South Africa - Martin, 55, Theresa, 54, Rudi van Breda, 22, murdered, 26 Jan 2015 #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Section 35 rights

35. Arrested, detained and accused persons.-

(i) Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right-

(a) to remain silent;
(b) to be informed promptly-
(i) of the right to remain silent; and
(ii) of the consequences of not remaining silent;
(c) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in!evidence against that person;
(d) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than-
(i) 48 hours after the arrest; or
(ii) the end of the first court day after the expiry of the 48 hours, if the 48 hours,expire outside ordinary court hours or on a day which is not an ordinary court day;
(e) at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or to be informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released;
and
(f) to be released from detention if the interests of justice permit, subject to reasonable conditions.

(2) Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right-
(a) to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained;
(b) to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this,right promptly;
(c) to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed.of this right promptly;
(d) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the:detention is unlawful, to be released;

http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/images/a108-96.pdf



My note - this only refers to arrests, so how can they claim he had those rights? They were only taking a witness statement. This is bollocks. Come on Galloway!
 
I'd love to know what they are so worried about. We have to know!
 
Thank you everyone for the updates, I've been reading but not posting, but much appreciate everyone sharing their legal knowledge:cheers:
 
What gets me is they knew defence would be objecting, so why weren't the State prepared? It's like 'oh, right then, what shall we do about this?'

This is really important and even if the pathologist can't refer to it, it will affect the police evidence too. I think pathologist should argue that it could have been relevant to how he performed his role.
 
So Botha wants the most incriminating evidence against HvB inadmissible, his witness statement. Typical! :p

And that's right Tortoise, HvB wasn't arrested, he didn't have his rights read to him. Basically, Botha wants HvB to start from scratch and change his witness statement of what he saw and what he heard to something entirely different! Is that even legal?!
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

Tracey Stewart‏ @Traceyams 2m2 minutes ago

Adv Botha made a point of noting that a large part of the trial is precisely premised on what Dempers says about that statement

@CapeTownEtc
 
Judge Desai says that he is compelled to deal with this as a trial within a trial
J.Desai will hear argument & make a finding on whether or not the Police regarded Henri as a suspect before he gave his statement
He will also hear argument of the admissibility of the statement based on the content and the fact he wasn't warned of his rights
J.Desai will hear legal argument and the parties will hand up heads with case law to assist him to make a ruling on the matter

https://twitter.com/Traceyams
 
I think it will be days. I can't believe it wasn't dealt with at the beginning if it's such a major part of the State's case. OISA!
 
As I posted a few days ago, Galloway already has experience of this with the Petersen case, which Desai presided over.

In that case the wife hired hitmen to kill her husband and make it look like a robbery. The police went to see her the next morning to get her witness statement and in the trial she claimed she hadn't been read her rights. Desai dismissed the defence's claim of inadmissibility.
 
If you could tell Galloway one thing that she should consider, but may not have thought of, what would it be?
 
If you could tell Galloway one thing that she should consider, but may not have thought of, what would it be?

I misread that JJ and thought you were asking if I could say anything to her what would it be. The only things I could think of weren't printable.

Now I've read it properly I'll have to give that a think. Interesting question.
 
Seems to have been resolved looking at twitter for #vanbreda,

I'm not sure if we can copy over non-journalist tweets.
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! How is that a satisfactory resolution?
 
Adv G calls Professor Dempers a forensic pathologist, principal specialist and now is head of the department https://twitter.com/Traceyams
Prof D: Identifies the report he compiled and its handed up in court
Prof D: First page gives info on the instructions I was given and the documents I was given
Prof D: Firstly very Nb to look at the wounds of other members of the family not in isolation of the group
Prof D: Usually the injuries of the individuals in the group are similar
Prof D: Having regard to Teresa and Martin and Rudi's injuries very different
Prof Dempers is reading out his report on the "incise defects" present on the deceased the size.
Also refers to defensive wounds on Teresa's fingers and says that these are not consistent with Henri's


Professor Jacob Dempers works as a forensic pathologist. https://twitter.com/thelionmutters
Professor Dempers compiled a report which has been accepted into evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
1,795
Total visitors
1,949

Forum statistics

Threads
606,015
Messages
18,197,130
Members
233,708
Latest member
QueenOfPain
Back
Top