Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Viljoen

The respondent was charged with the murder of his wife. During proceedings in the magistrate’s court under sections 119 and 121 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, he pleaded guilty and made admissions indicating that the murder was premeditated. He also made a confession and conducted a pointing out to the police. At his subsequent trial in the Transvaal Provincial Division, he pleaded not guilty. The trial court (court a quo) ruled that the respondent’s constitutional rights under section 35 of the Constitution had been violated and excluded evidence of the confession, pointing out, and the section 119 plea proceedings under section 35(5). The ruling was made without hearing viva voce evidence and was based largely on inferences drawn from documents forming part of the bail record. As no other evidence implicated the respondent, he was acquitted. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to challenge the acquittal by reserving questions of law for consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The appeal was upheld. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the acquittal was based on serious misdirections. It ruled that proceedings could be instituted de novo, effectively setting aside the basis on which the respondent had been acquitted.

This case clarifies South African criminal procedure regarding the relationship between constitutional rights objections and the admissibility of confessions and admissions. It affirms that factual disputes about alleged constitutional violations must be resolved through evidence, typically in a trial within a trial, and not by argument alone. The judgment reinforces fair trial principles by confirming that both the prosecution and defence must be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence before exclusion under section 35(5) of the Constitution.