- Police arrested Thabiso Tlhone without a warrant and primarily relied on hearsay to link him to allegedly stolen goods; however, the court found no objective evidence that he possessed the property.
- Judge A Reddy said officers failed to verify basic facts or investigate who controlled the rooms where the goods were seized, meaning the suspicion was not reasonable.
- The arrest and detention from 2 May to 4 May 2017 were declared unlawful, the Minister of Police is liable for damages, and compensation will be decided later.
A two-day detention based on guesswork rather than proof has cost the State dearly.
The unlawful arrest and detention of Thabiso Tlhone have been confirmed by the High Court in the North West, which ruled that police acted without the reasonable suspicion required by law when they arrested him without a warrant and held him in custody.
Delivering judgment, Judge A Reddy made it clear that the police never had the factual foundation required to deprive a person of liberty. “There is no objectively verifiable evidence to confirm Tlhone’s possession in our law in any form,” Judge Reddy wrote. The consequence, he said, was unavoidable. “The arrest and subsequent detention were therefore unlawful,” the judge ruled.
How the arrest unfolded
The trouble began days before the arrest when officers searched “hostel-like” premises and seized windows later identified as stolen property. Tlhone was not there when the police confiscated the goods. He only presented himself at the Mmabatho Police Station on 2 May 2017, where he was immediately arrested without a warrant.
Police claimed he admitted the goods were his, but the court found otherwise. Judge Reddy stated bluntly that the state’s version “is not borne out by the facts,” adding that “Strictly speaking, the timeline contradicts the existence of any admission.” He concluded, “Tlhone makes no admission regarding his possession.”
Court finds suspicion was not reasonable
The Minister of Police attempted to rely on Section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows warrantless arrests where an officer has a reasonable suspicion. However, the court emphasised that suspicion must be based on checkable facts, not rumours or assumptions.
Judge Reddy quoted the established test that an officer must “analyse and assess the quality of the information at his disposal critically” and must not accept it “lightly or without checking it where it can be checked.” In this case, that careful approach was missing.
The building contained multiple rooms, yet officers never established who occupied which spaces. They did not properly investigate whether the goods could belong to someone else. Instead, they relied largely on hearsay to connect everything to Tlhone.
The judge said a reasonable officer would have investigated the link “more purposely, more especially given Tlhone’s absence during the seizure and the nature of the ‘hostel-like’ premises.” He found that “the lack of evidence of ‘possession’ renders the suspicion unreasonable” and concluded that “the Minister failed to establish the jurisdictional facts required for a lawful arrest.”
Liability for damages
Because the state could not justify the deprivation of liberty, the court granted a clear order in Tlhone’s favour.
It declared that “the arrest and subsequent detention from 2 May 2017 to 4 May 2017 were unlawful” and held that the Minister of Police is liable for “the plaintiff’s agreed or proven damages.” Costs were also awarded against the state.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
