various units. The investigations had revealed that cellphones had been used in the area of the SBV premises during or around the time of the robbery. Following upon the securing of information pertaining to telephone numbers contacted through the cellphones before, during or after the robbery, Captain Van der Vyver applied for an order that certain telephone lines be monitored. [77] The State accepted that the order granting permission to the police to monitor the telephone conversations of accused 10 was obtained on false information contained in the affidavit in support of the application for such order and that therefore the order concerned had been illegally sought and obtained. The subsequent acts of monitoring by the police had thus been illegal. The trial court accepted that the illegal monitoring of the telephone conversations of accused 10 was in breach of accused 10 and 11â€™s right to privacy, but held that excluding the evidence concerned would bring the administration of justice into disrepute (s 35(5) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996) (the Constitution).[78] Before us it was submitted that the police would not have found the money had they not unlawfully monitored the telephone conversations of accused 10. It was argued further that the degree to which her rights (to privacy) were breached far outweighs her complicity in the offence. The case of accused 10 is distinguishable from that of Rajan and Yegan Naidoo, who were acquitted following the refusal by McCall J to admit
s-v-pillay.docx