Macinezela v The State

The appellant was convicted in the Regional Court, Mount Frere, of raping his 28‑year‑old relative on more than one occasion during March 2015 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. It was common cause that the appellant and complainant had sexual intercourse; the defence was that the relationship was consensual. At the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor indicated that the complainant was ‘not mentally stable’ and amended the charge sheet accordingly. The complainant testified under oath without any prior inquiry into her capacity to understand the nature and import of the oath or her ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood, despite evidence suggesting intellectual impairment. The magistrate and, on appeal, the High Court accepted her evidence and found that any consent was invalid due to her mental condition. The appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court of Appeal, challenging the admissibility of the complainant’s evidence.

The appeal succeeded. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order upholding the appeal and setting aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence.

The case reaffirms the mandatory procedural safeguards governing the admissibility of evidence from witnesses who may be mentally ill or intellectually impaired. It underscores that courts must strictly comply with ss 162–164 of the Criminal Procedure Act and that failure to conduct the requisite inquiries renders such evidence inadmissible. The judgment is significant for criminal trials, particularly sexual offence cases, as it balances the protection of vulnerable complainants with the accused’s right to a fair trial.