Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Criminal Procedure - Chapter 9 - Cases - Coggle Diagram
Criminal Procedure - Chapter 9 - Cases
Thint v National director of public prosecutions
Objective test - is it reasonably capable of being understood by a well-informed person that understands the empowering legislation
2 people can come to different conclusions but this does not make the warrant unintelligible
Is the warrant intelligible
Warrant must include the particular item that is relevant to the search
What is too broad
The right to legal professional privilege is a general common law rule that communications between a legal advisor and their client are protected from disclosure, provided that certain requirements have been met.
Relied on the Powell case
Requirements
The legal advisor must have been acting in professional capacity at the time
The advisor must have been consulted in confidence
The communication must have been made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice
The advice must not facilitate the commission of a crime or fraud
The privilege must be claimed - the client must raise the privilege in order to enforce it
Mnyungula v Minister of safety and security
Legal basis for application - seizure was unlawful, police did not have reasonable ground to believe it was stolen
The police in this case's grounds for suspicion was that they got a tip, saw the driver throw the keys in the garden, says that the car stated with AAPV (police auction) and asked the police office if the car was stolen which they confirmed
Court must interpret S20 - examine what constitutes reasonable grounds to be concerned with in the commission of or suspected commission of an offence - S21 and S22
This is incorrect as the car was auctioned at the station in 2001 and only stolen in 2002
Onus is on police to prove objectivity viewed whether there are enough facts to base their reasonable belief on
The police officer did not check NATIS and did not check police auction registry
Car seized without a warrant
Seizure was seen to be irregular and was set aside in the interests of justice and ordered the seized article to be returned when it is shown that the fact or grounds relied on the policeman when forming reasonable belief did not exist