S v NDHLOVU & ORS 1985 (2) ZLR 261 (S)

Flynote

Evidence — extra-curial statements — effects of irregularity of confirmation proceedings — identification — need for circumspection in assessing evidence — proper conduct of identification parade.

Headnote

The extra-curial statements of three suspects were tendered for confirmation before a magistrate who did not hold three separate inquiries in camera but consolidated the proceedings into one.

An identifying witness who had not seen the malefactors during the several months that had elapsed between the commission of the offence and the date of his arrest as a suspect was placed in the same police vehicle in which the appellants were being transported. He was questioned for over a day by police before identifying the three appellants who were all on a single parade.

Held that separate proceedings must be held in respect of the confirmation of extra-curial statements made by different persons. Irregularity in the confirmation proceedings does not render a statement inadmissible but deprives the State of the benefits of having the statement confirmed.

Held, further, that confidence and sincerity in an identifying witness are not enough, the greatest circumspection should be employed in assessing evidence of identification. An identification parade should consist of at least eight persons similar in appearance to the suspect; two suspects of roughly similar appearance may be paraded with at least twelve other persons; in no circumstances should more than two suspects be paraded together.