Godfrey Alfred Ntuli v The State

The appellant was convicted in the regional court on multiple counts including kidnapping and rape. Count 2 concerned the rape of a complainant alleged to be 14 years old at the time of the offence. The state relied on the complainant’s testimony and a J88 medical report to establish her age, without formally applying for the admission of hearsay evidence under s 3(1) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988. The charge sheet referred to s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 instead of s 51(1). The appellant admitted sexual intercourse but denied knowledge of the complainant’s exact age. He was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment on count 2. On appeal, the appellant challenged both the admissibility of hearsay evidence regarding age and the legality of the sentence imposed.

The appeal against the conviction and sentence on count 2 was upheld. The high court order was set aside and replaced with an order convicting the appellant of rape in terms of s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and sentencing him to 15 years’ imprisonment.

The case clarifies that while hearsay evidence may be admitted in the interests of justice, such admission must comply with procedural fairness requirements. It further reinforces that sentencing courts are bound by the charge as formulated, and that errors in charge sheets can materially affect the permissible sentencing regime. The judgment underscores the importance of precise drafting in cases involving minimum sentence legislation.