to the mentioned discrepancies. The complainant’s testimony on this aspect was not clear or even consistent. [20] The complainant’s description of the perpetrator after the rape was, as correctly pointed out by Mr Bondai, of a very general nature. Any number of males would fit such a description. The complainant was unable to recognize the perpetrator at the time of the rape. She either did not know the perpetrator or she was unable to recognize the perpetrator as a result of the disguise he was wearing. The investigating officer well knew that an parade was required to test the complainant’s ability to recognize the perpetrator. [21] The key question is whether this was a properly organized identification parade The first issue was the delay in arranging the identity parade. Goldstein J in S v Dhlamini 1997 (1) SACR 54 (W), at 61B, stated that: it is also a matter of concern that “… the dependability and indeed the probability at the proposed parade diminishes with each In this instance there was not only a delay in the holding of a parade but passing day.” also in the arrest of the appellant. Although he investigating officer gave an instruction for the appellant’s arrest on 30 June 2004 the appellant was only arrested on 21 July 2004. The parade was held on 31 August 2004. No explanation was tendered for these delays by the investigating officer and the arresting officer. [22] The appellant must have made his first appearance in court by the time the parade was held. The complainant had insight into information which fell outside her own personal knowledge. She knew the name of the appellant prior to the parade, the fact that the appellant ran away after the rape; the place he was arrested; that he was held in custody; that he was found in possession of her clothing items; and that he was a rapist. The complainant testified that her father told her the name of the perpetrator. The complainant’s knowledge of facts discovered in the cause of the investigation should have alerted the magistrate to the possibility of suggestion and/or collusion. It is probable that the complainant learnt of the identification of the appellant prior to the parade from sources other than her own recollection, thus diminishing the weight and dependability of her of the appellant at the parade.
to the mentioned discrepancies. The complainant’s testimony on this aspect was not clear or even consistent. [20] The complainant’s description of the perpetrator after the rape was, as correctly pointed out by Mr Bondai, of a very general nature. Any number of males would fit such a description. The complainant was unable to recognize the perpetrator at the time of the rape. She either did not know the perpetrator or she was unable to recognize the perpetrator as a result of the disguise he was wearing. The investigating officer well knew that an parade was required to test the complainant’s ability to recognize the perpetrator. [21] The key question is whether this was a properly organized identification parade The first issue was the delay in arranging the identity parade. Goldstein J in S v Dhlamini 1997 (1) SACR 54 (W), at 61B, stated that: “… it is also a matter of concern that the dependability and indeed the probability at the proposed parade diminishes with each passing day.” In this instance there was not only a delay in the holding of a parade but also in the arrest of the appellant. Although he investigating officer gave an instruction for the appellant’s arrest on 30 June 2004 the appellant was only arrested on 21 July 2004. The parade was held on 31 August 2004. No explanation was tendered for these delays by the investigating officer and the arresting officer. [22] The appellant must have made his first appearance in court by the time the parade was held. The complainant had insight into information which fell outside her own personal knowledge. She knew the name of the appellant prior to the parade, the fact that the appellant ran away after the rape; the place he was arrested; that he was held in custody; that he was found in possession of her clothing items; and that he was a rapist. The complainant testified that her father told her the name of the perpetrator. The complainant’s knowledge of facts discovered in the cause of the investigation should have alerted the magistrate to the possibility of suggestion and/or collusion. It is probable that the complainant learnt of the identification of the appellant prior to the parade from sources other than her own recollection, thus diminishing the weight and dependability of her of the appellant at the parade.
Uakarenda%20%20v%20The%20State%20(CA%2061-2009)%20%5B2014%5D%20NAHCNLD%2054%20(10%20October%202014).docx