CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
DISCUSSION CLASS 3
CPR3701
,INTERROGATION INTERCEPTION AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF BODILY FEATURES
•CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
• S10: TO HAVE THEIR DIGNITY
RESPECTED AND PROTECTED s12(2)
(1):
• (b) TO SECURITY IN AND CONTROL NO GENERAL DUTY TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION
TO POLICE
EXCEPTIONS: HIGH
TREASON/COMPULSION
BY STATUTE
OVER THEIR BODY
• (c) NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO
MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC SECTION 205 SECTION 189
EXPERIMENTS WITHOUT THEIR
INFORMED CONSENT
• S14(d): NOT TO HAVE PRIVACY OF
THEIR COMMUNICATIONS
INFORNGED
,INTERROGATION
• POLICE MAY INTERROGATE EVERY
POTENTIAL WITNESS
• NO SPECIAL POWERS TO INTERROGATE
•POWERS OF INTERROGATION
• SECTION 26 – INVESTIGATION OF AN
OFFENCE
• POLICE OFFICIAL MAY ENTER PREMISES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERROGATING
PERSONS AND OBTAINING
STATEMENTS.
• OBTAIN PERMISSION OF OCCUPIER OF
PREMISES
, BUTHELEZI V MINISTER OF SAFETY
AND SECURITY 2020(2) SACR 21 (GJ)
•1.The Appellant, Mr. Buthelezi, brought an action against the Respondent, the Minister of Police (“the
Minister”) in the Magistrates’ Court, Johannesburg. Mr. Buthelezi claimed that members of the South African
Police Services (“SAPS”) had unlawfully entered his home and conducted an illegal search, without a
warrant. This was done in full view of members of the community who had gathered around Mr. Buthelezi’s
house. Mr. Buthelezi complained that his privacy was infringed and claimed damages of R 100 000.
•2. The Minister pleaded that the search was conducted in various places to find a missing child. The plea
states further that the search was justified, lawful and necessary. In particular, the Minister pleaded that to
obtain a warrant would have defeated the object of the search. The Minister said that in any event Mr.
Buthelezi consented to the search. Further, it is said that there was an angry crowd who wanted to injure M
Buthelezi and damage his property.
•3. The Learned Magistrate dismissed the claim. She found that the search was lawful; that the interests of
the child who had gone missing weighed more heavily than those of Mr. Buthelezi’s right to privacy; and
finally, that Mr. Buthelezi was not a credible witness.
•4. Mr. Buthelezi now appeals to this court.
DISCUSSION CLASS 3
CPR3701
,INTERROGATION INTERCEPTION AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF BODILY FEATURES
•CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
• S10: TO HAVE THEIR DIGNITY
RESPECTED AND PROTECTED s12(2)
(1):
• (b) TO SECURITY IN AND CONTROL NO GENERAL DUTY TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION
TO POLICE
EXCEPTIONS: HIGH
TREASON/COMPULSION
BY STATUTE
OVER THEIR BODY
• (c) NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO
MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC SECTION 205 SECTION 189
EXPERIMENTS WITHOUT THEIR
INFORMED CONSENT
• S14(d): NOT TO HAVE PRIVACY OF
THEIR COMMUNICATIONS
INFORNGED
,INTERROGATION
• POLICE MAY INTERROGATE EVERY
POTENTIAL WITNESS
• NO SPECIAL POWERS TO INTERROGATE
•POWERS OF INTERROGATION
• SECTION 26 – INVESTIGATION OF AN
OFFENCE
• POLICE OFFICIAL MAY ENTER PREMISES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERROGATING
PERSONS AND OBTAINING
STATEMENTS.
• OBTAIN PERMISSION OF OCCUPIER OF
PREMISES
, BUTHELEZI V MINISTER OF SAFETY
AND SECURITY 2020(2) SACR 21 (GJ)
•1.The Appellant, Mr. Buthelezi, brought an action against the Respondent, the Minister of Police (“the
Minister”) in the Magistrates’ Court, Johannesburg. Mr. Buthelezi claimed that members of the South African
Police Services (“SAPS”) had unlawfully entered his home and conducted an illegal search, without a
warrant. This was done in full view of members of the community who had gathered around Mr. Buthelezi’s
house. Mr. Buthelezi complained that his privacy was infringed and claimed damages of R 100 000.
•2. The Minister pleaded that the search was conducted in various places to find a missing child. The plea
states further that the search was justified, lawful and necessary. In particular, the Minister pleaded that to
obtain a warrant would have defeated the object of the search. The Minister said that in any event Mr.
Buthelezi consented to the search. Further, it is said that there was an angry crowd who wanted to injure M
Buthelezi and damage his property.
•3. The Learned Magistrate dismissed the claim. She found that the search was lawful; that the interests of
the child who had gone missing weighed more heavily than those of Mr. Buthelezi’s right to privacy; and
finally, that Mr. Buthelezi was not a credible witness.
•4. Mr. Buthelezi now appeals to this court.
