[35] receiving the aforesaid report, Sergeant Umati had interrogated the accused on the matter, and the accused totally denied the allegations. The accused further denied knowledge of FK. [36] At one Sergeant Umati together with other police officers observed that the accused bore what appeared to be scratch - marks on his body. Sergeant Stoffels photographed those marks. In his experience in investigating sexual offences, scratch marks, normally inflicted by female victims, are common on the backs or sides of the perpetrators. [37] On Tuesday the 24 September 2013 Sergeant was one of the police officers who accompanied the accused when he pointed out the scene of crime, where the deceased was exhumed. [38] During pre-trial proceedings, and at the Defence indicated that they object to the receipt in evidence, of the pointing-out and admissions pertaining thereto, made by the accused person to the police on the 24 September 2013, on the basis that the accused was not properly advised of his rights to legal representation, before he made the pointing-out and admissions in question. Given these objections to the admissibility of such evidence, the court proceeded to conduct a trial- trial. [39] On the 14 October 2016 this trial gave a ruling that the evidence of the pointing-out and admissions pertaining thereto, made by the accused person on the 24 September 2013, are declared admissible as evidence against him in the main The court gave its reason for that ruling on the 27 October 2016. [40] Detective Inspector Mouton testified that he took charge of the out process. He prepared notes on the pointing-out which contained the admissions made by the accused during the pointing-out process. He signed these notes, and the accused signed them as well, thereby confirming the correctness of what is stated therein. These notes were tendered in evidence as Exhibit “S”. [41] Chief Inspector Mouton further compiled a photoplan consisting of photographs accompanied by explanatory remarks portraying the accused
[35] receiving the aforesaid report, Sergeant Umati had interrogated the accused on the matter, and the accused totally denied the allegations. The accused further denied knowledge of FK. [36] At one Sergeant Umati together with other police officers observed that the accused bore what appeared to be scratch - marks on his body. Sergeant Stoffels photographed those marks. In his experience in investigating sexual offences, scratch marks, normally inflicted by female victims, are common on the backs or sides of the perpetrators. [37] On Tuesday the 24 September 2013 Sergeant was one of the police officers who accompanied the accused when he pointed out the scene of crime, where the deceased was exhumed. [38] During pre-trial proceedings, and at the Defence indicated that they object to the receipt in evidence, of the pointing-out and admissions pertaining thereto, made by the accused person to the police on the 24 September 2013, on the basis that the accused was not properly advised of his rights to legal representation, before he made the pointing-out and admissions in question. Given these objections to the admissibility of such evidence, the court proceeded to conduct a trial- [39] On the 14 October 2016 this gave a ruling that the evidence of the pointing-out and admissions pertaining thereto, made by the accused person on the 24 September 2013, are declared admissible as evidence against him in the main trial. The court gave its reason for that ruling on the 27 October 2016. [40] Detective Inspector Mouton testified that he took charge of the process. He prepared notes on the pointing-out which contained the admissions made by the accused during the pointing-out process. He signed these notes, and the accused signed them as well, thereby confirming the correctness of what is stated therein. These notes were tendered in evidence as Exhibit “S”. [41] Chief Inspector Mouton further compiled a photoplan consisting of photographs accompanied by explanatory remarks portraying the accused out trial
State%20v%20Kido%20(CC%2014-2015)%20[2016]%20%20NAHCMD%20374%20(29%20November%202016).docx