The Constitutional Court's decision in Zuma v. S (1995) (1) SACR 568 (CC) had a significant outcome for section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. The court declared that this section was invalid, indicating that it could no longer operate within the legal framework due to its unconstitutional nature.

The specific issue at hand was related to the burden of proof concerning confessions made by accused individuals. Under section 217(1)(b)(ii), the accused had the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that any confession which had been recorded was not made in a voluntary manner or was otherwise inadmissible. The court ruled that this provision was problematic as it shifted the burden of proof onto the accused, which undermined the principles of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

In conclusion, the outcome of the Constitutional Court's decision was that B. The section was found to be unconstitutional and therefore no longer in operation. This ruling marked a pivotal moment in South African criminal law, affirming the necessity of safeguarding the rights of individuals accused of crimes.

For further details, you can access the full judgment through the following link: Zuma and Others v S.

Sources

Zuma and Others v S (CCT5/94) [1995] ZACC 1; 1995 (2) SA 642[PDF] 1 S v Zuma and others Case CCT 5/94 Explanatory Note - SAFLIIS v Zuma and Others - ConCourt Collections - Constitutional CourtZuma and Others v S (CCT 5/94) [1995] ZACC 1 (5 April 1995)[PDF] S v Coetzee: Judge Albie Sachs and issues which 'the court is ...Evidence - Sabinet African Journals[PDF] Chapter 52 Evidence - Constitutional Law of South Africa

Related Questions

What are the cases against Zuma?