The appellant, a former police officer, was convicted in the regional court of theft of two motor vehicles and robbery of a post office. The State’s case rested largely on the evidence of an accomplice, Ramseroop, who implicated the appellant and led police to real evidence (a stolen Toyota Hilux and a metal cash box from the post office robbery). It later emerged, and was common cause, that after Ramseroop’s arrest the police had severely assaulted and tortured him, including with electric shocks, in order to extract information. Although Ramseroop testified at trial more than four years later and denied implicating the appellant under duress, the discovery of the real evidence flowed directly from information obtained through torture.
The appeal succeeded in part. The convictions on the robbery-related counts, which depended on evidence derived from torture, were set aside. The conviction for theft of the Corolla (count 3), which was independent of the torture-tainted evidence, was confirmed. The sentence was adjusted accordingly.
This is a landmark South African decision affirming the absolute prohibition of torture and establishing that evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible, including real evidence and evidence obtained from third parties. It extended the constitutional exclusionary rule to accomplice evidence and firmly aligned South African evidence law with constitutional values and international human rights obligations.