'Krugersdorp killer' statement cannot be used as evidence‚ court rules

30 October 2018 - 17:17 By Ernest Mabuza
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
The group of people who allegedly went on a killing spree in Krugersdorp between 2012 and 2016 appeared in the South Gauteng High Court in May.
The group of people who allegedly went on a killing spree in Krugersdorp between 2012 and 2016 appeared in the South Gauteng High Court in May.
Image: Nomahlubi Jordaan

The High Court in Johannesburg ruled on Tuesday that a statement taken by an investigating officer in 2015 - in which one of the alleged “Krugersdorp killers”‚ Zak Valentine‚ apparently incriminated himself – could not be used as evidence in the case.

The high court held a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether the admissions Valentine made in the statement he signed on December 6 2015 should be admissible. The admission is linked to a vehicle in the vicinity of a crime in Krugersdorp.

Valentine and his co-accused‚ Cecilia Steyn‚ 37‚ and Marcel Steyn‚ 20‚ are accused of murdering 11 people between 2012 and 2016. Added to that are charges of robbery‚ aggravated assault‚ racketeering‚ possession of an unlicensed firearm‚ fraud and identity theft.

They have pleaded not guilty to 32 counts‚ including murder‚ robbery with aggravating circumstances‚ fraud and intimidation.

In court on Tuesday it emerged that Valentine had signed a statement‚ which was written by a police official on December 6 2015. The investigating officer had questions surrounding a vehicle registered in Valentine’s name which was in the vicinity of a crime scene.

He asked Valentine a number of questions without warning Valentine that he was considered a suspect. In the statement‚ it is believed Valentine made admissions incriminating himself.

The state had wanted the statement to be admitted as evidence‚ while Valentine’s lawyer‚ Amanda Nel‚ said it should be excluded as Valentine was not warned of his right not to incriminate himself. He was also not warned that he was a suspect in an ongoing investigation.

Valentine testified on Tuesday that he voluntarily met with the police official on December 6 2015. He said that if he had known he was a suspect he would have chosen to remain silent.

Prosecutor Gerrit Roberts SC said the court had discretion to allow evidence that had been improperly obtained.

“We concede it was improperly obtained‚ but it is not the end of the matter. There are several instances where evidence was obtained unconstitutionally but [that] evidence was allowed in the interest of justice‚ provided it would not render the trial unfair‚” Roberts said.

After argument on Tuesday‚ Judge Ellem Jacob Francis ruled that Valentine’s statement was inadmissible‚ saying he would provide reasons for his decision in his main judgment.

The trial continues.

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now