Classen & Another v The State

The appellants were convicted in the Gauteng Division of the High Court of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition arising from the fatal shooting of Mr Daniel Emmanuel Smith on 18 May 2017 in Ennerdale. The State’s case turned primarily on a prior inconsistent statement made by Mrs Belinda Shortridge, an eyewitness who later recanted and was declared hostile. In her initial statement she implicated the appellants as the assailants, but at trial she testified that she had named them under pressure from the deceased’s family and the community and that she could not identify the shooters. Another witness, Mr Daylen Wesley, initially stated he could not identify the assailants but later implicated the appellants in a second statement made shortly before trial. Additional evidence included neutral e‑toll gantry data and testimony about alleged attempts to influence witnesses. The appellants denied involvement and raised alibi-type evidence.

The appeal was upheld. The convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court were set aside and replaced with an order acquitting both appellants on all three counts.

The judgment provides authoritative guidance on the distinction between the admissibility and the probative value of hearsay evidence under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. It reinforces that even properly admitted hearsay, particularly a recanted statement by a hostile witness, must be critically evaluated for reliability before it can sustain a conviction. The case underscores the enduring principle that suspicion, even strong suspicion, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.