Criminal Procedure Handbook 13th Ed.

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.
$"//+
Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 1 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4()24%%.4(%$)4)/.
%$)4/2
***OUBERT
"!,,"0RET ,,$5NISA
%MERITUS0ROFESSOROF,AW 5NIVERSITYOF3OUTH!FRICA
!DVOCATEOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
$!LLY
"!,AW57# "0ROC5NISA ,,-,,$50
!SSOCIATE0ROFESSOROF,AW 4SHWANE5NIVERSITYOF4ECHNOLOGY
'0+EMP
"!,,",,-3TELL ),3#!NTWERP ,,$3TELL
0ROFESSOROF,AW 5NIVERSITYOF3TELLENBOSCH
-4-OKOENA
")URIS,,",,-,,$5NISA
3ENIOR,ECTURER $EPARTMENTOF#RIMINALAND0ROCEDURAL,AW 5NIVERSITYOF3OUTH!FRICA
*03WANEPOEL
"!,,"05#(/ ,,",,-5NISA
&ORMERLY!SSOCIATE0ROFESSOROF,AW 5NIVERSITYOF3OUTH!FRICA
334ERBLANCHE
")UR05#(/ ,,",,$5NISA
0ROFESSOROF,AW 5NIVERSITYOF3OUTH!FRICA
3%VANDER-ERWE
&ORMERLY0ROFESSOROF,AW 5NIVERSITYOF3TELLENBOSCH

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
&IRSTPUBLISHED
3ECOND%DITION
4HIRD%DITION
&OURTH%DITION
&IFTH%DITION
3IXTH%DITION
3EVENTH%DITION
%IGHTH%DITION
.INTH%DITION
4ENTH%DITION
3ECOND)MPRESSION
4HIRD)MPRESSION
&OURTH)MPRESSION
2EPRINT
3ECOND)MPRESSION
%LEVENTH%DITION
3ECOND)MPRESSION
4HIRD)MPRESSION
2EPRINTED
2EPRINTED
3ECOND)MPRESSION
4HIRD)MPRESSION
4WELFTH%DITION
3ECOND)MPRESSION
2EPRINTED
4HIRTEENTH%DITION
*UTAAND#OMPANY0TY ,TD
ST&LOOR 3UNCLARE"UILDING $REYER3TREET
#LAREMONT
WWWJUTACOZA
4HISBOOKISCOPYRIGHTUNDERTHE"ERNE#ONVENTION)NTERMSOFTHE#OPYRIGHT
!CTOFNOPARTOFTHISBOOKMAYBEREPRODUCEDORTRANSMITTEDINANYFORM
ORBYANYMEANS ELECTRONICORMECHANICAL INCLUDINGPHOTOCOPYING RECORDINGOR
BYANYINFORMATIONSTORAGEANDRETRIEVALSYSTEM WITHOUTPERMISSIONINWRITING
FROMTHE0UBLISHER
)3".
4YPESETINPTONPT3TONE3ERIF,4
0ROJECT#O ORDINATOR6ALENCIA7YNGAARD !RENZ

%DITOR2IA$E+OCK
0ROOFREADER#HANTELLE(OUGH,OUW
)NDEXER,EXINFO
#OVER$ESIGN$RAGAND$ROP
4YPESETTING0ETER(OWE
0RINT-ANANGEMENT$*%&LEXIBLE0RINT3OLUTIONS

0REFACE
,EGALDEVELOPMENTSASFARASCASELAWANDSTATUTORYAMENDMENTSARECONCERNED
UPTO3EPTEMBERARECOVEREDINTHISWORK
"OOKSCITEDREPEATEDLYFOREXAMPLE %DU4OITETAL#OMMENTARYONTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTAND!+RUGER(IEMSTRAS#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE AREREFERREDTOBY
THESURNAMEOFTHEAUTHORCONCERNED7ORKSCITEDONLYOCCASIONALLYAREREFERRED
TOINFULLINTHETEXT
#ONCISEREFERENCESTO#HAPTER"ILLOF2IGHTS OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONOFTHE2EPUB
LICOF3OUTH!FRICA HAVEBEENINSERTEDINAPPROPRIATEPLACESINTHEMATERIAL
BASEDONTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT3ECTIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONDEALTWITHIN
THECHAPTERSTHATFOLLOWAREREPRODUCEDAFTERTHETABLEOFCONTENTSTOEACHCHAP
TER WITHMENTIONOFTHESUBDIVISIONSOFTHECHAPTERWHEREEACHSECTIONAPPEARS
4HESESELECTEDSECTIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAREINCLUDEDBYWAYOFANAPPENDIXAT
THEENDOFTHEBOOK!LSOSUPPLIEDARELISTSOFTHESECTIONSOFSTATUTESOFCARDINAL
IMPORTANCE IN THE PARTICULAR lELD THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT THE #HILD
*USTICE!CT THE#ONSTITUTIONTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT ASDEALTWITH
INTHETEXT4HERELEVANTPAGESAREINDICATED/NACCOUNTOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
BEINGREFERREDTOCONSTANTLYINTHEVARIOUSPHASESOFTHECRIMINALPROCESS RELEVANT
SECTIONSOFTHIS!CTAREnASISTHECASEWITHTHE#ONSTITUTIONnREPRODUCEDATTHE
BEGINNINGOFEACHCHAPTER
4HECO AUTHORSRESPONSIBLEFORTHEVARIOUSCHAPTERSAREMENTIONEDIMMEDIATELY
AFTERTHEHEADINGOFEACHCHAPTER
%DITOR
0RETORIA
$ECEMBER

#ONTENTS
02%&!#% V
4!",%/&#!3%3 X
0!24) 3%,%#4%$'%.%2!,02).#)0,%3/&4(%,!7/&#2)-).!,
02/#%$52%
#(!04%2
!BASICINTRODUCTIONTOCRIMINALPROCEDURE
3%VANDER-ERWE
#(!04%2
4HECRIMINALCOURTSOFTHE2EPUBLIC
*03WANEPOEL
#(!04%2
4HEPROSECUTIONOFCRIME
3%VANDER-ERWE
#(!04%2
4HERIGHTTOLEGALASSISTANCE
'0+EMP
#(!04%2
4HEACCUSEDHISORHERPRESENCEASAPARTY
'0+EMP
0!24)) 4(%#2)-).!,02/#%33
0(!3%/.% 0 2% 42)!,#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
#(!04%2
4HEEXERCISEOFPOWERSANDTHEVINDICATIONOFINDIVIDUALRIGHTS
'0+EMP
#(!04%2
3ECURINGTHEATTENDANCEOFTHEACCUSEDATTHETRIAL
-4-OKOENA
#(!04%2
)NTERROGATION INTERCEPTIONANDESTABLISHINGTHEBODILYFEATURESOF
PERSONS
-4-OKOENA
#(!04%2
3EARCHANDSEIZURE
$!LLY
VII

VIII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
#(!04%2
"AILANDOTHERFORMSOFRELEASE
3%VANDER-ERWE
#(!04%2
0RE TRIALEXAMINATIONS
'0+EMP
0(!3%47/ 4(%42)!,
#(!04%2
)NDICTMENTSANDCHARGESHEETS
*03WANEPOEL
#(!04%2
4HETRIALCOURTS
*03WANEPOEL
#(!04%2
!RRAIGNMENTANDPLEAOFANACCUSED
*03WANEPOEL
#(!04%2
-ISCELLANEOUSMATTERSRELATINGTOTHETRIAL
*03WANEPOEL
#(!04%2
*OINDERANDSEPARATIONOFTRIALS
3%VANDER-ERWE
#(!04%2
4RIALPRINCIPLESANDTHECOURSEOFTHECRIMINALTRIAL
3%VANDER-ERWE
#(!04%2
4HEVERDICT
3%VANDER-ERWE
0(!3%4(2%% 4
(%3%.4%.#%
#(!04%2
4HESENTENCE
334ERBLANCHE
0(!3%&/52 0
/34 6%2$)#4!.$0/34 3%.4%.#%2%-%$)%3
#(!04%2
2EVIEW
*03WANEPOEL

#/.4%.43 IX
#(!04%2
!PPEAL
*03WANEPOEL
#(!04%2
#LEMENCYANDOTHERRELEVANTASPECTS
*03WANEPOEL
!00%.$)#%3
s3#(%$5,%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4
s3%,%#4%$3%#4)/.3/&4(%#/.34)454)/./&4(%2%05",)#/&
3/54(!&2)#!
2%&%2%.#%3
s2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4
s2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#(),$*534)#%!#4
s2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#/.34)454)/./&4(%2%05",)#/&
3/54(!&2)#!
s2%&%2%.#%34/4(%350%2)/2#/5243!#4
35"*%#4).$%8

4ABLEOFCASES
0AGE
!
!BADER 3!#27
!BBASS!$
!BDOOL,ATIEB#OV*ONES40$
!BELS 3!/
!BRAHAM 3!4
!BRAHAMS 3!#
!BRAHAMS 3!%
!BRAHAMS 3!#2#
!BRAHAMS 3!#2!
!BRAHAMS 3!#2/
!"V"RAGG#OMMUNICATIONS)NC3##;=3#2
!CHESON 3!.M
!CKERMAN 3!!
!DAM 3!#2%
!DAM%FFENDI%$,
!DAMS 3!3PEC#RIM#T
!DAMS 3!!
!DAMS 3!#
!DAMS 3!#2#
!DAMS 3!#2#
!DANLAWA*$2'0
!DDABBA 3!#24
!DENDORFF 3!#23#!
!FFORDABLE-EDICINES4RUSTV-INISTEROF(EALTH 3!##
!FRIKA 3!#
!FRIKANER 3!#2#
!GLIOTTI 3!#2'3*
!GNEW 3!#2#
!LBERTS 3!!
!LBUTTV#ENTREFORTHE3TUDYOF6IOLENCEAND2ECONCILIATION 3!#2
##
!LEXANDER 3!!
!LI 3!#2%#0
!LLART 3!4
!LLI 3!#
!LLIEV$E6RIES./ 3!4
!MAS 3!#2.
!MERIKA 3!#2#
!MERIKA 3!#27##
!NDERSON 3!!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XI
!NDERSON 3!/

!NDERSON 3!#2#
!NDRESENV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!7
!NDREWS 3!3PEC#RIM#T
!NTHONY40$
!RANOFF 3!4
!RENDS 3!%
!RMSTRONG 3!#27##
!RMUGGA 3!#2.
!27HOLESALERS 3!.#
!SSEL 3!#
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL "OPHUTHATSWANA %XPARTE 3!"
!TTORNEY'ENERAL %ASTERN#APEV,INDA 3!%
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .AMIBIA %XPARTE)NRE4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL2ELATIONSHIPBETWEEN
THE!TTORNEY 'ENERALANDTHE0ROSECUTOR 'ENERAL "#,2.M3
!TTORNEY'ENERAL.OVA3COTIA V-AC)NTYRE;=3#2
!TTORNEY 'ENERALOF.ATALV*OHNSTONE!$
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV"OTHA 3!#2!
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV&LATS-ILLING#O0TY ,TD 3!
!
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV+ADER 3!! 3!#2!
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV,UTCHMAN 3!!
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV-OORES3! 0TY ,TD 3!!
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV.OKWE 3!4
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV2APHAELY 3!!
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 6ENDAV-ARAGA 3!#26
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 6ENDAV-OLEPO 3!#26
!TTORNEY 'ENERALV-AGISTRATE 2EGIONAL$IVISION .ATAL 3!.
!TTORNEY 'ENERALV6ANDER-ERWEAND"ORNMAN/0$
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL :IMBABWEV-ZIZI 3!#2:
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL :IMBABWEV0HIRI 3!:(#
"
" 3!37!
" 3!!
" 3!#2.
" 3!#23#!
"AARTMAN 3!!
"ABA*3'
"AGAS 3!!
"AILEY 3!%
"AKGATLA "A +GAFELA#OMMUNAL0ROPERTY!SSOCIATIONV"AKGATLA "A +GAFELA
4RIBAL!UTHORITY 3!##
"AKOS 3!#2'3*
"ALEPILE 3!.#
"ALOI 3!!
"ALOYI 3!4

XII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
"ALOYI 3!#2##

"AM 3!%
"ANGER 3!#23#!
"ANKS;=+"
"ARBER 3!$
"ARCLAYS:IMBABWE.OMINEES0VT ,TDV"LACK 3!!
"ARENDS 3!#2.#+
"ARKETTS4RANSPORT%DMS "PK 3!!
"ARLOW#0$
"ARLOW 3!#2##
"ARNABAS 3!#2!
"ARNARD 3!!
"ARNARDV-INISTEROF*USTICE #ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTAND#ORRECTIONAL
3ERVICES 3!#2'0
"ARON 3!#
"ASSON 3!#24
"ASSON 3!#24
"ASSON 3!#23#!
"ASSON 3!#2##
"ASSON "#,2##
"ASSON 3!#2##
"ASSON 3!##
"EAHAN 3!#2:3
"ECKENSTRATERV2OTTCHERAND4HEUNISSEN 3!!
"EEHARIV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .ATAL 3!.
"EER 3!3%
"EKISI 3!#2#
"EKKER#0$
"EKKERn"3# $
"ENJAMIN 3!!
"ENNETT 3!#
"ENSON!$
"EPELA 3!"
"ERKOWITZV0RETORIA-UNICIPALITY40$
"ERNARDUS 3!!
"ERNHARDT 3!4
"ERNSTEINV"ESTER 3!##
"ERSIN 3!2
"ESTER 3!4
"EYERSV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ESTERN#APE 3!#2#
"HAMV,UTGE./ 3!4
"HEMBE 3!#24
"HENGU 3!#2.
"IDI 3!2
"IERMAN 3!#2##
"IYANA 3!#24
"IZI 3!2!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XIII
"KENLELE 3!/

"LAAU 0((3 #
"LAAUW 3!#
"LACKV"ARCLAYS:IMBABWE.OMINEES0VT ,TD 3!#27
"LACK3ASH4RUST&REEDOM5NDER,AW)NTERVENING V-INISTEROF3OCIAL
$EVELOPMENT "#,2##
"LANK 3!#2!
"LOCK 3!#2.#+
"LOM!$
"LOOMS 3!#
"- 3!#23#!
"OEKHOUD 3!#23#!
"OESAK 3!#2##
"OGAARDS;=:!## 3!#2##
"OKOPANE 3!/
"ONADEIV-AGISTRATEOF/TJIWARONGO 3!37!
"ONUGLI 3!#24
"OOYSEN 3!%
"OOYSEN 3!#2%#'
"OOYSEN 3!#2%#'
"OOYSENV!CTING.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2+:$
"OPAPE 3!#
"OSMAN 3!/
"OSMAN+LEINSCHMIDT 3!!
"OTHA3#
"OTHA 3!4
"OTHA 3!4
"OTHA 3!4
"OTHA 3!#24
"OTHA 3!#23#!
"OTHA 3!#2%#0
"OTHMA 3!/
"OTHMA 3!#
"OTHMAV%LS 3!## 3!#2##
"RANCO 3!#27
"RAND 3!#2.M
"RANDV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!!
"RANDT 0((3.#
"RASH!$
"RITISH#OLUMBIA7ORKERS#OMPENSATION"OARDV&IGLIOLA3##
"RITZ 3!!
"RITZ 3!4
"RON 3!#
"ROOKS 3!#2.#+
"ROOMEV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ESTERN#APE7IGGINSV!CTING2EGIONAL
-AGISTRATE #APE4OWN 3!#2#
"ROWN 3!#23#!

XIV #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
"RUINDERS 3!#27##

"RUNETTE 3!4
"UCHANANV6OOGT./ 3!.
"UDLENDER 3!#
"ULALA 3!#2"6(#
"ULL#HAVULLA 3!#23#!
"URNS3#
"URNS 3!#
"USUKU 3!#2%
"UTLER 3!#
#
# 3!4
# 3!#2#
#ACAMBILE 3!#2%#"
#ALITZ 3!37!
#ALITZ 3!#23#!
#ALLAGHANV+LACKERS./ 3!%
#ANADIAN"ROADCASTING#ORPORATION /.#!#AN,))
#ARELSE#0$
#ARMICHELEV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!##
#ARTER 3!#23#!
#ARTER 3!#2.#+
#ASKER 3!.
#ASSIDY 3!!
#EASER 3!!
#EDARS 3!#2'.0
#EDRAS 3!#2#
#ENTREFOR#HILD,AWV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT
3!#2##
#ETWAYO 3!#2%
#HABEDI 3!#27
#HAKE 3!#23#!
#HARLIE 3!!
#HAUKE 3!#26
#HAUKE 3!#2'3*
#HAUKE 3!#23#!
#HAVULLA 3!#2#
#HAWE 3!.#
#HETTYV#RONJE 3!/
#HILI40$
#HOKOE 3!#2'0
#HRISTIE 3!!
#HUKWU 3!#2'.0
#HUNGUETEV-INISTEROF(OME!FFAIRS 3!7
#INE&ILMS0TY ,TDV#OMMISSIONEROF0OLICE 3!7
#ITIZEN.EWSPAPERS0TY ,TD 3!!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XV
#ITYOF*OHANNESBURG-ETROPOLITAN#OUNCILV.GOBENI ;=:!3#!
-ARCH
#LARK )NRE 3!!
#LAYMORE#OURT0TY ,TDV$URBAN#ITY#OUNCIL 3!.
#LOETE 3!#2#
#OALES 3!#2!
#OBOTHI 3!.
#OETZEE 3!!
#OETZEE 3!#2##
#OETZER 3!!
#OLGATE 0ALMOLIVE 3!4
#OLLIER 3!#
#OLLIER 3!#2#
#ONRADIE 0((4
#ONRADIE;=:!##
#OOPER 3!4
#ORDIER 3!#24
#ORDOZO 3!/
#ORNELISSEN#ORNELISSENV:EELIE./ 3!#27
#ORNELIUS 3!#2#
#ORRUPTION7ATCH.0#V0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!#2
##
#ORRUPTION7ATCH2& .0#V0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!#2'0
#OUNCILOF2EVIEW 3OUTH!FRICAN$EFENCE&ORCEV-ÈNNIG 3!!
#RAUSE 3!!
#RESTO-ACHINESV$IE!FDELING 3PEUROFlSIER3!0OLISIE .OORD 4RANSVAAL
3!!
#ROOKESV3IBISI 3!#2+:0
#ROUKAMP 3!#24
$
$ 3!!
$ 3!#2#
$ABNERV3!2AILWAYSAND(ARBOURS!$
$AKALO*$2'0
$ALYV3OLICITOR'ENERAL%$#
$ANI¿LS 3!!
$ANIELS 3!#2#
$ANIELS 3!#23#!
$ANSTER.QIDO 3!#2#
$ATNIS-OTORS-IDLANDS 0TY ,TDV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!.
$AVE 3!!
$AVIDV2EGIONAL#OURT-AGISTRATE 3!#2%#"
$AVIDV6AN.IEKERK 3!4
$AVIDS$LADLA 3!.
$AWID 3!#2.M
$AYANANV4URKEY

XVI #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
$AYIMANI 3!#2%

$AYZELL7,$
$E!BREU 3!7
$E"EER 3!!
$E"EER 3!/
$E"EER 3!#23#!
$E"EER 3!#2'0
$E"EERV4HE3TATE;=3#!23!
$E"RUIN 3!#
$E#ONING 3!.
$EETLEFS 3!!
$E&REITAS 3!#2#
$E*AGER 3!!
$E*AGERV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .ATAL 3!$
$E+LERK 3!#27
$E+OKER 3!/
$E+OKER 3!#27##
$ELPORT 3!#23#!
$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV!CTING.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
3!#2'0
$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV-INISTEROF)NTERNATIONAL2ELATIONSAND#O OPERATION%NGELSV
-INISTEROF)NTERNATIONAL2ELATIONSAND#O OPERATION;=:!'00(#
3!#2'0
$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!3#!
$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!3#!
$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!
##
$ERBY ,EWISV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2'0
$E2EUCKV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ITWATERSRAND,OCAL$IVISION
3!##
$ESAI 3!!
$E6ILLIERS 3!/
$E6OS 3!#
$E6OS 3!/
$E6OS./V-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2
7##
$E6OS./V-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2
##
$E6RIES 3!#23#!
$E7EE 3!#2.#
$E7ETV'REEFF./ 3!#24
$HLAMINI 3!.
$HLAMINI 3!#27
$HLUDHLA 3!.
$HLUMAYO 3!!
$IEDERICKS 3!#
$IMANE 3!4

4!",%/&#!3%3 XVII
$INTWE 3!"'

$IPHOLO 3!4
$IPPENAAR 3!#24
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSAND-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL
$EVELOPMENTV0HILLIPS ;=:!3#!3EPTEMBER
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG$IVISION 0RETORIAV(AMISI 3!#2
3#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS'AUTENG$IVISION 0RETORIAV-OABI 3!#2
3#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG,OCAL$IVISION *OHANNESBURGV2EGIONAL
-AGISTRATE +RUGERSDORP 3!#2'*
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV'ROBLER 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV+- 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV-' 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV-PHAPHAMA 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV0ISTORIUS 3!#23#!
3!3#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS +WA:ULU .ATALV0 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS +WA:ULU .ATALV2AMDASS 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS .ATALV-AGIDELA 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS .ORTH'AUTENGV4HABETHE 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 0RETORIAV"ENBELKACEM;=:!3#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAALV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL
$EVELOPMENT 3!## 3!#2##
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAALV-TSHWENI 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV/LIVIER 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ESTERN#APEV+OCK 3!#23#!
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ESTERN#APEV0RINS 3!#23#!
$ISLER#0$
$IVISIONAL#OMMISSIONEROF3!0OLICE 7ITWATERSRAND!REAV3!!SSOCIATED
.EWSPAPERS 3!!
$LADLA 3!$
$LAMINI 3!#2!
$LAMINI 3!#2.
$LAMINI 3!#23#!
$LAMINI$LADLA*OUBERT3CHIETEKAT 3!#2##

$OCKRAT 3!$
$ODO 3!#2##
$OMINGO 3!#2#
$OMINGOV3 3!#2#
$OMO 3!.
$OUD 3!/
$OUGHERTY 3!#27
$OZERELI 3!#
$REYER 3!.#
$UBAYI 3!4K

XVIII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
$UBE!$
$UBE 3!#23#!
$UNCANV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!4
$UNCANV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!!
$U0LESSIS%$,
$U0LESSIS 3!7
$U0LESSIS 3!.
$U0LESSIS 3!#
$U0LESSIS 3!#2'3*
$U0LESSISV$E+LERK 3!##
$U0REEZV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2
'0
$U4OIT 3!!
$U4OIT 0((%
$U4OIT 3!!
$U4OIT 3!#24
$U4OIT;=*/,4
$U4OITV4HE-AGISTRATE 3!#23#!
$6 3!#2'.0
$YANTYI 3!!
$YIDI 3!#27##
$ZUKUDA4SHILO 3!## 3!#2##

%
% 3!!
% 3!!
% 3!#2!
%! 3!#2.#+
%BRAHIM 3!#
%BRAHIM 3!!
%BRAHIM 3!.
%BRAHIM 3!!
%BRAHIM 3!#27
%DMONTON*OURNALV!LBERTA!TTORNEY 'ENERAL #AN,))3## ;=
3#2
%DWARD 3!.#
%&V-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#23#!
%LI 3!%
%LLISV-ORGAN%LLISV$ESSAI43
%LLISV6ISSER 3!4
%LSV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2.#
%NDEMANN40$
%NGELBRECHT 3!#2#
%NGELBRECHT 3!#2'3*
%SSA 3!.
%SSOP 3!#2'0

4!",%/&#!3%3 XIX
%STA40$
%STATE!GENCY!FFAIRS"OARDV!UCTION!LLIANCE0TY ,TD 3!##
%STERHUIZEN 3!#24
%VANS 3!#
%VILIO 3!#2'3*
%XTRA$IMENSIONV+RUGER./ 3!#24
%YDEN 3!4
%ZEKIELV+YNOCH.0$
&
& 3!4
& 3!/
& 3!:(
&ABER 3!.#
&AIRlELD#0$
&ERREIRA 3!4
&ERREIRAV,EVIN./ 3!7
&ERREIRAV,EVIN./6RYENHOEKV0OWELL./ 3!##
&HETANI 3!#23#!
&IELIES 3!#2#
&IKIZOLO 3!.#
&ILANIUS40$
&).%35##V*OHANNESBURG-ETROPOLITAN0OLICE$EPARTMENT 3!'*
&- 3!#2'.0
&OLEY 3!%
&ONGOQA 3!#27##
&OSEV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!##
&OUCH½ 3!#
&OURIE 3!/
&OURIE 3!#24
&OURIE 3!#23#!
&RANCIS 3!#2!
&RANS40$
&RANSMAN 3!#27##
&RASER 3!!
&RASER;=!LL3!.
&RAZENBURG 3!#2%
&REDERICK 3!#2'*
&REDERICKS 3!#2#
&REEDMAN!$
&REEDOM5NDER,AWV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!
'.0
&REEDOM5NDER,AW2& .0#V.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
3!#2'0
&RIEDMAN 3!#27

XX #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
'
' 3!!
'ABA 3!/
'ABAATLHOLE 3!#2.#+
'ABAATLHOLWE 3!#23#!
'ABRIEL 3!2!
'ABRIEL 3!37!
'ADE;=!LL3!.#
'AERTNERV-INISTEROF&INANCE 3!##
'AIKA 3!#
'ALANT 3!#2%
'ANI 3!!
'ANI./ 3!#2'3*
'ASA!$
'ASAV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATEFORTHE2EGIONAL$IVISIONOF.ATAL 3!.
'AVANOZIS 3!7
'EIDELV"OSMAN 3!4
'EIGES 3!#24
'ELDERBLOEM 3!#
'ELLMANV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#27
'ENERAL#OUNCILOFTHE"AROF3OUTH!FRICAV*IBA 3!'0 3!
'0
'ERBERS 3!#23#!
'INSBERGV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE #APE4OWN#0$
'LENISTERV0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!##
'OEIEMAN 3!#2.#
'OLIATH 3!!
'ONCALVESV!DDISIONELE,ANDDROS 0RETORIA 3!4
'OQWANAV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#23#!
'ORAS 3!/
'ORDON%$#
'OSSCHALKV2OSSOUW 3!#
'OUDENV.ONCEDU./ 3!#2+:0
'OUGH 3!.#
'OUWS 3!#24
'OVAZELA 3!/
'OVENDER 3!.
'OVENDERV"UYS 3!.
'OVENDERV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!3#!
'OVERNMENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICAV"ASDEO 3!!
'QEBA 3!!
'QULAGHA 3!#2!
'RAHAM %XPARTE)NRE5NITED3TATESOF!MERICAV'RAHAM 3!4
'REEN 3!#23#!
'REGGV'EORGIA53
'RIESSEL 3!#2/
'ROBLER 3!!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXI
'ROBLER 3!/

'ROENEWALDV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE ,ADYSMITH 3!#2.
'ROOTBOOMV.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY;=:!## 3!##
'ROSS 3!!
'ROTES*AWUKA 3!#
'RUNDLINGH 3!!
'UESS 0((#
'ULYASV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!#
'UMBI 3!#23#!
'UMEDE 3!#2.
'WABABA;=:!3#!
'WALA 3!.
'WEBU 3!7
'WEBU 8ABA 3!4
(
( 3!#23#!
( 3!#27
(AARHOFFV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS%ASTERN#APE'RAHAMSTOWN ;=
!LL3!3#!
(AASBROEK 3!/
(ADEBE 3!#23#!
(ADEBE 3!#23#!
(ALGRYN 3!#23#!
(ANNAH!$
(ANSENV4HE2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE #APE4OWN 3!#2#
(ANSMANN %XPARTE 3!##
(ARBOUR 3!4
(ARKSENV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS #APEOF'OOD(OPE 3!#2
#
(ARMER43
(ARRICHARAN 3!.
(ARTKOPF 3!4
(ARTSLIEF 3!#24
(ASSAN 3!#
(ASSIM 3!.
(ATCH#0$
(ATTINGH 3!/
(AYMAN 3!.#
(AYSOMV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE 3!#
(AZELHURST 3!4
(EADAND&ORTUINV7OLLASTON40$
(EANEY*$2'0
(EILBRON40$
(EITA 3!#2.M
(ELEN3UZMAN&OUNDATIONV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA
3!## "#,2##

XXII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
(ELLER 3!!

(ELLER 3!!
(ELM 3!#27##
(ENDRICKS#42
(ENDRICKS;=!LL3!3#!
(ENDRIKS 0((#
(ENDRIX 3!$
(EPWORTH!$
(ERBST!$
(ERBST 3!%
(EROLD 3!#27
(ERSCHEL!$
(ESKWA 3!#2#
(ESLOP 3!#23#!
(EUGH 3!#2%
(EUWEL 3!#27##
(EWITT 3!#23#!
(EYMAN 3!!
(EYNS 3!%
(EYNS 0((#
(IGHSTEAD%NTERTAINMENTTA@4HE#LUBV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER
3!#2# 3!#
(IRAV"OOYSEN 3!!
(LAKWANE 3!#2/
(LALIKAYA 3!#23%
(LANGABEZO 3!#2%
(LANTLALALAV$YANTYI 3!#23#!
(LATSWAYO 3!/
(LATSWAYO 3!!
(LOKULU 3!#
(LONGWA 3!$
(LONGWA 3!#2!
(LONGWANE 3!.
(LONGWANE 3!4
(LONGWANE 3!#2.#
(LOPANE 3!/
(LOPE 3!4
(LOPHEV*UDICIAL3ERVICE#OMMISSION;=!LL3!'3*
(LUNGWANE 3!#24 3!#24
(O 3!7
(OHO 3!#2#
(OLDER 3!!
(OLLENBACH 3!.#
(OOSAINV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL #APE 3!#
(OOSAINV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL #APE 3!#
(ORNE 3!#
(OUTZAMER*$27##

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXIII
(UDSON 3!$

(UGO 3!!
(ULL 3!#
(UMA 3!7
(UMAN 3!%
)
)MENE 3!!
)NDEPENDENT.EWSPAPERS0TY ,TDV-INISTERFOR)NTELLIGENCE3ERVICES)NRE
-ASETLHAV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!##
)NGHAM 3!#
)NGRAM 3!#2!
)NGRAMV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!7
)NVESTIGATING$IRECTORATE3ERIOUS%CONOMIC/FFENCESV(YUNDAI-OTOR$ISTRIBUTORS
0TY ,TD 3!##
)SAACS 3!!
)SAACS 3!.#
)SAACSV-INISTERVAN7ETEN/RDE 3!#23#!
*
*ABULANI 3!.
*ACKELSON40$
*ACKSON 3!#2#
*ACOBS 0((#
*ACOBS 3!%
*ACOBS 3!#
*ACOBS 3!%
*ACOBS 3!#2#
*ACOBS 3!#2%#0
*ACOBSV3;=!LL3!4
*ADA 3!%
*AIPAL 3!## 3!#2##
*AIPALV3 3!##
*ANSEN 3!#2#
*ANSENV4HE3TATE 3!#23#!
*ANTJIES 3!!
*ANTJIES 3!#
*ANUARY0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL .ATALV+HUMALO 3!#2!
*ASAT 3!#23#!
*EMINEZ 3!#27
*ESSEV0RATT./ "#,2:
*HAZBAI!$
*IBAV0RESIDENTOFTHE23!UNREPORTED 7#(#CASENO /CTOBER

*IBAV4HE'ENERAL#OUNCILOFTHE"AROF3OUTH!FRICA;=!LL3!3#!
*IJA 3!%
*IMMALE 3!#2##

XXIV #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
*OALE 3!#2/

*OHANNES40$
*OHANNESBURG#ONSOLIDATED)NVESTMENT#OMPANYV*OHANNESBURG4OWN#OUNCIL
43
*ONAS 3!#23%#,$
*OONE 3!#
*OORS 3!#2#
*OOSTEV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!%
*OSEPHS 3!#2#
*OUBERT 3!!
*40UBLISHING0TY ,TDV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!##
*UGAZI 3!#2#
*ULIUS 3!#
*USTICE!LLIANCEOF3OUTH!FRICAV0RESIDENTOF2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!
##
+
+ 3!!
+ 3!"
+ 3!#2#
+V2EGIONAL#OURT-AGISTRATE./ 3!#2%
+ABINETVANDIE4USSENTYDSE2EGERINGVAN3UIDWES !FRIKAV+ATOFA 3!
!
+AHITA 3!#
+ALASE*3#
+ALOGOROPOULOS 3!#2!
+AMTE 3!#2!
+ANNIGAN 3!.
+ANTOR 3!7
+AROLIA 3!#23#!
+ATU 3!#2%
+AUNDAV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!##
+EARNEY 3!!$
+EKANA 3!#23#!
+EKANA 3!#23#!
+ELLY 3!#2!
+ELLYV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2'*
+ERR %#$
+ERRV2%#$
+ESTER 3!#2"
+ETHANI 3!#2#K
+EULDER 3!#2!
+EYV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL #APEOF'OOD(OPE0ROVINCIAL$IVISION 3!
##
+GATLANE 3!4
+GOGONG 3!!
+GOLANE 3!!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXV
+GOLOKO 3!#2!

+GOSIMORE 3!#23#!
+HALA*$2'0
+HALEMA 3!#2#
+HALPY 3!#
+HAMBULE 3!#27
+HAN 3!.
+HANV+OCH./ 3!2
+HANYILE 3!.
+HIBA 3!/
+HOALI 3!#2/
+HOASASA 3!3#!
+HOELE 3!/
+HOMO 3!$
+HOZA 3!4
+HOZAV4HE3TATE 3!#23#!
+HUMALO 3!.
+HUMALO 3!4
+HUMALO 3!#2.
+HUMALOV(OLOMISA 3!##
+HUZWAYO 3!.
+IBIDO 3!#
+IRSCH 3!#27##
+IRSTEN 3!!
+ISTESAMY 3!.
+LEINV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 3!#27
+LEYN#0$
+LINKV2EGIONAL#OURT-AGISTRATE./;=!LL3!3%
+NIGHT 3!#2'0
+OCK 3!!
+OEKEMOER 0((.
+OK 3!#2.#
+OMO 3!.
+ONING 3!4
+OTZE 3!#2/
+RITZINGER 3!7
+ROON 3!#23#!
+ROUKAMP40$
+RUGER 3!!
+RUGERV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#24
+RUSEUNREPORTED ;=:!7#(# !UGUST
+RUSE 3!#27##
+UMKANI 3!#27##
+UNGEKA 3!%
+UNJANAV-INISTEROF0OLICE;=:!7#(#
+USE 3!#2%
+UYLER 3!#2&"

XXVI #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
+UZWAYO 3!!

+UZWAYO 3!!
+WINIKA 3!7
+YRIACOU 3!#2/
,
, 3!!
, 3!#
,ABUSCHAGNE 3!!
,AKIER40$
,AK:UNY*3
,ALSING 3!#2.
,ANGAV(LOPHE 3!3#!
,APANEV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!#2,4
,ARSEN 3!#2!
,AVHENGWA 3!#27
,AW3OCIETYOF5PPER#ANADA 4HEV)GBINOSUN/.#!
,AWRENCE 3!#2!
,AWRENCEV!2-*OHANNESBURG43
,EBOKENG 3!/
,EEB 3!#24
,EEUWNER 0((%
,EGAL!ID"OARD 3!#23#!
,EGAL!ID"OARD%XPARTE V0RETORIUS;=*/,3#!
,EGOA 3!#23#!
,EGOTE 3!#23#!
,E'RANGE 3!#23#!
,EHNBERG 3!#
,EKAOTO 3!!
,EKGOALE 3!"
,EKHETHO 3!#2/
,EONG 3!4
,EOPENGV-EYER./ 3!#24
,E2OUX 3!#27
,ESAENA 3!#24
,ESLIE 3!#27
,ETAOANA "#,27
,ETHOPA 3!#2/
,ETWELI 3!.#
,EVINV7HITELAW./40$
,EVYV"ENATAR 3!:
,IBAYA 3!/
,IESCHING 3!#2##
,I+UI9UV3UPERINTENDENTOF,ABOURERS43
,- 3!#27##
,OGGERENBERG 3!%
,OMBARD 3!4

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXVII
,OMBOLENIAND4EN/THER!PPEAL#ASESV4HE3TATE .2.,$

,ONDI 3!%
,ONG 3!!
,ONG .#
,ONGANO 3!#2+:0
,OTZOFF!$
,OUBSER 3!4
,OUW 3!%
,OUW 3!!
,OUW 3!#24
,OUWV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#24
,3$V6ACHELL7,$
,UBAXA 3!#23#!
,UBBE40$
,UBBE 3!/
,UBBE 3!4
,UBISI 3!4
,UKAS 3!#2%
,UKELE 3!4
,ULANE 3!.
,USU 3!!
,UZIL 3!#27##
,UZIPHO 3!#2%#'
,WANE 3!!
-
- 3!!
- 3!.
- 3!#24
- 3!#2!
- 3!#2#
-#ENTREFOR#HILD,AWAS!MICUS#URIAE 3!#2##
-3 3!4
- 3!/
-+ 3!#2'3*
-- 3!#23#!
-AAKE 3!#23#!
-ABASA 3!#2.#
-ABASO 3!.
-ABASO 3!!
-ABAYI 3!#
-ABENA 3!#23#!
-ABONA 3!!
-ABONAV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!3%
-ABUZA 3!#2/
-ABUZA 3!#24
-AC$ONALDV+UMALO%$,

XXVIII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
-ACHABA 3!#23#!

-ACHE 3!4
-ACUV$U4OIT 3!#
-ACUV$U4OIT 3!!
-ADIZELA 3!#2.
-ADLALA;=*/,4K
-ADLELANA%$,
-AELANE 3!4
-AEPA 3!!
-AFORA 3!#2.7-
-AFUKIDZI*$2'0
-AFUNGO 3!'
-AGADHLA 3!.
-AGANOV$ISTRICT-AGISTRATE *OHANNESBURG 3!#27
-AGIDSON 3!4
-AGISTRATE 2EGIONAL$IVISION 3!.
-AGISTRATE 3TUTTERHEIMV-ASHIYA 3!#23#!
-AGMOEDV*ANSE6AN2ENSBURG 3!#2#
-AGMOEDV*ANSE6AN2ENSBURG 3!#2!
-AGODA 3!#
-AGQABIV-AFUNDITYALA 3!%
-AGUBANEV6ANDER-ERWE./ 3!.
-AGXWALISA 3!.
-AHABEER 3!.
-AHARAJ 3!!
-AHARAJ 3!.
-AHARAJ 3!$
-AHARAJV-ANDAG#ENTREOF)NVESTIGATIVE*OURNALISM.0# 3!#2
3#!
-AHLANGA;=!LL3!4
-AHLANGU 3!#24
-AHLANGU 3!#24
-AHLONGWANAV+WATINIDUBU4OWN#OUNCIL 3!#2%
-AHOBE.,2
-AIFALA 3!#2"!
-AJOLA 3!.
-AJOLA 3!!
-AJOSI 3!.
-AKAULA 3!#24K
-AKEBE 3!.
-AKGANJE 3!#2"
-AKGETLE 3!"
-AKHAE 3!/
-AKHANDELA 3!#27
-AKHANYAV"AILEY./ 3!4
-AKHELE 3!.#
-AKHOKHA 3!#2##

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXIX
-AKHUBELE 3!4

-AKHUTLA 3!/
-AKHUTLA 3!/
-AKOKA 3!!
-AKONI 3!2
-AKOULA 3!37!
-AKWANYANE 3!## 3!#2##

-AKWASIE 3!4
-ALAKWANA 3!/
-ALATJI 3!#27
-ALATJIV3;=:!'00(#
-ALELE;=:!3#!
-ALGAS 3!#2.#
-ALGAS 3!#23#!
-ALIGA 3!#23#!
-ALIKHETHLA 3!/
-ALILI 3!4
-ALINDE 3!!
-ALINDI 3!!
-ALINDISA 3!4
-ALINSKIV.EW9ORK53
-ALULEKE 3!#24
-AMASE;=!LL3!3#! 3!#23#!
-AMKELI 3!#2!
-AMPA 3!#
-AMPIE 3!.#
-ANALE 3!#2.#
-ANAMELA 3!#2##
-ANAMELA$IRECTOR 'ENERALOF*USTICE)NTERVENING 3!##
-ANASEWITZ!$!$
-ANEKWANE 3!#2/
-ANELI 3!#23#!
-ANGQU 3!%
-ANNHEIM40$
-ANQABA 3!#27
-ANQALAZAV-%#FOR3AFETY3ECURITY %ASTERN#APE;=!LL3!4K
-ANUPO 3!#2#
-ANZINI 3!#27
-AQUNGUV!SSISTANT-AGISTRATE 7HITTLESEA 3!%
-ARAIS 3!4
-ARAIS 3!4
-ARAIS 3!#2##
-ARBURYV-ADISON53#RANCH
-AREDI 3!#24
-ARIMO .DHLOVU 3!2
-ARINGA 3!#23#!

XXX #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
-ARION 3!4

-ARITZ 3!#2!
-ARTINS 3!4
-ARTINUS 3!#2!
-ARX 3!!
-ARX 3!#27
-ASEKI 3!4
-ASEKO 3!#2!
-ASETI 3!#2#
-ASETLHAV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!##
-ASHENGOANE 3!#2'0
-ASHININI 3!#23#!
-ASIKE 3!#24
-ASILELA 3!#24
-ASINA 3!!
-ASINDA 3!!
-ASITA 3!#2#
-ASIYA 3!#2'.0
-ASOANGANYE 3!#23#!
-ASOKA 3!#2%#0
-ASONDO)NRE3V-THEMBU 3!#2'3*
-ASOOA;=!LL3!'*
-ASUKU 3!#2'*
-ATABOGE 3!#2"
-ATHABULA 3!.
-ATHE 3!.#
-ATHEBULA 3!!
-ATHEBULA 3!#27
-ATHOGO 3!/
-ATHONSI 3!#2'0
-ATHOPE 3!"
-ATISONN 3!!
-ATITWANE 3!#2.7-
-ATJEKE "
-ATLALA 3!#23#!
-ATSANE 3!4
-ATSEGO 3!!
-ATSHIVHA 3!#23#!
-ATSHOBA 3!!
-ATSHONA 3!#23#!
-ATSINYA!$
-ATYITYI 3!#23#!
-AUK 3!#27
-AVHUNGU 3!!
-AVININI 3!#23#!
-AWUV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!#27##
-AXEKWA 3!/

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXXI
-AYV5NION'OVERNMENT 3!.

-AYEDWA 3!%
-AYEKISO 3!7
-AYEKISO 3!#2#
-AYEKISO 3!#2#
-AYISA 3!4
-AYONGO 3!%
-AZEKAV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!!
-AZIBUKO 3!!
-AZIBUKO 3!#2+:0
-AZWI 3!4
-BAKA 3!%
-BATA 3!/
-BATHA 3!.
-BATHA0RINSLOO 3!##
-BATHSHA 3!#2%#'
-BEZI 3!#27##
-BOMBO 3!$
-BOTHOMA 3!/
-BOYANY 3!4
-BULAWA 4ANDAWUPI 3!%
-BUYISA 3!#23#!
-BUYISA 3!#2'* *$2'*
-C#ARTHYV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE *OHANNESBURG 3!#23#!
-CHUNU 3!.
-C)NNES7,$
-C)NTYRE 3!#24
-C+ENZIE 3!#2#
-C,AGGAN 3!#2%#'
-C-ILLAN 3!#27
-COSELI 3!#2%#'
-CWERA 0((.
-DLONGWA 3!#23#!
-DUNGEV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!.
-DYOGOLO 3!#2%#
-EDIA,IMITEDV.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY-AHLANGU;=:!'00(#
3!#2'.0
-ELANI 3!#2.#
-ELANI 3!#2%
-ENE 3!!
-ETELERKAMP 3!%
-EYER 3!4
-EYERS!$
-EYERS 3!/
-GCINAV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE ,ENASIA 3!#27
-GILANE 3!4K
-GUDU 3!#2.

XXXII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
-GWENYA40$
-HLAKAZA 3!#2#
-HLANGA 3!4
-HLONGO 3!#2!
-HLONGO 3!#23#!
-ILNEAND%RLEIGH 3!!
-ILNEAND%RLEIGH 3!!
-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTV#HONCO 3!#2
## 3!##
-INISTEROF$EFENCEV0OTSANE,EGAL3OLDIER0TY ,TDV-INISTEROF$EFENCE
3!#2##
-INISTEROF(OME!FFAIRSV4SEBE 3!##
-INISTEROF*USTICE %XPARTE)NRE$UZE!$
-INISTEROF*USTICE %XPARTE)NRE2V"OLON!$
-INISTEROF*USTICE %XPARTE)NRE2V-OSEME!$
-INISTEROF*USTICEV.TULI 3!##
-INISTEROF*USTICEV.TULI 3!#2##
-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTV3OUTHERN!FRICA,ITIGATION
#ENTRE 3!3#!
-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTV:EALAND 3!#2
3#!
-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDERV0ARKER 3!!
-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDERV+ADER 3!!
-INISTEROF0OLICEV+UNJANA 3!#2## ;=:!##

-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY %X0ARTE)N2E3V7ALTERS 3!##
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV"OTHMA 3!#2%#'
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV#RAIG../ 3!#23#!
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV'AQA 3!#2##
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV+ITASE 3!#23#!
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV+RUGER 3!#23#!
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV-HLANA 3!#27##
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV3EKHOTO 3!#23#!
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV4YOKWANA 3!#23#!
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV6ANDER-ERWE 3!##
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV8ABA 3!#2$
-INISTERVANDIE3!0OLISIEV+RAATZ 3!!
-INISTERVAN*USTISIE %XPARTE)NRE3V$E"RUIN 3!!
-INISTERVAN*USTISIE %XPARTE)NRE3V3UID !FRIKAANSE5ITSAAIKORPORASIE
3!#2!
-INISTERVAN0OLISIEV'OLDSCHAGG 3!!
-INISTERVAN6EILIGHEIDEN3EKURITEITV2AUTENBACH 3!#2!
-INISTERVAN7ETEN/RDEV6ANDER(EEVER 3!#
-IRANDAV!RIZONA53
-ISELO 3!#2#
-ITCHELL 3!#2!
-ITCHELLV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .ATAL 3!#2.

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXXIII
-ITSHAMA 3!#27

-JOLI 3!!
-JOLI )NRE 3!#24
-JWARE 3!#2.
-KENKANA 3!%
-KHAFU 3!/
-KHISE-OSIA*ONES,E2OUX 3!!
-KHIZE 3!.
-KHIZE 3!4
-KHIZE 3!.
-KHUZANGEWE 3!/
-KIZE 3!.
-KOHLE 3!#2!
-LANGENI 3!4
-LILO 3!4
-LUMBI 3!#2!
-MATLI 3!4
-MOLAWA 3!"
-NANZANA 3!4
-NGADI 3!#24
-NGADI 3!#27
-NGENI 3!#2%
-NGUNI 3!#2'0
-NYAMANA 3!#2!
-NYANDA 3!!
-ODSENYANE 3!#2'0
-OEKAZIV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE 7ELKOM 3!#2/
-OETI 3!#2"
-OETJIE 3!#24
-OFOKENG 3!!
-OFOKENG 3!!
-OFOKENG 3!#2/
-OFOKENG 3!#27
-OFOKENG 3!#2&"
-OGETWANE 3!#2/
-OGORA 3!#24
-OGOREGI 3!/
-OHAMED 3!!
-OHAMMED 3!#2# ;=!LL3!
-OHAMEDV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!##
-OHANV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS +WAZULU .ATAL 3!#2+:$
-OHAPI 3!#2/
-OHLABANE 0((/
-OHLATHE 3!#23#!
-OHLOBANE 3!!
-OHOMED(ASSIM)SMAILV%DITH.OMAFUSI;=:!+:$(#
-OKELA 3!#23#!

XXXIV #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
-OKGELEDI 3!!

-OKGOETSI!$
-OKGOJE 3!#2.#
-OKIE 3!#24
-OKOA 3!/
-OKOENA 3!/
-OKOENA 3!/
-OKOENAV#OMMISSIONEROF0RISONS 3!7
-OKOENAV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!!
-OKOENAV4HE3TATE;=:!3#!
-OKONOTOV2EYNOLDS./ 3!#24
-OKUBUNG,ESIBO 3!/
-OKWAKA 3!/
-OLALA 3!4
-OLAUDZI 3!#2##
-OLAUZI 3!4
-OLAWA 3!#2'3*
-OLELE 3!/
-OLEFE 3!#2'.0
-OLELEKENG 3!#24
-OLOBI 3!7
-OLOINYANE 3!/
-OLOIV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2
##
-OLOTO 3!"(
-OLOTO 3!!
-OLOTO 3!#24
-OLOTSI 3!/
-OLOYI 3!/
-ONCHANYANA 3!/
-ONGWE 3!4
-ONNANYANE 3!/
-ONYANE 3!#23#!
-OODIE 3!!
-OODIE 3!!
-OOS 3!#27
-ORAPEDIV3PRINGS-UNICIPALITY40$
-ORGAN 3!#2!
-ORRIS 3!#2!
-ORRIS 3!#2#
-ORTEN 3!#2!
-OSELI 3!/
-OSESI 3!#27
-OSIA 0((!
-OSOINYANE 3!#24
-OSTERD 3!#24
-OSTERT 3!#23#!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXXV
-OTATAV.AIR./ 3!#24

-OTAUNG 3!4
-OTHA 3!4
-OTHA 3!#2+:0
-OTHLAPING 3!.#
-OTHOPENG 3!4
-OTHOPENG 3!4
-OTLATLA 3!4
-OTLHABAKWE 3!.#
-OTLOUTSI 3!#
-OTSASI 3!#27
-OTSEPA 3!/
-OTSOMI*$24
-OTSWANAV-%#FOR3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2.#
-OUSSA 3!#23#!
-OUSSA .2(#
-OYAGE 3!!
-OYCE 3!#27##
-PANZA 3!.
-PETA!$
-PETHA 3!#
-PETHA 3!#
-PETHA 3!#
-PHALA 3!#27
-PHELA 3!#2!
-PHUNGATJE 3!/
-PIKA*3%
-POFU 3!2
-POMPOTSHE 3!!
-PONDO 3!#2#
-PONGOSHE 3!!
-POPO 3!!
-PULAMPULA 3!#2%
-RASIV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2%#'
-SANE 3!.
-SELEKU 3!#2.
-SHENGUVTHE3TATE 3!#23#!
-SIBI 3!#27
-SIMANGO 3!.
-SIMANGO 3!#2'3*
-SIMANGO 3!#23#!
-SITHING 3!#2.
-SIZA 3!4
-4 3!#2##
-THEMBU 3!#23#!
-THENJANE 3!!
-THETWA 3!.

XXXVI #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
-THETWA 3!.

-THWANA 3!.
-THWANA 3!!
-TOMBENI40$
-TUNGWA40$
-TUNGWA 3!#2!
-TYUDA "#,2%
-UGWEDI 3!6
-UKAMA40$
-UKWEVHO 3!#2'3*
-ULAYO 3!!
-ULLER 3!!
-ULLER 3!#2#
-ULLINSAND-EYERV0EARLMAN40$
-ULTICHOICE0TY ,TDV.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY)N2E3V0ISTORIUS-EDIA
,IMITEDV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS .ORTH'AUTENG 3!#2
'0
-URBANE 3!#2.#
-URUVEN 3!.
-USHIMBA 3!!
-USIKER 3!#23#!
-UTAWARIRA 3!2
-UTOBVU 3!#2'.0
-UZIKAYIFANI 3!$
-VELASE 3!#2.
-VELASE 3!#27
-WALI3!#2!
-WAMBAZI 3!#2.-
-WEUHANGAV#ABINETOFTHE)NTERIM'OVERNMENTOF37! 3!37!
-YAKAUNREPORTED '3*CASENO! 3EPT
-YENDE 3!!
-ZO 3!#
.
. 3!!
. 3!!
. 3!#2!
. 3!#2#K
.ABOLISA 3!#2##
.ABOTE 3!/
.AGEL 3!#2/
.AIDOO 3!!
.AIDOO 3!!
.AIDOO 3!!
.AIDOO 3!.
.AIDOO 3!#2.
.AIDOO 3!#2'3*

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXXVII
.AKEDIE/0$
.AMBELA 3!#2%
.ANDHA'OPAL.AIDOO 0((7
.ANGUTUUALA 3!37!
.ARAN 3!32
.ASSAR 3!#2.M
.ATHANIEL 3!37!
.ATHANSON 3!.
.ATIONAL#OMMISSIONEROF4HE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICEV3OUTHERN!FRICAN
(UMAN2IGHTS,ITIGATION#ENTRE 3!##
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV&REEDOMUNDERTHE,AW 3!#2
3#!
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV-OHAMED 3!#2##
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV.AIDOO 3!#23#!
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV6ERMAAK;=!LL3!3#!
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV:UMA 3!3#!
3!#23#!
.ATIONAL(IGH#OMMAND 3!4
.ATIONAL3OCIETYFORTHE0REVENTIONOF#RUELTYTO!NIMALSV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND
#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#23#!
.ATIONAL3OCIETYFORTHE0REVENTIONOF#RUELTYTO!NIMALSV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND
#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2##
.CAPHAYI 3!#2!
.CGOBO "#,2.
.COBO 3!.
.CUBE 3!4
.CUKUTWANAV!CTING!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE ,ADY&RERE 3!%
.DABA 3!#2!
.DHLOVU 3!#27
.DIBE;=:!7#(#
.DIWE 3!.#
.DLOVU 3!.
.DLOVU 3!#27
.DLOVU 3!#27
.DLOVU 3!#23#!
.DLOVU 3!#2##
.DLOVUV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS+WA:ULU.ATAL 3!#2.
.DLOVUV3 3!#2##
.DOU 3!!
.DLULIV7ILKEN./ 3!!
.$00V3TARPLEX##;=!LL3!#
.DUDULA 3!#2%#'
.DWANDANE 3!.
.DWENI 3!#23#!
.DZEKU 3!#2!
.EGONDENI;=:!3#!UNREPORTED 3#!CASENO 3EPTEMBER


XXXVIII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
.EL 3!.#

.EL 3!#2'*
.ELV,E2OUX 3!##
.ELL 3!37!
.ELL 3!!
.ENE 3!$
.EUMANN 3!3PEC#RIM#T
.GABASE 3!#2%#'
.GCOBO 3!.
.GCOBO 3!7
.GCOBO 3!#2+:0
.GCULU;=:!3#!UNREPORTED 3#!CASENO .OVEMBER

.GEMA 3!#2.0$
.GEMA#ELE 3!!
.GIDI 3!.
.'*4RADING3TORES0TY ,TDV'UERREIRO 3!!
.GOBE 3!.#
.GOBENI 3!"
.GOBENI;=:!3#!UNREPORTED 3#!CASENO 3EPTEMBER

.GWENYA 3!#24
.GWENYA 3!#27
.HANTSI 3!#24K
.HLABATHLIV!DJUNK0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL 4RANSVAAL 3!7
.HLAPO 3!#2'3*
.HLATI "#,2.
.ICHAS 3!#
.IEMAND 3!#2##
.IESEWAND 3!2!
.IGRINI 3!#
.JABA 3!!
.JIKAZA 3!#2#
.JIVA 3!#2%#-
.KABINDEV*UDICIAL3ERVICE#OMMISSION 3!3#!
.KALA 3!32
.KAMBULE 3!#2!
.KETE %XPARTE%$,
.KIWANI 3!2
.KOMBANI 3!!
.KONDO 3!#27
.KOSI 3!4
.KOSI 3!!
.KOSI 3!4
.KOSI 3!#27
.KOSI 3!#23#!
.KOSI 3!#2'.0

4!",%/&#!3%3 XXXIX
.KOSI 3!#23#!

.KOSI 3!#2'0
.KUNA 3!#2'.0
.KWANYANA 3!!
.,V%STATE,ATE&RANKEL 3!#2##
.NASOLU 3!#2+:0
.OCUSE 3!#24K
.OEMDOE 3!#2#
.OMAKHALALA 3!#2!
.OMZAZA 3!#2!
.ONCEDU 3!#2+:0
.ONGILA 3!%
.ORTH7ESTERN$ENSE#ONCRETE##V$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS7ESTERN#APE
3!#2#
.OTSHOKORU;=:!3#!
.QULA 3!%
.QUMBAV3TATE0RESIDENT 3!%
.QUNELO 3!/
.TAKATSANE 3!#2.#
.TEEO 3!#2.#
.TJORO 3!4
.TLANYENI 3!#23#!
.TOMANE 3!4
.TSHINGILA 3!.
.TSWAKELE 3!4
.TSWAYI 3!#2#
.TULI 3!!
.TULI 3!#2##
.TULI 3!#27
.TULI 3!7
.UNDALALV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS+:.UNREPORTED +:0CASENO!2
-AY
.WABUNWANNE 3!#2.#+
.XANE 3!/
.XUMALO 3!#2/
.XUMALOUNREPORTED +:$CASENO##$ /CTOBER
.YAMBE 3!.#
.YAMZA 3!#2#K
.YATI 3!4
.ZAMA 3!#2$
.ZIMA 3!#2#
.ZUZA 3!!
.ZUZA 3!!
/
/AKES;=$,2TH
/#ARROLL%#$

XL #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
/CTOBER 3!#2#

/FORAH*$2'3*
/KAH 3!#2##
/LCKERS 3!37!
/LIPHANT 3!/
/MAR 3!.
/MAR 3!#2#
/NWARD 0((2
/OSTHUIZEN 3!#23#!
/RRIE 3!#2#
/SBORNE 3!#
0
0 3!.#
0AKANE 3!#23#!
0APENFUS 3!4
0ARK 2OSSV$IRECTOR/FlCEFOR3ERIOUS%CONOMIC/FFENCES 3!#
0ARSONS 3!#27##
0ASTOORS 3!7
0ATAKA 3!#2'*
0ATEL 3!7
0AULINE40$
0" 3!#23#!
0ENNINGTON 3!##
0ENNINGTON 3!#2##
0ENROSE 3!.
0ERSOTAM40$
0ETER 3!#K!
0ETERSEN;=!LL3!#
0ETERSEN 3!#2#
0ETERSON 3!#2#
0ETRO,OUISE%NTERPRISES 3!4
0HAAHLAV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2##
0HAKANE 3!#2##
0HAKATI 3!4
0HALLO 3!#23#!
0HARMACEUTICAL-ANUFACTURERS!SSOCIATIONOF3!)N2E%X0ARTE0RESIDENTOFTHE23!
3!##
0HARMACEUTICAL3OCIETYOF3OUTH!FRICAV4SHABALALA -SIMANG.EW#LICKS3OUTH
!FRICA0TY ,TDV-INISTEROF(EALTH 3!3#!
0HATOV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL %ASTERN#APE 3!#2%
0HEKA 3!.#
0HEWA 3!.
0HIKA 3!#2'*
0HIKWA 3!%
0HILLIPS 3!#
0HILLIPSV"OTHA 3!#23#!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XLI
0HUNDULA 3!4

0HURAVHALTHA 3!#26
0IENAAR 3!#27
0IENAAR 3!#2.#
0IETERS 3!!
0IETERSE 3!!
0IETERSEN 3!#2#
0ILISO 3!#24K
0ILLAY 3!.
0ILLAY 3!!
0ILLAY 3!#23#!
0INEIRO 3!#2.M
0INEIRO 3!#2.M
0INEIRO 3!#2.M
0ISTORIUS## ;=:!'00(#3EPTEMBER
0ITSOV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE +RUGERSDORP 3!4
0OKELA 3!%
0OLELO 3!.#
0OLELO 3!#2.#
0ONYANA 3!43#
0ORRITT 3!#2'*
0ORRITTV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#23#! ;=
!LL3!3#!
0ORTHEN 3!#2#
0OTGIETER 3!#2!
0RATT 3!4
0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICAV3OUTH!FRICAN2UGBY&OOTBALL5NION
3!##
0RESIDENTOFTHE23!V(UGO 3!#2##
0RETORIUS 3!#2!
0RINCEV0RESIDENT ,AW3OCIETY #APEOF'OOD(OPE 3!#2##
0RINSLOO 3!/
0RINSLOOV.EWMAN 3!!
0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL .OORD +AAPV(ART 3!!
0ROKUREUR GENERAAL 4RANSVAAL %XPARTE 3!4
0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL 6ENDAV-AGISTRAAT3TREEKAFDELING 3!6
0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL 6RYSTAATV2AMOKHOSI 3!#2/
0ROPHETV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2##
0UNSHONV7ISE./ 3!.
0URCELL 'ILPIN 3!2!
1
1HAYISO 3!#2%#"
1OZELENIV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!% 3!#2%
1UINTA 3!/

XLII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
2
2 3!#2!
2ABIE 3!!
2ADEBE 3!/
2ADEBE 3!!
2ADEBE 3!/
2ADEBE 3!4
2ADEBE 3!#23#!
2ADEMEYER;= UNREPORTED '0CASENO! !PRIL
2AFTOPULOS 3!4
2AKANANG 3!.#
2ALEKWAV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!4
2ALL 3!!
2AMAKULUKUSHAV#OMMANDER 6ENDA.ATIONAL&ORCE 3!6
2AMGOBIN 3!.
2AMGOBIN 3!.
2AMULIFHO 3!#23#!
2ANDELL 3!#2/
2APHATLE 3!#24
2APHOLOV3TATE0RESIDENT 3!#24
2AUTENBACH 3!#24
2AUTENBACH 3!#2'3*
2ENS 3!#2##
2EUTERS'ROUP0,#V6ILJOEN./ 3!#2#
2HEEDERSV*ACOBSZ!$
2IEKERT 3!37!
2OAD!CCIDENT&UNDV-DEYIDE 3!##
2OBERTS 3!#23#!
2ODRIGUESV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!#2
'*
2OSENTHAL40$
2OTHMAN 3!#2/
2OUSSEAU 3!4
2OUX 3!.
2OUX 3!#2#
2OZANI 3!#2#
2UDMAN 3!!
2UDMAN-THWANA 3!#2!
2UDOLF 3!#
2UDOLPH 3!#23#!
2UNDS 3!!
2USSELL 3!#
3
3 3!4
3 3!!
3 3!!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XLIII
3 3!!

3 3!!
3 3!#24
3ABUYI43
3ADEKE 3!4
3ADLER 3!#23#!
3AGERV3MITH 3!3#!
3AIB 3!.
3ALIE 3!#
3ALLEM 3!!
3ALOMAN 3!#27##
3ALUSBURY 0((4
3AMBOV-ILNS 3!4
3!-OTOR!CCEPTANCE#ORPORATIONV/BERHOLZER 3!4
3ANDERSONV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL %ASTERN#APE 3!## 3!#2
##
3APATV4HE$IRECTOR$IRECTORATEFOR/RGANISED#RIMEAND0UBLIC3AFETY
3!#2#
3ARA0RINS;=:!7#(#
3ARJOO 3!.
3!3/,)))%DMS "PKV-INISTERVAN7ETEN/RDE 3!4
3ASSIN;=!LL3!.#
3AULE 3!#2#K
3AVOYV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2##
3AYED 3!#23#!
3AYEDV,EVITT./ 3!#2+:0
3CHEEPERS 3!#23#!
3CHEEPERSV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2%#'
3CHOBA 3!!
3CHOLTZ 3!7
3CHOLTZ 3!#23#!
3CHOOMBEE;=:!## 3!#2##
3CHUPING 3!"
3CHUTTE40$
3CHWARTZV'OLDSCHMID40$
3COTT #ROSSLEY 3!#23#!
3COTT #ROSSLEY 3!#23#!
3EALS 3!#2#
3EBATANA 3!/
3EBIYA 3!#2/
3EBOl 3!#2'*
3ECOND 0((2!
3EEDAT 3!.
3EEDAT 3!#2'0
3EEKOEI 3!!
3EFATSAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL 3!4
3EFATSAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL 3!!

XLIV #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3EGAL 3!#

3EHERI 3!!
3EHOOLE 3!#23#!
3EJAKE 3!/
3EJAPHALE 3!#24
3EKETE 3!.
3ELANE 3!4
3ELEBOGO 3!.#
3ELEKE 3!!
3ELEMANA 3!4
3ELLARS 3!#2.
3EMENYA 3!4
3ENYOLO 3!#2'3*
3EPIRI 3!.#
3EPTEMBER 3!#
3ERUMALA 3!.#
3ERUMULA 3!!
3ESETSE 3!!
3ETHOLE 3!/
3ETHOGA 3!!
3ETHUNTSA 3!/
3EWELA 3!#27
3HABALALA 3!4
3HABALALA 3!.
3HABALALAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL4RANSVAAL 3!#2##
3HABAN 3!7
3HABANGU 3!!
3HACKELL 3!#23#!
3HAFFEE 3!!
3HAIK 3!#2##
3HAMATLA 3!#2%
3HANGE 3!.
3HANGE;=!LL3!+:0
3HANGEV3;=:!3#!
3HAWV#OLLINS 3#
3HEFERV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAAL;=!LL3!4
3HELEMBE 3!.
3HEZI 3!.
3HIBURI 3!#23#!
3HIKONGO 3!#2.M3
3HINGAV4HE3TATE3OCIETYOF!DVOCATES0IETERMARITZBURG"AR )NTERVENINGAS
!MICUS#URIAE/#ONNELL 3!## 3!#2##

3HIVUTE 3!#2.M
3HONGWA 3!/
3HONGWE 3!#2##
3HUMA 3!#2%

4!",%/&#!3%3 XLV
3IBANDE 3!!

3IBEKO 3!#24
3IBISI 3!.
3IBIYA 3!.
3IBIYA 3!#27
3IBIYAV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG(IGH#OURT 3!
##
3IBIYAV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG(IGH#OURT 3!#2
##
3IBUYA 3!4
3IBUYI 3!#2!
3IKHAKANE 3!.
3IKHINDI 3!.
3IKOSANA 3!!
3ILBER 3!!
3IMANGO 3!4
3IMBI 3!2!
3IMELANE 3!.
3INAMA 3!#23#!
3INGH 3!#
3INGH 3!!
3INGH 3!#2+:$
3INGHV"LOMERUS./ 3!.
3INGHV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2.
3INGHV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#23#!
3ISULU 3!7
3ITAV/LIVIER 3!!
3ITEBE!$
3ITHOLE 3!!
3ITHOLE 3!4
3ITHOLE 3!7
3ITHOLE 3!#24
3ITTIG40$
3IWELA 3!4
3IWELA 3!#27
3KWATI40$
3LABBERT 3!/
3LABBERT 3!/
3LABBERT 3!#
3LABBERT 3!#
3- 3!#23#!
3MILE 3!#23#!
3MITH 3!4
3MITH 3!4
3MITH 3!#2/
3MITV6AN.IEKERK 3!%
3MITV6AN.IEKERK./ 3!!

XLVI #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3MITH 3!#23#!

3MYTHV5SHEWOKUNZE 3!:3
3NYMAN "#,2#
3OCHOP 3!#2#
3OLE "#,2,ES
3OLO 3!#2%
3OLOMON#0$
3OLOMON 3!!
3OLOMONV-AGISTRATE 0RETORIA 3!4
3OLOMONS 3!!
3OMCIZA 3!!
3OMYALI 3!%
3ONDAY 3!# 3!#2#
3OTIRALIS;=!LL3!4
3OUTH!FRICAN"ROADCASTING#ORPORATION,TDV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS 3!## 3!#2##
3PARKS 3!!
3TANDER 3!#23#!
3TANlELD 3!#2#
3TEENKAMP 3!.#
3TEWARD 3!#2.#+
3TEYLV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS ;=:!'00(#
*UNE
3TEYN 3!#2##
3TONE 3!!
3TOPFORTHV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!#23#!
3TRATEGIC,IQUOR3ERVICESV-VUMBI./ 3!##
3TROWITZKI 3!#2.M(
3TRYDOM 3!#27
3UID !FRIKAANSE5ITSAAIKORPORASIE 3!7
3ULIMAN 3!!
3ULIMANV.ATIONAL$IRECTORATEOF3PECIAL/PERATIONS 3!#27##
3USSEX*USTICES +"
3ULANIV-ASHIYI 3!#2%#0
3WANEPOEL 3!!
3WANEPOEL 3!.#
3WANEPOEL 3!!
3WANEPOEL 3!#2/
3WANEPOELV-INISTERVAN6EILIGHEIDEN3EKURITEIT 3!#24
3WARTS 3!#
3WARTZ 3!#27
4
4#0$
4 3!!
4 3!#24
4 3!#23#!

4!",%/&#!3%3 XLVII
4AITZ 3!.

4ALJAARD %XPARTE/0$
4AMPART 3!#237!
4ANDWA 3!#23#!
4HAKELIV3 3!#23#!
4HANE40$
4HEBUS 3!#2##
4HEKISO;=:!3#!
4HENGA 3!#2.#+
4HEOBALDV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2'3*
4HEUNISSEN 3!!
4HIELKE!$
4HINT0TY ,TDV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2##
;=:!##
4HIPE 3!4
4HOMAS 3!"
4HORNHILL 3!#2#
4HUSI "#,2.
4HWALA "#,2##
4IETIES 3!!
4ITO 3!#K
4ITUS 3!#2.#
4LADI 3!/
4LADI 3!"
4LAILANE 3!4
4.3;=!LL3!7##
4OM 3!#2"
4RANTERV!TTORNEY 'ENERALANDTHE&IRST#RIMINAL-AGISTRATEOF*OHANNESBURG
43
4REMEARNE.0$
4ROPEV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL40$
4SANE 3!/
4SANKOBEB 3!!
4SATSINYANA 3!4
4SAWANE 3!!
4SEDI 3!!
4SEGEYAV-INISTEROF0OLICEUNREPORTED -THATHA(IGH#OURTCASENO
!UGUST
4SHABALALA 3!#2#
4SHABALALA 3!#27,$
4SHAKI 3!/
4SHAMANO 3!#26
4SHAPO 3!.
4SHIVHULE 3!6
4SHOKO 3!!
4SHOMAV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE5ITENHAGE "#,2%
4SHOTSHOZA 3!#2'.0

XLVIII #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4SHUKE 3!#

4SHUMI 3!.
4SOSEV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!!
4SOTSI 3!#2%
4UCKER 3!!
4UGE 3!!
4ULIP$IAMONDS&:%V-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT
3!#2##
4WALA 3!#2##
4WAYIEV-INISTERVAN*USTISIE 3!/
4YEBELA 3!!
5
5NION'OVERNMENTV"OLSTRIDGE!$
5ZANI%NVIRONMENTAL!DVOCACY##V"03OUTHERN!FRICA0TY ,TDUNREPORTED
'0CASENO !PRIL
6
6 3!!
6 3!#24
6AN"REDAV-EDIA,IMITED 3!#23#!
6ANDEN"ERG 3!#2.M
6ANDEN"ERG 3!#2.M
6ANDER"ERG 3!#2#
6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN 3!#23#!
6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN 3!#23#!
6AN$EVENTER 3!4
6AN$EVENTER 3!#27##
6AN$EVENTERV2EICHENBERG 3!#2#
6AN$YK 3!#23#!
6AN%EDENV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS #APEOF'OOD(OPE 3!#2
#
6AN'UNDV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2'.0

6AN( 3!4
6AN(EERDEN 3!.
6AN(EERDEN 3!4
6AN(EERDEN 0((%
6AN(EERDEN 3!#24
6AN(EERDENV$E+OCK 3!%
6AN(EERDENV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS;=:!3#!
3!#23#!
6AN(EERDENV2EGIONAL#OURT-AGISTRATE 0AARL ;=:!3#!
3EPTEMBER
6AN(UYSTEEN 3!#2#
6AN)EPEREN 3!#27##
6AN,OGGERENBERG 3!#24

4!",%/&#!3%3 XLIX
6ANMALI 3!.

6AN.IEKERK40$
6AN.IEKERKV6AN2ENSBURG 3!4
6AN2ENSBURG 3!.
6AN2ENSBURG 3!'
6AN2ENSBURG 3!4
6AN2OOYEN 3!#2!
6AN2OOYEN 3!##
6AN3CHOOR 3!#2%
6AN3ITTERS 3!#
6AN3TADEN 0((4
6AN6URENV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2##
6AN6UUREN 3!#2!
6AN7YK 3!#24
6AN7YK 3!!
6AN7YK 3!#
6AN7YK 3!#2.#
6AN7YK 3!#23#!
6AN7YK 3!#23#!
6AN:YL 3!#
6# 3!#2+:0
6EENENDALV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!#24
6ELDMANV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7,$ 3!#2##
6ENTER 3!#2.#
6ERITY !MM40$
6ERMAAS 3!#24
6ERMAAS$U0LESSIS 3!##
6ERSTER 3!!
6ICTOR 3!!
6ILJOEN 3!4
6ILJOEN 3!#23#!
6ISSER 3!#
6ISSER 3!#23#!
6LOK#0$
6OLKMAN 3!#2#
6ON-OLENDORFF 3!4
6ORSTER 3!/
6ORSTER 0((!
6ORSTER )NRE 3!#2%#
6OS#0$
6UMA 3!#27
7
7AHLHAUSV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE *OHANNESBURG 3!!
7AITE 3!/
7AITES 3!#2.#
7ATSON 3!2

L #2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
7EBERV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE7INDHOEK 3!37!

7EGENER%$,
7EHR 3!#2#
7ELLS 3!!
7ESSELS 3!#
7ESSELS 3!#
7ESTERN!REAS0TY ,TD;=:!3#!
7EYER 3!'7
7HITE 3!!
7HITEHEAD 3!!
7HITEHEAD 3!#23#!
7ICKHAMV-AGISTRATE 3TELLENBOSCH 3!#27##
7ICKHAMV-AGISTRATE 3TELLENBOSCH 3!#2##
7ILDV(OFFERT 3!#2##
7ILDRIDGE 3!#2%#'
7ILKEN 3!!
7ILLEMSE 3!!
7ILLIAMS;=7,2#!
7ILLIAMS 3!##
7ILLIAMS 3!#23#!
7ILLIAMS 3!#2#
7ILLIAMS 3!#2%#'
7ILLIAMSV*ANSEVAN2ENSBURG 3!#
7ITBOOI 3!4
7ITBOOI 3!.#
7ITBOOI 3!#2#K
7OLMANV3PRINGS4OWN#OUNCIL40$
7OLPEV/FlCER#OMMANDING3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE *OHANNESBURG 3!
7
7OODV/NDANGWA4RIBAL!UTHORITY 3!!
7RONSKYV0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL 3!37!
8
8 %XPARTE!$
8ABA 3!/
8ABA 3!!
8ABA 3!#23#!
8ABA 3!36+:0
8HABA 3!4
8OLOV!TTORNEY 'ENERALOFTHE4RANSVAAL 3!7
8UNGU 3!/
9
9ANTA 3!#24K(
9ENGENI 3!#24
9OUNG 3!!

4!",%/&#!3%3 LI
9OUNGV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#23%

9UILLV9UILL;=!LL%2
9USUF 3!!
:
:ACKEY!$
:ANNERV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG 3!#23#!
:EALANDV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2
##
:EALANDV-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!
##
:ENZILE 3!%
:IMBA 0((.
:INN 3!!
:OKO 3!.
:ONDI 3!.
:ONDI 3!#2!
:ONDI 3!#27
:ONELE 3!!
:ULU 3!4
:ULU 3!#23#!
:UMA 3!## 3!#2##

:UMA;=!LL3!.
:UMA 3!#27
:UMAV$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCE 3!#23#!
:UMAV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS;=!LL3!.
:UNGU 3!.
:7 3!#2%#'
:WANE 3!7
:WANE 3!#24
:WANE 3!#2.
:WANEV-AGISTRATE -APHUMULO 3!.
:WAYI 3!#2#K
:WELA 3!/
:WEZWE 3!#2.

0!24)
3ELECTED'ENERAL0RINCIPLESOF
THE,AWOF#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE

#(!04%2
!BASICINTRODUCTIONTOCRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
3%VANDER-ERWE
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
#RIMINALPROCEDURETHEDISTINCTIONBETWEENSUBSTANTIVE
ANDADJECTIVALLAW
#RIMINALPROCEDURE
3COPEANDCONTENT
#RIMINALPROCEDUREASCOMPONENTOFTHECRIMINAL
JUSTICESYSTEM
4HEDOUBLE FUNCTIONALNATUREOFSOMERULES
#2)-%#/.42/,!.$$5%02/#%33
4HENEEDTOBALANCEVALUES
4HEINTERNALTENSIONS
$UEPROCESSLEGALITY THERULEOFLAW ANDTHENEEDTOLIMIT
STATEPOWER
-ODELSBASEDONCONCEPTIONSOFVICTIMSmRIGHTS
4HEPOSITIONOFTHEVICTIMINTHECRIMINALPROCESS
6ICTIMPARTICIPATION
6ICTIMPROTECTION
#/.34)454)/.!,#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
)NTRODUCTORYREMARKS
!SURVEYOFTHECONTENTSOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
4HEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE
4HEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCEANDLEGALGUILT
4HEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCEASASTATEMENTOFTHE
PROSECUTIONmSBURDENOFPROOF
4HEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCEANDTHENATUREOFTHE
ALLEGEDCRIME

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HERIGHTTOSILENCEINCLUDINGTHEPRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF
INCRIMINATION
!##53!4/2)!,!.$).15)3)4/2)!,02/#%$52%3!.$!"2)%&
()34/29/&3/54(!&2)#!.#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
3/52#%3/&3/54(!&2)#!.#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
#ONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF
,EGISLATIONOTHERTHANTHE!CT
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
6ARIOUSOTHERSTATUTES
#OMMON LAWRULESANDCASELAW
2%-%$)%3
4HEWRITOFKDEHDVFRUSXVORTHELQWHUGLFWXPGHOLEHURKRPLQH
H[KLEHQGR
!CIVILACTIONFORDAMAGES
4HEINTERDICT
-ANDAMUS
4HEEXCLUSIONARYRULE
)NFORMALREMEDIES
#ONSTITUTIONALMECHANISMS
2%-!2+3).#/.#,53)/.
4HE#ONSTITUTIONANDTHISCHAPTER

3ECTIONr3UPREMACYOF#ONSTITUTION
4HIS#ONSTITUTIONISTHESUPREMELAWOFTHE2EPUBLICLAWORCONDUCTINCONSISTENTWITHIT
ISINVALID ANDTHEOBLIGATIONSIMPOSEDBYITMUSTBEFULFILLED
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr2IGHTS
4HIS "ILL OF 2IGHTS IS A CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY IN 3OUTH !FRICA )T ENSHRINES THE
RIGHTSOFALLPEOPLEINOURCOUNTRYANDAFFIRMSTHEDEMOCRATICVALUESOFHUMANDIGNITY
EQUALITYANDFREEDOM
4HESTATEMUSTRESPECT PROTECT PROMOTEANDFULFILTHERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr!PPLICATIONOF"ILLOF2IGHTS
4HE "ILL OF 2IGHTS APPLIES TO ALL LAW AND BINDS THE LEGISLATURE THE EXECUTIVE THE
JUDICIARYANDALLORGANSOFSTATE

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
! PROVISION OF THE "ILL OF 2IGHTS BINDS A NATURAL OR A JURISTIC PERSON IF AND TO THE
EXTENTTHAT ITISAPPLICABLE TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHENATUREOFTHERIGHTANDTHENATUREOF
ANYDUTYIMPOSEDBYTHERIGHT
3EEAND BELOW
3ECTIONr!RRESTED DETAINEDANDACCUSEDPERSONS
VHHWKH$SSHQGL[o6HOHFWHGVHFWLRQV&RQVWLWXWLRQp
3EE AND BELOWrANDSDVVLPINTHISBOOK
3ECTIONr,IMITATIONOFRIGHTS
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr3TATESOFEMERGENCY
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr%NFORCEMENTOFRIGHTS
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr)NTERPRETATIONOF"ILLOF2IGHTS
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFANDTHISCHAPTER
3ECTION D r#ONSIDERATIONFORDIVERSION
!PROSECUTORMAY INTHECASEOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE IFTHEMATTER
HASNOTALREADYBEENDIVERTEDINACCORDANCEWITH#HAPTER ORINTHECASEOFANOFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE AFTERHEORSHEHASr
D CONSIDEREDTHEVIEWSOFTHEVICTIMORANYPERSONWHOHASADIRECTINTERESTINTHE
AFFAIRSOFTHEVICTIM WHETHERORNOTTHEMATTERSHOULDBEDIVERTED UNLESSITISNOT
REASONABLYPOSSIBLETODOSOAND
3EEBELOW
3ECTION E I r#ONSIDERATIONFORDIVERSION
D 4HE $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS HAVING JURISDICTION MAY IN THE CASE OF AN
OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN 3CHEDULE IN WRITING INDICATE THAT THE MATTER BE DIVERTED IF
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AS DETERMINED BY THE .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONSINDIRECTIVESISSUEDINTERMSOFSECTION D III
E !$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSMAYONLYINDICATETHATAMATTERMAYBEDIVERTEDIN
TERMSOFPARAGRAPH D AFTERHEORSHEHASr
I AFFORDEDTHEVICTIMORANYPERSONWHOHASADIRECTINTERESTINTHEAFFAIRSOFTHEVIC
TIM WHEREITISREASONABLETODOSOANOPPORTUNITYTOEXPRESSAVIEWONWHETHER
ORNOTTHEMATTERSHOULDBEDIVERTED ANDIFSO ONTHENATUREANDCONTENTOFTHE
DIVERSIONOPTIONBEINGCONSIDEREDANDTHEPOSSIBILITYOFINCLUDINGINTHEDIVERSION
OPTION ACONDITIONRELATINGTOCOMPENSATIONORTHERENDERINGOFASPECIFICBENEFIT
ORSERVICEANDHASCONSIDEREDTHEVIEWSEXPRESSEDAND
c
3EEBELOW
3ECTIONr)MPACTOFOFFENCEONVICTIM
&OR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT MEANS A SWORN STATEMENT
BY THE VICTIM OR SOMEONE AUTHORISED BY THE VICTIM TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF
OF THE VICTIM WHICH REFLECTS THE PHYSICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FINANCIAL OR ANY OTHER
CONSEQUENCESOFTHEOFFENCEFORTHEVICTIM

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEPROSECUTORMAY WHENADDUCINGEVIDENCEORADDRESSINGTHECOURTONSENTENCE
CONSIDERTHEINTERESTSOFAVICTIMOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHEIMPACTOFTHECRIMEONTHEVICTIM
AND WHERE PRACTICABLE FURNISH THE CHILD JUSTICE COURT WITH A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
PROVIDEDFORINSUBSECTION
)F THE CONTENTS OF A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT ARE NOT DISPUTED A VICTIM IMPACT
STATEMENTISADMISSIBLEASEVIDENCEONITSPRODUCTION
3EEBELOW
3ECTION D r.ATUREANDOBJECTIVESOFPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
!PRELIMINARYINQUIRYr
D ISANINFORMALPRE TRIALPROCEDUREWHICHISINQUISITORIALINNATURE
3EEBELOW

).42/$5#4)/.
4HISCHAPTERDEALSWITHVARIOUSPRELIMINARYTOPICS ISSUES PERSPECTIVESANDAP
PROACHES)TSERVESASABASICBACKDROPTOTHERESTOFTHEBOOKANDDOESNOTPROVIDE
ACOMPLETEOVERVIEWOFTHESTUDYOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE)TISAN@INTRODUCTION
#RIMEISAREALITYOFLIFE ESPECIALLYIN3OUTH!FRICAANDEVERYCOUNTRYNEEDS
RULES PRINCIPLES MECHANISMSANDSTATESTRUCTURESTOPREVENT DETECT COPEWITH
AND CONTROL CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR #RIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE
IN THIS REGARD !CCORDING TO !RANELLA @2ETHINKING THE &UNCTIONS OF #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE 4HE 7ARREN AND "URGER #OURTS #OMPETING )DEOLOGIES Ԝ 4HE
'EORGETOWN,AW*OURNALԜ THETHREEMAINPURPOSESSERVEDBYCRIMINALPRO
CEDUREAREASFOLLOWS
&IRST CRIMINALPROCEDUREMUSTPROVIDEAPROCESSTHATVINDICATESSUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAW
GOALS;0=ROCEDURALMECHANISM;S=MUSTDETERMINESUBSTANTIVEGUILTRELIABLY AUTHORITA
TIVELY ANDINAMANNERTHATPROMOTESTHECRIMINALLAWSSENTENCINGOBJECTIVES3ECOND
CRIMINALPROCEDUREMUSTPROVIDEADISPUTERESOLUTIONMECHANISMTHATALLOCATESSCARCE
RESOURCESEFFICIENTLYANDTHATDISTRIBUTESPOWERAMONGSTSTATEOFFICIALS&INALLY CRIMINAL
PROCEDURECANPERFORMALEGITIMATIONFUNCTIONBYRESOLVINGSTATE CITIZENDISPUTESINA
MANNERTHATCOMMANDSTHECOMMUNITYSRESPECTFORTHEFAIRNESSOFITSPROCESSESASWELL
ASTHERELIABILITYOFITSOUTCOMES#RIMINALPROCEDURECANSERVETHISFUNCTIONBYARTICU
LATINGFAIRPROCESSNORMSTHATATTEMPTTOVALIDATETHESTATESEXERCISEOFCOERCIVEPOWER
OVERITSCITIZENS
/FCOURSE ALLOFTHEABOVETHESTATESDUTYTOENFORCECRIMINALLAW THEALLOCATION

OFPOWERTOSTATEOFFICIALS THEARTICULATIONOFFAIRPROCESSNORMSARESUBJECTTO
THESUPREMACYOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA HERE
AFTER@THE#ONSTITUTION 3EEPARABELOW4HE"ILLOF2IGHTSIE #HAPTEROFTHE
#ONSTITUTION IS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE IN THIS REGARD 3EE PARA BELOW
#ONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND ESPECIALLY THOSE CONTAINED IN THE "ILL OF 2IGHTS
FORMADOMINANTSOURCEOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE3EEPARABELOW

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
#
RIMINALPROCEDURETHEDISTINCTIONBETWEENSUBSTANTIVEAND
ADJECTIVALLAW
)T IS CUSTOMARY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE AND ADJECTIVAL FORMAL LAW
3UBSTANTIVELAWCOMPRISESLEGALRULESDETERMININGTHERIGHTSANDDUTIESOFINDI
VIDUALSANDTHESTATEANDBOTHPRIVATELAWANDPUBLICLAWAREPARTOFSUBSTANTIVE
LAW3UBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAW FORINSTANCE DETERMINESTHEPREREQUISITESFORCRIMI
NAL LIABILITY LIKE UNLAWFULNESS FAULT AND PRESCRIBES THE ELEMENTS OF VARIOUS
SPECIFICCRIMESLIKETHEFT FRAUDORMURDER )TALSOATTACHESASANCTIONTOBREACH
OF ITS PROHIBITIONS "UT THE MERE THREAT OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS WOULD SERVE LITTLE
PURPOSE-EASURESARENECESSARYTOENFORCETHERULESOFSUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAW
4HESE MEASURES ARE PROVIDED BY ADJECTIVAL LAW !DJECTIVAL LAW PUTS SUBSTANTIVE
CRIMINALLAWINTOACTION4HERULESOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREFORMTHATPARTOFADJEC
TIVALLAWWHICHASSISTSINMAKINGSUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAWDYNAMIC4HELAWOF
EVIDENCEWHICHISALSOAPARTOFADJECTIVALLAWOPERATESINTANDEMWITHCRIMI
NALPROCEDURALRULESINENSURINGTHATCRIMINALLAWISNOTSTATIC
)TMUSTBEAPPRECIATEDTHATCRIMINALPROCEDURALRULESALTHOUGHIDENTIFIABLEAS
ADJECTIVALLAWDONOT MAYNOTANDCANNOTOPERATEINISOLATIONFROMCOMMON
LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO LIFE HUMAN DIGNITY PRIVACY
BODILYINTEGRITY ETC
#RIMINALPROCEDURE
6FRSHDQGFRQWHQW
#RIMINAL PROCEDURE REGULATES INTER ALIA THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CRIMINAL
COURTSANDPROSECUTORIALAUTHORITYTHEDUTIESANDPOWERSOFTHEPOLICE ESPECIALLY
IN THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME THE RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS AND ARREST
EDANDACCUSEDPERSONSPRE TRIALPROCEDURALMATTERSBAIL CHARGESHEETSINTHE
LOWERCOURTS ANDINDICTMENTSINTHESUPERIORCOURTS PLEADINGTHECOURSEOFTHE
CRIMINAL TRIAL AND ESPECIALLY THE TRIAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PROSECUTION THE
3TATE AND THE DEFENCE VERDICT SENTENCING POST TRIAL REMEDIES SUCH AS APPEAL
ORREVIEW ANDEXECUTIVEACTIONEGMERCY INDEMNIFICATIONANDFREEPARDON !LL
THESE ASPECTS ARE DEALT WITH IN THE REST OF THIS BOOK #RIMINAL PROCEDURE MUST
ALSOACCOMMODATEANDPROTECTTHERIGHTSANDINTERESTSOFVICTIMS3EEPARAS
TOBELOW
&ULPLQDOSURFHGXUHDVFRPSRQHQWRIWKHFULPLQDOMXVWLFHV\VWHP
3EEN IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ALSO FUNCTIONS AS PART OF A SYS
TEMWHICHISREFERREDTOASTHE@CRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM@STRAFREGSPLEGINGSTELSEL
@#RIMINALJUSTICECONSISTSOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE SUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAW THELAW
OFEVIDENCEINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS THELAWOFSENTENCINGANDRELATEDDISCIPLINES
LIKE PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY AND FURTHERMORE THE LAW GOVERNING PRISONERS
ANDPRISONSSEE FOREXAMPLE THE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOF WHICH
PROVIDES FOR AMONGST OTHER THINGS THE CUSTODY OF ALL PRISONERS UNDER HUMANE
CONDITIONS PAROLEANDTHERIGHTSANDOBLIGATIONSOFUNSENTENCEDANDSENTENCED
PRISONERS 4HECOMMONBINDINGFACTORBETWEENTHEAFOREMENTIONEDBRANCHESOF
THELAWISTHATTHEYDEALPRIMARILYWITHCRIMEANDITSPERPETRATORSANDFORMOR
SHOULDFORM ACOHERENTWHOLEINORDERTOENSURETHATTHEREIS INTHEINTERESTSOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SOCIETY FIRMBUTFAIRENFORCEMENTOFTHERULESOFSUBSTANTIVELAWINACCORDANCE
WITHCONSTITUTIONALANDALLOTHERLEGALREQUIREMENTS
)N$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!
## AT ;= THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT SAID THAT @AN EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM IS VITAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY 4HE MATTER WAS MORE EMPHATICALLY PUT BY
-ADLANGA*IN#ORRUPTION7ATCH.0#V0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!#2##
AT;=@)FYOUSUBVERTTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM YOUSUBVERTTHERULEOFLAWAND
CONSTITUTIONALDEMOCRACY
4HEDOUBLE FUNCTIONALNATUREOFSOMERULES

-ANYRULESOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREAREDOUBLE FUNCTIONALINTHESENSETHATAPART
FROMREGULATINGPROCEDURE THEYALSOOPERATEASGROUNDSOFJUSTIFICATIONINSUB
STANTIVELAW IESUBSTANTIVECRIMINALASWELLASPRIVATELAW4HUS IFAPOLICEOFFICER
INFRINGESASUSPECTSINTERESTSINPRIVACYBYSEARCHINGHIMORHERINTERMSOFTHE
PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE THE ACT OF SEARCHING IS BOTH A REGULAR PROCE
DURALACTIONANDALAWFULLIMITATIONOFTHESUSPECTSRIGHTTOPRIVACYINTERMSOF
SUBSTANTIVELAWTHESUSPECTCANNEITHERSUCCESSFULLYCHARGETHEPEACEOFFICERWITH
AN OFFENCE NOR SUE HIM OR HER IN A DELICTUALMATTER)F ONTHEOTHERHAND THE
SEARCHWASILLEGALEG INTHATITWASNOTPERMITTEDBYTHELAWOFCRIMINALPROCE
DURE THEN INTERMSOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREANDTHECONSEQUENCESOFPROCEDURAL
ACTIONS ANDIFANEXCLUSIONARYRULEISAPPLIEDSEEPARABELOW THEPROCEDURAL
EVIDENTIALCONSEQUENCESOFTHEUNLAWFULCONDUCTMAYBETHATTHEEVIDENCETHUS
OBTAINEDWILLNOTBEADMISSIBLETHESUBSTANTIVE LAWCONSEQUENCESMAYBEACRIM
INALCHARGEAGAINSTTHEOFFICERASWELLASANACTIONFORDAMAGES
#ONVERSELY GROUNDS OF JUSTIFICATION IN SUBSTANTIVE LAW MAY ALSO BE DOUBLE
FUNCTIONALANDMAYBEUSEDTOGREATEFFECTINCRIMINALPROCEDURE&ORINSTANCE IF
APOLICEOFFICERMAYLAWFULLYARRESTASUSPECTANDTHELATTERATTACKSTHEOFFICER THE
OFFICERMAYRELYONTHELAWOFSELF DEFENCEANDDEFENDHIMSELFORHERSELF7HILE
SELF DEFENCEASSUCHISPRIMARILYAGROUNDOFJUSTIFICATIONINSUBSTANTIVECRIMINAL
AND PRIVATE LAW MEANING THAT CONDUCT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNLAWFUL IS
RENDEREDLAWFULINTHECIRCUMSTANCES ITHEREALSOEMPOWERSTHEOFFICERTOACTIN
ACRIMINALPROCEDURALSENSE
#2)-%#/.42/,!.$$5%02/#%33
4HENEEDTOBALANCEVALUES
4HE DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN PARA
ABOVEISFORMALISTIC3EENFROMADIFFERENTANGLE CRIMINALPROCEDURECONSISTSOF
ASERIESOFCOMPROMISESTHEREISACONSTANTNEEDTOSTRIKEABALANCEBETWEENTHE
INTERESTOFSOCIETYINEFFECTIVECRIMINALLAWENFORCEMENTANDTHEINTERESTOFSOCI
ETYINTHEPROTECTIONOFTHERIGHTSANDFREEDOMSOFALLINDIVIDUALSSUSPECTEDOF
ARRESTEDFOR CHARGEDWITH CONVICTEDOF ANDSENTENCEDFORCRIME3OCIETYNEEDS
ARELIABLEANDFAIRSYSTEMINWHICHTHEGUILTYARESEPARATEDFROMTHEINNOCENT
#RIMINALPROCEDUREIS INTHEFINALANALYSIS ASYSTEMWHICHSEEKSTOACCOMMO
DATEANDBALANCECERTAINFUNDAMENTALVALUES4HESEVALUESCANBEBESTEXPLAINED
INTERMSOFTHECRIMECONTROLMODELANDTHEDUEPROCESSMODELOFCRIMINALPRO
CEDURE 0ACKER 4HE ,IMITS OF THE #RIMINAL 3ANCTION STATES @4HE VALUE

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
SYSTEMTHATUNDERLIESTHE#RIME#ONTROL-ODELISBASEDONTHEPROPOSITIONTHAT
THEREPRESSIONOFCRIMINALCONDUCTISBYFARTHEMOSTIMPORTANTFUNCTIONTOBE
PERFORMED BY THE CRIMINAL PROCESS )N CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE CRIME CONTROL
MODEL THE DUE PROCESS MODELWHILST ACKNOWLEDGING THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFEC
TIVECRIMINALLAWENFORCEMENTPROCEEDSFROMADIFFERENTPREMISEITISBASEDON
THEPRINCIPLETHATTHEPRIMARYFUNCTIONORGOALOFACRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMISNOT
MERELYTOSECUREACONVICTIONANDSENTENCE BUTTOENSURETHAT SUCHRESULTSARE
ACHIEVEDINTERMSOFRULESWHICHDULYANDPROPERLYACKNOWLEDGETHERIGHTSOFAN
INDIVIDUALATEVERYCRITICALSTAGEDURINGPRE ARRESTINVESTIGATIONANDPRE TRIAL TRIAL
ANDPOST TRIALPROCEEDINGS4HISDUEPROCESSARGUMENTGATHERSCONSIDERABLEMO
MENTUMWHENASSESSEDINTHECONTEXTOFA"ILLOF2IGHTSWHICHBYITSVERYNATURE
NOTONLYDEMANDSANDGUARANTEESDUEPROCESS BUTALSOPLACESIMPORTANTLIMITA
TIONSUPONOFFICIALPOWERINORDERTOPROTECTFUNDAMENTALRIGHTSANDLIBERTIES3EE
PARABELOW
)TISNECESSARYTONOTETHATTHECRIMECONTROLANDDUEPROCESSMODELSARENOT
NECESSARILYRIVALMODELS"OTHMODELSSEEKTOVINDICATETHEGOALSOFSUBSTANTIVE
CRIMINAL LAW "UT THEY SEEK TO DO SO ALONG DIFFERENT ROUTES )T SHOULD FURTHER
MORE BE POINTED OUT THAT THE TWO MODELS REPRESENT VALUE SYSTEMS .O REAL LIFE
SYSTEMCONFORMSEXACTLYTOONESPECIFICMODEL)TISAMATTEROFEMPHASIS!NDIT
ISULTIMATELYAMATTEROFSECURINGANAPPROPRIATEBALANCEEVENWHENINTERPRETING
CONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS)N#LOETE 3!#2# H$AVIS*OBSERVED
;4=HEBURDENOFTHECRIMEWAVEANDTHENEEDFORCRIMECONTROLWEIGHSVERYHEAVILY)TIS
WRONGTOCONCLUDETHATANATTEMPTTOPRESERVETHE#ONSTITUTIONISNECESSARILYANODIN
THEDIRECTIONOFCRIMINALS4HE#ONSTITUTIONISNOTTHECAUSEOFCRIMEINTHISCOUNTRY
4HECOURTSTASKISTOUPHOLDTHE#ONSTITUTIONINSUCHAMANNERTHATGIVESITITSPROPER
EFFECT WHICH ) CONSIDER IS TO ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE SOME BALANCE BETWEEN THE MODELS OF
CRIMECONTROLANDDUEPROCESS
4HEINTERNALTENSIONS
$EVISINGARELIABLEANDFAIRSYSTEMINTHECONTEXTOFTHEVALUESEXPLAINEDABOVEIS
ADELICATEANDDIFFICULTTASK#ONSIDERTHEFOLLOWINGINTERNALTENSIONS
&IRST ONECANNOTCREATESTRICTCRIMINALPROCEDURALRULESONTHEASSUMPTIONTHAT
THESERULESWILLONLYBEAPPLIEDTO@CRIMINALS4HESYSTEMMUSTALLOWFORTHEFACT
THATINNOCENTPEOPLECANALSOGETDRAWNINTOTHESYSTEM ESPECIALLYDURINGTHE
PRE TRIALINVESTIGATIVESTAGEOFTHECRIMINALPROCESS
3ECONDLY @THE LIBERTY OF AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL SHOULD NOT BE SACRIFICED IN
ORDER TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF CRIME CONTROLMORE PARTICULARLY ;A= RULE
ORPROCEDURESHOULDBEOPPOSEDIFITSECURESGREATERCRIMECONTROLBYINCREASING
THEPROBABILITYTHATINNOCENTPERSONSWILLBECONVICTED!SHWORTH@#ONCEPTSOF
#RIMINAL*USTICE#RIMINAL,AW2EVIEWԜ !TTHESAMETIMEITISEQUALLY
TRUETHAT@THEMOREWEWANTTOPREVENTERRORSINTHEDIRECTIONOFCONVICTINGTHEIN
NOCENT THEMOREWERUNTHERISKOFACQUITTINGTHEGUILTY$AMASKA@%VIDENTIARY
BARRIERSTOCONVICTIONANDTHETWOMODELSOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE!COMPARATIVE
STUDYnԜ5NIVERSITYOF0ENNSYLVANIA,AW2EVIEWԜ
4HIRDLY IF THE STATE WERE TO HAVE ABSOLUTE POWERS IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE
TOCURBCRIMINALITYTOASIGNIFICANTEXTENT"UTTHENSOCIETYWOULDLIVEUNDERA

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TYRANNY!NDYET IFTHERIGHTSOFTHEINDIVIDUALWEREABSOLUTE THESTATEWOULDBE

POWERLESSANDUNABLETOENFORCECRIMINALLAW!NDTHENSOCIETYWOULDALSOSUFFER
&OURTHLY CRIMINALPROCEDURALRULESMUSTREGULATESTATEPOWEREG POLICEPOWER
INAPOSITIVEASWELLASANEGATIVESENSETHEREMUSTBERULESAUTHORISINGTHEPOLICE
TODOSOMETHINGTHEPOSITIVESENSE ANDTHEREMUSTBERULESLIMITINGTHEIRAUTHOR
ITYTODOSOTHENEGATIVESENSE 4HEPOLICEMUST FOREXAMPLE HAVETHEPOWERTO
ARREST4HECIRCUMSTANCESUNDERWHICHTHEYDOSO ANDTHEMANNERINWHICHTHEY
DOSO MUSTBERESTRICTEDINORDERTOPROTECTFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS SUCHASTHERIGHT
TOLIBERTY HUMANDIGNITYANDBODILYINTEGRITY
&IFTHLY THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND THE RIGHTS OF THE
VICTIMWILLALWAYSBETHERE3EEPARASTOBELOW(ERE TOO ITISMATTER
OFSTRIKINGANAPPROPRIATEBALANCE4HEDIFFICULTY OFCOURSE ISTHATINTHEABSENCE
OF A CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED BY A COURT OF LAW @NOT ALL hVICTIMSv ARE VICTIMS
ANDNOTALLACCUSEDPERSONSARECRIMINALS0ACIOCCO'ETTING!WAYWITH-URDER
4HE#ANADIAN#RIMINAL*USTICE3YSTEM ASCITEDBY"URCHELL0RINCIPLESOF
#RIMINAL,AWED
,ASTLY THEREISANOTHERAREAOFTENSIONWHICHNORMALLYONLYSURFACESATTHETRIAL
LEVELBUTWHICHHASIMPORTANTIMPLICATIONSFORPRE TRIALINVESTIGATIVEPROCEDURES
SHOULDACOURTINPURSUITOFFACTUALGUILTADMITRELIABLEANDINCRIMINATINGEVI
DENCEDESPITETHEFACTSUCHEVIDENCEWASOBTAINEDBYTHESTATEINBREACHOFTHE
FUNDAMENTALRIGHTSOFTHEACCUSED"YADMITTINGSUCHEVIDENCE ACOURTWOULDIN
ASUBTLEORINDIRECTMANNERGIVEASIGNALTOTHESTATEANDITSOFFICIALSTHATUNLAW
FUL CONDUCT IN THE EVIDENCE GATHERING PROCESS IS ACCEPTABLE AND THAT PURSUIT OF
THETRUTHISNOTSUBJECTTOFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS3ECTION OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
PROVIDESASFOLLOWS@%VIDENCEOBTAINEDINAMANNERTHATVIOLATESANYRIGHTINTHE
"ILLOF2IGHTSMUSTBEEXCLUDEDIFTHEADMISSIONOFTHATEVIDENCEWOULDRENDER
THETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISEBEDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE4HIS
SECTIONCREATESAQUALIFIEDEXCLUSIONARYRULE3EE3CHWIKKARDAND6ANDER-ERWE
0RINCIPLESOF%VIDENCEED ATPARAGRAPHԜ)N.AIDOO 3!#2
. THEPOLICEHADOBTAINEDINCRIMINATINGEVIDENCEINBREACHOFTHECONSTITUTION
ALRIGHTTOPRIVACY4HISEVIDENCEWASEXCLUDEDONTHEBASISOFSԜ ANDRESULTED
INTHEACQUITTALOFTHEACCUSEDDESPITETHEFACTTHATTHEROBBERYINQUESTIONWASAT
THATSTAGE THE@BIGGESTROBBERYINTHEHISTORYOF3OUTH!FRICA4HISCASEILLUSTRATES
HOW THE PRE TRIAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT OF THE POLICE CAN HAVE SERIOUS CON
SEQUENCESATTHETRIALLEVELITALSOILLUSTRATESTHETENSIONBETWEENCRIMECONTROL
ANDDUEPROCESSVALUES3EEALSO0ILLAY 3!#23#! AND4ANDWA
3!#23#! 3ECTION CANBEINVOKEDTOEXCLUDEEVIDENCEUNCONSTI
TUTIONALLYOBTAINEDFROMANYPERSON NOTONLYFROMTHEACCUSEDCONCERNED3EE
-THEMBU 3!#23#!
$
UEPROCESSLEGALITY THERULEOFLAW ANDTHENEEDTOLIMITSTATE
POWER
)TISSOMETIMESARGUEDTHATMODERNCRIMINALPROCEDURALSYSTEMSTENDTOOVER EM
PHASISEDUEPROCESSCONSIDERATIONSINRESOLVINGSOMEORALLOFTHEINTERNALTENSIONS
REFERREDTOABOVETHATTHESESYSTEMSNEGLECTTHERIGHTSOFVICTIMSOFCRIMEAND
LAW ABIDINGINDIVIDUALSAND FURTHERMORE THATTHESESYSTEMSFAILTOBRINGTHEFAC
TUALLYGUILTYTOJUSTICE4HEVALIDRESPONSETOTHISCRITICISMISTHAT@TWOWRONGSDO

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
NOTMAKEARIGHT4HEFACTTHATSOMEONEHASBEENROBBED ASSAULTED DEFRAUDEDOR

EVENMURDEREDDOESNOTSUSPENDTHERULEOFLAW@4HECRIMINALLAWNOTONLYSETS
LIMITSONWHATINDIVIDUALSCANDOTOONEANOTHER ITALSOLIMITSWHATTHEAUTHORI
TIES CAN DO TO SUSPECTS AND ACCUSED PERSONS 2EPORT /UR #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE
,AW2EFORM#OMMISSIONOF#ANADA
!SYSTEMWHICHISESSENTIALLYWEIGHTEDINFAVOUROFDUEPROCESSDOESNOTIGNORE
THERIGHTSOFTHEVICTIMOFCRIMEITMERELYSEEKSTOENSURETHATVINDICATIONOFTHE
RIGHTSOFTHEVICTIMSHOULDNOTTRIGGERORLEADTOFURTHERINJUSTICES)NPURSUITOF
THISDUALPURPOSE DIFFICULTCHOICESHAVETOBEMADEANDATTIMESITISNECESSARYTO
ACCEPTTHATCERTAINMEASURESTOESTABLISHTHETRUTHANDCOMBATCRIMEMUST INTHE
BESTINTERESTSOFSOCIETY NOTBEEMPLOYED!CKERAND"RODY#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!
#ONTEMPORARY0ERSPECTIVE STATEASFOLLOWSEMPHASISINTHEORIGINAL
;2=ELIABLEFACTFINDINGISESSENTIALIFTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMISTOENSUREBOTHTHATTHE
GUILTYAREPUNISHEDANDTHATTHEINNOCENTREMAINFREE(OWEVER ASCERTAININGTHETRUTH
ABOUTSUSPECTEDCRIMESCANNOTBETHEEXCLUSIVEFUNCTIONOFTHECRIMINALJUSTICEPROCESS
&EW PEOPLEWOULDCONDONEUSINGTHERACK OROTHERFORMSOFTORTURETOCOERCECONFES
SIONSFROMSUSPECTEDCRIMINALSORWOULDAGREETHATCITIZENSSHOULDBESTRIP SEARCHEDAT
THEWHIMOFAPOLICEOFFICER ORWOULDENTHUSIASTICALLYENTERTAINASEARCHPARTYINTHEIR
HOMES INTHEDEADOFNIGHT3UCHACTIVITIES MIGHT PROVE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN DETECTING
CRIMINALACTIVITYANDEVENINDISCRIMINATINGBETWEENTHEGUILTYANDTHEINNOCENT9ET
THEYILLUSTRATETHATLIMITSMUSTBEPLACEDONFACT FINDINGINITIATIVES EVENIFTHOSELIMITS
IMPEDEANOTHERWISECOMMENDABLESEARCHFORTHETRUTH3AFEGUARDINGINDIVIDUALFREEDOMS
CHECKINGABUSESOFPOWERBYLAWENFORCEMENTOFFICIALS ANDPRESERVINGBASICFAIRNESSINGOVERN
MENT CITIZENINTERACTIONSALSOAREIMPORTANTGOALSOFTHELAWOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE4HE
LAWSTRIVESTOMAINTAINABALANCEBETWEENTRUTHSEEKINGANDINDIVIDUALLIBERTIES
4HERECANBENODOUBTTHATINDIVIDUALSANDSOCIETYSUFFERSEVERELYATTHEHANDS
OF CRIMINALS "UT THERE CAN ALSO BE NO DOUBT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SYSTEM
WHICHLIMITSSTATEPOWERBYPROTECTINGSUBSTANTIVERIGHTSLIKETHERIGHTSTOPRI
VACY DIGNITY ETC ANDPROCEDURALRIGHTSLIKETHERIGHTTOSILENCE INDIVIDUALSAND
SOCIETYWILLALSOSUFFERATTHEHANDSOFTHESTATEANDITSOFFICIALS)THASBEENSAID
THAT@;T=HEHISTORYOFFREEDOMIS INNOSMALLMEASURE THEHISTORYOFPROCEDURE
&RANKFURTER*IN-ALINSKIV.EW9ORK53Ԝ
$UEPROCESSDEMANDSTHATTHEREMUSTBEPRACTICALLIMITATIONSONSTATEPOWER
IN THE DETECTION INVESTIGATION PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIME @0OWER
SAID0ACKERIN4HE,IMITSOFTHE#RIMINAL3ANCTION @ISALWAYSSUBJECTTO
ABUSESOMETIMESSUBTLE OTHERTIMES ASINTHECRIMINALPROCESS OPENANDUGLY
)NTHEHISTORYOF3OUTH!FRICA THEREHAVEBEENSEVERALEXAMPLESOFABUSEOFSTATE
POWERINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM3EEGENERALLY$UGARD(UMAN2IGHTSANDTHE
3OUTH!FRICAN,EGAL/RDERn-ATHEWS,AW /RDERAND,IBERTYIN3OUTH!FRICA
n-ATHEWS&REEDOM 3TATE3ECURITYANDTHE2ULEOF,AW$ILEMMASOF
THE!PARTHEID3OCIETY 4HESEABUSESWERETHEPRODUCTSOFPARLIAMENTARY
SOVEREIGNTY 0ARLIAMENT IS NO LONGER SUPREME )T IS SUBJECT TO THE SUPREMACY OF
THE#ONSTITUTION4HE#ONSTITUTIONHAS SOTOSPEAK BROUGHTTHESTATEUNDERTHE
DISCIPLINEOFTHERULEOFLAW)NTHERESTOFTHISWORKITWILLBECOMEEVIDENTTHAT
THISCONSTITUTIONALDISPENSATIONHASHADANDWILLINFUTUREALSOHAVE PROFOUND
IMPLICATIONSFORCRIMINALPROCEDURE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
-ODELSBASEDONCONCEPTIONSOFVICTIMSmRIGHTS
)N PARA ABOVE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO 0ACKERS @DUE PROCESS AND @CRIME CON
TROLMODELSOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE4HESETWOMODELSARENOTTHESOLENORMATIVE
ANALYSES OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS 2OACH @&OUR -ODELS OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCESS
Ԝ *OURNALOF#RIMINAL,AWAND#RIMINOLOGYDISTINGUISHESBETWEENTHE
@PUNITIVEMODELOFVICTIMSRIGHTSANDTHE@NON PUNITIVEMODELOFVICTIMSRIGHTS
4HESETWOMODELS SAYS2OACHATn EMPHASISADDED
AREBASEDONDIFFERENTCONCEPTIONSOFVICTIMSRIGHTS,IKE0ACKERSCRIMECONTROLANDDUE
PROCESSMODELS THEYASPIRETOOFFERPOSITIVEDESCRIPTIONSOFTHEOPERATIONOFTHECRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM NORMATIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT VALUES THAT SHOULD GUIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE DISCOURSES WHICH SURROUND CRIMINAL JUSTICE -ODELS BASED ON
VICTIMSRIGHTSCANTHUSDESCRIBEPHENOMENASUCHASTHENEWPOLITICALCASEWHICHPITS
THEACCUSEDAGAINSTCRIMEVICTIMSORMINORITYANDOTHERGROUPSASSOCIATEDWITHCRIME
VICTIMS ORRESTORATIVEJUSTICEPRACTICESWHICHBRINGCRIMEVICTIMSANDTHEIRSUPPORTERS
TOGETHERWITHOFFENDERSANDTHEIRSUPPORTERS.ORMATIVELY MYPUNITIVEMODELOFVICTIMS
RIGHTS AFFIRMS THE RETRIBUTIVE AND EXPRESSIVE IMPORTANCE OF PUNISHMENT AND THE NEED FOR THE
RIGHTSOFVICTIMSTOBECONSIDEREDALONGWITHTHERIGHTSOFTHEACCUSED-YNON PUNITIVEMODELOF
VICTIMSRIGHTSATTEMPTSTOMINIMIZETHEPAINOFBOTHVICTIMIZATIONANDPUNISHMENTBYSTRESSING
CRIMEPREVENTIONANDRESTORATIVEJUSTICE$ISCURSIVELY BOTHPUNITIVEANDNON PUNITIVEMOD
ELSOFVICTIMSRIGHTSPROMISETOCONTROLCRIMEANDRESPECTVICTIMS BUTTHEPUNITIVEMODEL
FOCUSESALLOFITSENERGYONTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMANDTHEADMINISTRATIONOFPUNISHMENT
WHILETHENON PUNITIVEMODELBRANCHESOUTINTOOTHERAREASOFSOCIALDEVELOPMENTANDINTEGRA
TION)NSHORT THECONSTRUCTIONOFMODELSPROVIDESANACCESSIBLELANGUAGETODISCUSSTHE
ACTUALOPERATIONOFTHECRIMINALPROCESS THEVALUESOFCRIMINALJUSTICE ANDTHEWAYTHAT
PEOPLETHINKANDTALKABOUTCRIMINALJUSTICE
!CCORDING TO 2OACH THE PUNITIVE MODEL OF VICTIMS RIGHTS ASSERTS THE @RIGHTS OF
CRIMEVICTIMSANDPOTENTIALVICTIMSOFCRIMEASWORTHYOFRESPECTAT AND
@RESEMBLES THE CRIME CONTROL MODEL BY ASSURING THAT THE ENACTMENT OF A CRIMI
NAL LAW PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT CONTROLS CRIME AT !T HE ALSO
STATESTHAT@;T=HEPUNITIVEVICTIMSRIGHTSMODELISNEWBECAUSEITEMPLOYSRIGHTS
;#=RIME CONTROL ;IS= NOW RE CONCEIVED AND STRENGTHENED AS VICTIMS RIGHTS
4HEEMERGENCEOFOREMPHASISONVICTIMSRIGHTSOVERTHELASTTWOORMOREDECADES
HASNOWPROVIDEDANEWGROUNDFORCOUNTERINGDUEPROCESSCHALLENGESADVANCED
BYTHEDEFENCE
4HENON PUNITIVEASOPPOSEDTOTHEPUNITIVE MODELISLESSCONCERNEDWITHTHE
TRADITIONALCRIMINALSANCTIONTHENON PUNITIVEMODELPREFERSTOPUTTHEEMPHASISON
PREVENTIONOFCRIMEANDRESTORATIVEJUSTICE ANEMPHASISWHICHDOESNOTNECESSARILY
REQUIRESTRICTADHERENCETODUEPROCESS2ESTORATIVEJUSTICEINVOLVESAPROCESSTHAT
SEEKSTOAVOIDTHEINVOCATIONOFTHEFORMALCRIMINALSANCTIONS)TSAIMISTOREACH
ANON PUNITIVERESOLUTIONOFADISPUTESTEMMINGFROMCRIMINALCONDUCT4HEOF
FENDER THEVICTIMANDMEMBERSOFTHECOMMUNITYAREINVOLVEDINANATTEMPTTO
RESTORETHEPOSITIONWHICHEXISTEDPRIORTOTHEUNLAWFULCONDUCT4HECO OPERA
TIONOFALLPARTIESISREQUIREDTOSECURERESTORATIVEJUSTICE)N -#ENTREFOR#HILD
,AWAS!MICUS#URIAE 3!#2## 3ACHS*SAID@;2=ESTORATIVEJUSTICE
IDEALLYREQUIRESLOOKINGTHEVICTIMINTHEEYEANDACKNOWLEDGINGWRONGDOING
!NADVANTAGEOFRESTORATIVEJUSTICEISTHATITBRINGSTOTHEFORETHEFACTTHATMANY
CRIMESHAVEAPROFOUNDANDPERSONALIMPACTONTHEVICTIM@2ESTORATIVEJUSTICE
SAID0ONNAN*!IN-ATYITYI 3!#23#! AT;= @SEEKSTOEMPHASISETHAT
ACRIMEISMORETHANTHEBREAKINGOFTHELAWOROFFENDINGTHESTATEITISANINJURY

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
ORWRONGDONETOANOTHERPERSON2ESTORATIVEJUSTICESENTENCES HOWEVER ARENOT

APPROPRIATEINVERYSERIOUSCASES3EE$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS .ORTH'AUTENG
V4HABETHE 3!#23#! AT;=Ú;=)N -BUYISA 3!#2
3#! ITWASWARNEDTHAT@;T=HEADVANTAGESOFORDERSOFRESTORATIVEJUSTICESHOULD
NOTBEDEVALUEDBYTHEIRUSEINCASESINWHICHSUCHSENTENCESAREINAPPROPRIATE
AT;=
@2ESTORATIVEJUSTICEISFORPURPOSESOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFDEFINED
AS@ANAPPROACHTOJUSTICETHATAIMSTOINVOLVETHECHILDOFFENDER THEVICTIM THE
FAMILIESCONCERNEDANDCOMMUNITYMEMBERSTOCOLLECTIVELYIDENTIFYANDADDRESS
HARMS NEEDS AND OBLIGATIONS THROUGH ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY MAKING RESTITU
TION TAKING MEASURES TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THE INCIDENT AND PROMOTING
RECONCILIATION3EESԜOF!CTOF WHICHCAMEINTOOPERATIONON!PRIL
3EEALSOPARABELOW
3ECTION OF !CT OF DEALS WITH RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SENTENCES ! CHILD
COURTTHATCONVICTSACHILDOFANOFFENCEMAYREFERTHEMATTERTOAFAMILYGROUP
CONFERENCEINTERMSOFSԜ ORFORVICTIM OFFENDERMEDIATIONINTERMSOFSԜ
3EESԜ A ANDB OF!CTOF!NOTHERALTERNATIVEISTOREFERTHEMATTER
TOANYOTHERRESTORATIVEJUSTICEPROCESSWHICHISINACCORDANCEWITHTHEDEFINITION
OFRESTORATIVEJUSTICESԜ C
)TISPOSSIBLETHATTHENON PUNITIVEMODELOFVICTIMSRIGHTSISREALLYAPERIPHERAL
MODEL OF LIMITED PRACTICAL APPLICATION "URCHELL 0RINCIPLES OF #RIMINAL ,AW ED
ATMAKESTHEFOLLOWINGVALIDOBSERVATIONS
)TIS OFCOURSE WHENANIMPASSEISREACHED WHERETHETRUTHOREVENPARTOFTHETRUTHIS
NOTWILLINGLYDISCLOSED THATACOMMUNITYCANNOTAVOIDENTRUSTINGTHEMAKINGOFUN
POPULARDECISIONSTOANINDEPENDENTCOURTOFLAW WITHCOMPULSORYJURISDICTION STAFFED
BY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCED IN WEIGHING EVIDENCE AND REACHING AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT
4HECENTRALISSUEFORTHEFUTUREWILLBEDETERMININGTOWHATDEGREERESTORATIVEJUSTICE
WILL BE INTEGRATED INTO THE MAINSTREAM CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS OR WHETHER IT WILL BE
SEENASMERELYAPARALLELORADD ON ASPECTOFCRIMINALJUSTICE)TWOULDSEEMTHATIFRE
STORATIVEJUSTICEDOESGAINASIGNIFICANTFOOTHOLDINACRIMINALJUSTICEPROCESSESSENTIALLY
BASEDONRETRIBUTIVEJUSTICE THISWILLPOSSIBLYBEINTHECONTEXTOFYOUTHCRIMEANDLESS
SERIOUSINFRINGEMENTSOFTHECRIMINALLAW RATHERTHANINTHECONTEXTOFSERIOUSCRIMINAL
BEHAVIOUR ANDTHEACTUALIMPLEMENTATIONOFVARIOUSFORMSOFPUNISHMENT
4HE FUTURE NATURE OR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMAND
MORE PARTICULARLY THE LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREWILL ULTIMATELY DEPEND UPON
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF A SPECIFIC MODEL MIGHT GAIN
GROUND2OACHMAKESTHEFOLLOWINGDIAGNOSISANDPROGNOSISATn
;4=HE CRIME CONTROL MODEL REPRESENTS OUR PAST THE DUE PROCESS AND THE PUNITIVE VIC
TIMSRIGHTMODELSCOMPETEINTHEPRESENTANDTHEFUTUREDEPENDSONWHETHERPUNITIVE
OR NON PUNITIVE FORMS OF VICTIMS RIGHTS DOMINATE 4RUE TO 0ACKERS ORIGINAL WARNING
HOWEVER ANYACTUALSYSTEMOFCRIMINALJUSTICEISBOUNDTOREFLECTASPECTSOFALLOFTHE
MODELS4HEREWILLBEACONTINUEDNEEDFORPUNISHMENTANDINCAPACITATIONINTHEWORST
CASESANDCONTINUEDCONFLICTBETWEENDUEPROCESSANDVICTIMSRIGHTS-UCHWILLDEPEND
ONWHENPUNITIVERESPONSESAREDEEMEDNECESSARYANDIFCRIMEPREVENTIONANDRESTOR
ATIVEJUSTICEAREACCEPTEDASLEGITIMATERESPONSESTOCRIME

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEPOSITIONOFTHEVICTIMINTHECRIMINALPROCESS
!CRIMINALPROSECUTIONATTHEINSTANCEOFTHESTATEIS INESSENCE ACONTESTBETWEEN
THESTATEANDTHEACCUSEDTHEROLEOFTHEVICTIMORRELATIVESOFTHEDECEASED ISIN
PRINCIPLECONFINEDTOTHATOFANORDINARYWITNESSWHOISCALLEDUPONTOTESTIFYON
THEQUESTIONCONCERNINGGUILTORINNOCENCEAND SHOULDTHEREBEACONVICTION ON
THEQUESTIONOFSENTENCING
4HE3ERVICE#HARTERFOR6ICTIMSOF#RIMEIN3OUTH!FRICA ADOPTEDBY0ARLIAMENTIN
TERMSOFSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION MERELYSETSOUTVICTIMRIGHTSASCONTAINEDIN
THE#ONSTITUTIONANDLEGISLATION3EE7ICKHAMV-AGISTRATE 3TELLENBOSCH
3!#2## AT;=3EEFURTHERPARABELOW
4HERE IS A VIEWPOINT THAT THE SYSTEM IS OFFENDER ORIENTATED TO THE DETRIMENT
OFTHERIGHTSANDINTERESTSOFVICTIMSANDOTHERWITNESSES)TISSAIDTHATTHESYS
TEMLACKSADEQUATEVICTIMSUPPORTSTRATEGIES SUCHASPROTECTIONOFVICTIMSFROM
SECONDARY TRAUMATISATION FOR EXAMPLE TRAUMA THAT RESULTS FROM REPEATED AND
IMPROPER PRE TRIAL POLICE QUESTIONING OR QUESTIONING BY THE DEFENCE IN COURT
ESPECIALLYASREGARDSTHEVICTIMSOFSEXUALOFFENCES)THASALSOBEENARGUEDTHAT
CURRENTVICTIMSUPPORTMEASURESWHICHSHOULDCOVERTHEPRE TRIAL TRIALANDPOST
TRIALSTAGESAREINADEQUATEAND WHERETHEYDOEXIST AREUNCOORDINATED LIMITED
AND UNDER UTILISED 3EE -EINTJES 6AN DER 7ALT @4OWARDS VICTIMS EMPOWERMENT
STRATEGIES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 3!#* Ԝ 0RESENT MEASURES
AIMED AT ENHANCING VICTIM PARTICIPATION SEE PARA BELOW AND PROMOTING
VICTIMPROTECTIONSEEPARABELOW AREGENERALLYCONSIDEREDINSUFFICIENTTO
ENHANCETHERIGHTSANDINTERESTSOFVICTIMS6ICTIMS ITHASOFTENBEENSAID FEEL
ALIENATEDFROMTHEPROCESSANEXPERIENCEWHICHISEXACERBATEDBYFACTORSSUCH
ASREPEATEDREMANDSGRANTEDBYTHECOURTATTHEREQUESTOFTHEDEFENCEORTHEPROS
ECUTORORBOTHINADEQUATEPRE TRIALCOMMUNICATIONWITHVICTIMSREALORALLEGED
POORINVESTIGATIONANDPRESENTATIONOFTHECASEBYOVERWORKEDOFFICIALSAND FUR
THERMORE THEABSENCEOFACOMPREHENSIVEVICTIMCOMPENSATIONFUNDFORCERTAIN
CATEGORIESOFVICTIMS
9LFWLPSDUWLFLSDWLRQ
4HEREARECERTAINSTATUTORYPROVISIONSWHICHPROMOTEVICTIMPARTICIPATIONINTHE
CRIMINALPROCESS3EE FOREXAMPLE SԜ! B III OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
OF CONSULTATION WITH THE COMPLAINANT AS REGARDS THE POSSIBLE CONTENT
OF A PLEA AND SENTENCE AGREEMENT SԜ OF THE !CT AS DISCUSSED IN PARA
OF #HAPTER BELOW SԜ D III OF THE #ONSTITUTION AS CITED IN PARA OF
#HAPTERBELOW /NVICTIMPARTICIPATIONINDECIDINGONAPROPERSENTENCE SEE
GENERALLY!LBUTTV#ENTREFORTHE3TUDYOF6IOLENCEAND2ECONCILIATION 3!#2
##
)N7ICKHAMV-AGISTRATE 3TELLENBOSCH 3!#2## THE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTWASSATISFIEDTHATTHERIGHTSOFTHEVICTIMWHOWASTHEFATHEROFTHEDE
CEASED HAD BEEN PROPERLY ACCOMMODATED THROUGH THE EXTENSIVE PARTICIPATION
AFFORDEDTOHIMBYTHEPROSECUTOR@THROUGHOUTTHEDURATIONOFTHEPROSECUTION
AT;= 4HISFINDINGWASMADEWITHREFERENCETOS! WHICHISSUMMARISEDIN
PARAOF#HAPTERBELOW)N7ICKHAMTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTALSOREFERRED
TOTHE3ERVICE#HARTERFOR6ICTIMSOF#RIMEIN3OUTH!FRICAAT;= 4HIS#HARTER IT

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
WASHELDAT;= DOESNOTPROVIDEAVICTIMWITHTHEABSOLUTERIGHTTOBEHEARDON
DEMAND
)NSEXUALOFFENCESTHEINVESTIGATINGOFFICERISOBLIGEDTOOBTAINAN@IMPACTSTATE
MENT FROM THE VICTIM BEFORE THE LATTER TESTIFIES IN COURT !N IMPACT STATEMENT
SETSOUTTHEEXTENTTOWHICHTHEOFFENCEHASAFFECTEDTHEVICTIMSLIFE4HISIMPACT
STATEMENTMUSTBEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEPROSECUTOR3EEPARA OF
THE .ATIONAL )NSTRUCTION ON 3EXUAL /FFENCES AS PUBLISHED IN TERMS OF SԜ OF
THE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF
)N-HLONGO 3!#23#! THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALFOUNDTHE
ABSENCEOFAVICTIMIMPACTSTATEMENTUNACCEPTABLE)TMEANTTHATFORPURPOSESOF
SENTENCING THERAPEVICTIMWASDEPRIVEDOFTHEOPPORTUNITY@TOSAYINHEROWN
VOICEHOWTHECRIME;HAD=AFFECTEDHERAT;=
3ECTION!OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREADWITHSԜ OFTHE#ORRECTIONAL
3ERVICES!CTOF PROVIDES INRESPECTOFCERTAINSERIOUSCRIMES THATCOM
PLAINANTS OR RELATIVES OF THE DECEASED HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
WITHREGARDTOACONVICTEDPERSONSPLACEMENTONPAROLE ONDAYPAROLEORUNDER
CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION 3ECTION ! @UNDERLINES THE PHILOSOPHY OF RESTORING
THERIGHTSOFVICTIMS.XUMALOUNREPORTED +:$CASENO##$ /CTOBER
AT;= )N.XUMALOITWASALSOHELDTHATTHEREISADUTYONTHEPROSECUTION
TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS REFERRED TO IN S ! ARE PRESENT DURING THE SENTENC
ING PHASE SO THAT THE SENTENCING COURT CAN INFORM THEM OF THEIR S ! RIGHTS
REGARDING FUTURE REPRESENTATIONS SHOULD THE SENTENCED OFFENDER EVENTUALLY BE
CONSIDEREDFORPAROLEBYTHEPAROLEBOARDAT;=n;=
4HEINSTITUTIONOFAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONINTHELIMITEDCIRCUMSTANCESPROVIDED
FORINTERMSOFSԜOFTHE!CTCANALSOBEVIEWEDASAFORMOFVICTIMPARTICIPATION
INTHECRIMINALPROCESS3EEPARASTOIN#HAPTERBELOW
9LFWLPSURWHFWLRQ
4HEREAREALSOSOMESTATUTORYPROVISIONSAIMEDATPROTECTINGAVICTIMOROTHERWIT
NESS 3ELECTEDEXAMPLESFOUNDINTHE!CTARETHEFOLLOWINGSԜ A II WHERE
ANACCUSEDISARRAIGNEDFORASUMMARYTRIALINTHE(IGH#OURT THEINDICTMENT
@CHARGE MUSTBEACCOMPANIEDBYALISTOFTHENAMESANDADDRESSESOFPROSPECTIVE
PROSECUTIONWITNESSES PROVIDEDTHATIFTHE$IRECTOROFTHE0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSIS
OFTHEOPINIONTHATASPECIFICWITNESSMAYBEINTIMIDATEDTHENAMEANDADDRESS
OFSUCHAWITNESSMAYBEWITHHELDSԜ IFITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTTHATTHERE
ISALIKELIHOODTHATHARMMAYRESULTTOAWITNESS THECOURTMAYDIRECTTHATTHE
WITNESSSHALLTESTIFYBEHINDCLOSEDDOORSANDTHATHISORHERIDENTITYSHALLNOTBE
REVEALED FOR A PERIOD SPECIFIED BY THE COURT SԜ E A COURT MAY IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCESORDERTHATAWITNESSTESTIFYBYMEANSOFACLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISION
ORSIMILARELECTRONICMEDIA IFITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTTHATTODOSOWOULDPREVENT
THELIKELIHOODTHATPREJUDICEORHARMMIGHTRESULTTOANYPERSONIFHEORSHETESTI
FIESORISPRESENTATSUCHPROCEEDINGSSEEGENERALLY$OMINGOV3 3!#2
# SԜ!ACOURTMAYAPPOINTANINTERMEDIARYIFITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTTHAT
CRIMINALPROCEEDINGSWOULDEXPOSEAWITNESSUNDERTHEPHYSICALORMENTALAGE
OFYEARSTOUNDUEMENTALSTRESSIFHEORSHETESTIFIESATSUCHPROCEEDINGSSEE
3CHWIKKARD6ANDER-ERWE0RINCIPLESOF%VIDENCEED ATPARAGRAPHԜ
FORADISCUSSIONOFTHEROLEOFTHEINTERMEDIARY SԜ!THE-INISTERMAYMAKE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
REGULATIONS RELATING TO AMONG OTHER THINGS THE ASSISTANCE OF AND SUPPORT TO

WITNESSESATCOURTSTHEESTABLISHMENTOFRECEPTIONCENTRESFORWITNESSESATCOURTS
AND FURTHERMORE THECOUNSELLINGOFWITNESSES
4HE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF
CREATESAFRAMEWORKFORTHEADEQUATEANDEFFECTIVEPROTECTIONOFVICTIMSOF
SEXUALOFFENCES#HAPTEROFTHIS!CT FOREXAMPLE DETERMINESTHEPROCEDURETHAT
CANBEFOLLOWEDTOENSURETHECOMPULSORY()6TESTINGOFANALLEGEDSEXOFFENDER
!NYWITNESSINCLUDING OFCOURSE AVICTIM WITNESS WHOHASREASONTOBELIEVE
THATHISORHERSAFETY ORTHESAFETYOFANYRELATEDPERSON ISORMAYBETHREATENED
BYANYPERSONORGROUPORCLASSOFPERSONSWHETHERKNOWNTOTHEWITNESSORNOT
MAYINTERMSOFTHE7ITNESS0ROTECTION!CTOFAPPLYTHATHEORSHEOR
ANYRELATEDPERSONBEPLACEDUNDERPROTECTIONASPROVIDEDFORINTHIS!CT4HIS
!CTWHICH CAME INTO OPERATION ON -ARCH ESTABLISHED AN /FFICE FOR
7ITNESS0ROTECTIONHEADEDBYA$IRECTORWHOISSUPPORTEDBYWITNESSPROTECTION
OFFICERS 4HE !CT NOT ONLY COVERS PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES AS SPECIFIED IN
THE3CHEDULETOTHIS!CT BUTEXTENDSTOCERTAINOTHERPROCEEDINGSSUCHASTHOSE
REFERREDTOIN#HAPTERSANDOFTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED#RIME!CTOF
4HEPROVISIONSOFTHE7ITNESS0ROTECTION!CTANDITSREGULATIONS DEALWITH
VARIOUSMATTERSRELATINGTOWITNESSPROTECTION FOREXAMPLE THEPERIODOFPROTEC
TIVECUSTODYANDTHEASSISTANCE IFNECESSARY THATMUSTBERENDEREDTOTHEWITNESS
ATTHECOMPLETIONOFTHEPROCEEDINGSCONCERNED
0ART OF THE 0ROSECUTION $IRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONSSEEPARAIN#HAPTERBELOW INSTRUCTSPROSECUTORSASFOLLOWS
ASREGARDSTHEPROTECTIONOFWITNESSES
0ROSECUTORSMUSTATALLTIMESCONSIDERTHESAFETYOFWITNESSES
6OLUNTARY WITNESS PROTECTION IS DEALT WITH BY THE /FFICE OF 7ITNESS 0ROTECTION
UNDERTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE7ITNESS0ROTECTION!CTOF
4HIS!CTPROVIDESTHATWHERE INRESPECTOFCERTAINSCHEDULEDOFFENCES AWITNESS
WHOHASREASONTOBELIEVETHATHISORHERSAFETYORTHATOFANYRELATEDPERSONIS
BEINGTHREATENEDBYANYPERSON REPORTSTHISBELIEFTOAPROSECUTOR THELATTERSHALL
ASSISTTHEWITNESSINMAKINGANAPPLICATIONFORPROTECTION
)FAPROSECUTORHASREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHESAFETYOFAWITNESSORARELATEDPERSON
ISBEINGTHREATENEDHEORSHEMAY WITHTHECONSENTANDONBEHALFOFTHEWITNESS
ORPERSONCONCERNED MAKEANAPPLICATIONFORPROTECTION
7HERE A WITNESS IS OPPOSED TO BEING PLACED UNDER PROTECTION PROSECUTORS ARE
REFERREDTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSECTIONOF!CTOF!PPLICATIONSFORTHEDE
TENTIONOFSUCHWITNESSESMUSTBEBROUGHTBYTHE$00BEFOREAJUDGEINCHAMBERS
ANDSUCHMATTERSSHOULDTHEREFOREBEREFERREDTOTHEOFFICEOFTHE$000ROSECU
TORSSHOULDNOTETHATIFSUCHANORDERISGRANTED THETRIALMUSTBEGINWITHINSIX
MONTHSOFTHEDATEONWHICHTHEWITNESSWASDETAINED
7HERETHEINTERESTSOFAWITNESSARETHREATENEDASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTION
E OF!CTOF THEPROSECUTORMUSTBRINGANAPPLICATIONINTERMSOFSECTION
FORTHEWITNESSTOGIVEEVIDENCEBYWAYOFCLOSEDCIRCUITTELEVISIONORSIMILAR
ELECTRONICMEDIAIFAVAILABLE
2EQUESTSFORDEFENCEACCESSTODOCKETSSHOULDBEOPPOSEDWHEREWITNESSESMAYBE
INTIMIDATEDORTAMPEREDWITHSHOULDTHEIRIDENTITYBEMADEKNOWNTHROUGHDIS
CLOSUREOFTHECONTENTSOFTHEDOCKET3EE3HABALALASV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL4RANSVAAL
3!#2## ATGnB
(IGH#OURTPROSECUTORSMUSTSIMILARLYENDEAVOURTOPROTECTTHEIDENTITYOFWIT
NESSESASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTION A II OF!CTOF IFTHEYAREOFTHE
OPINIONTHATSUCHWITNESSESMAYBEINTIMIDATEDORTAMPEREDWITHSHOULDTHEIR
IDENTITYBEMADEKNOWNINTHELISTOFWITNESSESATTACHEDTOTHEINDICTMENT

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
3ECTIONS AND OF !CT OF PROVIDE INTER ALIA FOR IN CAMERA PROCEED
INGS PROTECTINGTHEIDENTITYOFWITNESSESINSPECIFICINSTANCESANDTHEPROHIBITION
OF PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION 0ROSECUTORS MUST UTILISE THESE PROVISIONS
WHERENECESSARY
#/.34)454)/.!,#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
)NTRODUCTORYREMARKS
)TISPOSSIBLETOHAVELEGISLATIONWHICHCONFLICTSWITHTHE#ONSTITUTIONAND"ILLOF
2IGHTSSETASIDEDECLAREDNULLANDVOIDFORUNCONSTITUTIONALITY4HE"ILLOF2IGHTS
OPERATESLIKEAPROTECTIVEUMBRELLAOVERALLAREASOFLAWANDSTATEACTION3ECTION
OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONEXPLICITLYSTATESTHATTHE#ONSTITUTIONISTHESUPREMELAWOF
THE2EPUBLICLAWORCONDUCTINCONSISTENTWITHITISINVALID ANDTHEOBLIGATIONS
IMPOSEDBYITMUSTBEFULFILLED4HE"ILLOF2IGHTSAPPLIESTOALLLAW ANDBINDSTHE
LEGISLATURE THEEXECUTIVE THEJUDICIARYANDALLORGANSOFSTATES 3EEALSO
#HAPTEROFTHE#ONSTITUTION WHICHFURTHERREGULATESTHEDECLARATIONOFALAWAS
UNCONSTITUTIONALANDWHICHREGULATESTHEPOWERSOFTHECOURTSINCONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS
!FEWPRELIMINARYPOINTSAREIMPORTANT&IRST INA"ILLOF2IGHTS THECRIMINAL
PROCEDURALPROVISIONSUSUALLYHAVE@VERTICALOPERATIONTHEYDONOTREGULATERELA
TIONSHIPSBETWEENEQUALPERSONS BUTBETWEENTHESTATE AS POWER WIELDERANDTHE
SUBJECT ORRATHER BETWEENTHECOMMUNITYSINTERESTINSTATEPOWERANDTHECOM
MUNITYSINTERESTININDIVIDUALRIGHTSANDLIBERTIESIEBETWEENTHETWOCOMPETING
SETSOFCOMMUNITYINTERESTSALREADYDISCUSSED(OWEVER THEPRESENT#ONSTITUTION
INSԜ ALSOPROVIDESFOR@HORIZONTALOPERATIONOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS@APROVISION
OFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSBINDSANATURALORAJURISTICPERSONIF ANDTOTHEEXTENTTHAT
ITISAPPLICABLE TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHENATUREOFTHERIGHTANDTHENATUREOFANY
DUTYIMPOSEDBYTHERIGHT3EEALSOSԜ INTHISREGARD 3ECONDLY CONSTITUTIONAL
CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS USUALLY ARE STATED NEGATIVELY IE THEY ARE LIMITA
TIONSONSTATEPOWERS PROHIBITINGTHESTATEFROMINFRINGINGCERTAINFUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS /NLY OCCASIONALLY MAY THEY BE MANDATORY PROVISIONS FOR INSTANCE RE
QUIRINGTHATFREECOUNSELBEPROVIDEDTOINDIGENTACCUSEDPERSONSBYTHESTATE
)NTHISWAYTHEYMAYALSOBELIMITATIONSONDEMOCRACYIF FORINSTANCE THE"ILLOF
2IGHTSFORBIDSTORTURE THENTORTUREWILLREMAINILLEGALEVENIFARESOUNDINGMAJOR
ITYOFTHEPEOPLEWANTITLEGITIMISEDANDEVENIF0ARLIAMENTPURPORTSTOLEGITIMISE
IT3OUTH!FRICADOESNOTHAVEANUNLIMITEDDEMOCRACY BUTONELIMITEDINTERALIA
BYTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS4HIRDLY THE"ILLOF2IGHTSRECOGNISESTHATMOSTRIGHTSARENOT
ABSOLUTEANDMAYUNDERCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESBECURTAILEDORLIMITED ASWESHALL
INDICATE IN PARA BELOW ,ASTLY WITHOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICIABILITY SEE
ABOVE A"ILLOF2IGHTSWOULDBEUSELESSTHISPRINCIPLEREQUIRESASTRONGANDINDE
PENDENT"ENCH3OMETIMESTHEJUDGESWILLHAVETOGOAGAINSTPOPULARSENTIMENTS
ININTERPRETINGTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
!SURVEYOFTHECONTENTSOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
#HAPTER OF THE #ONSTITUTION OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA WHICH IS
CALLEDTHE@"ILLOF2IGHTS CONSISTINGOFSSԜTO ISORGANISEDASFOLLOWS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONIDENTIFIESTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSASACORNERSTONEOFDEMOCRACYSԜ AND
REFERSTOTHEFACTTHATTHEREARELIMITATIONSTOTHERIGHTSREFERREDINTHE"ILLOF
2IGHTSSԜ 3EEALSOPARA BELOW3ECTION PROVIDESTHAT@;T=HESTATE
MUSTRESPECT PROTECT PROMOTEANDFULFILTHERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS4HIS
SECTIONPLACESAPOSITIVEDUTYONTHESTATE4HERIGHTSCOVEREDBYTHISDUTYARE
NOTCONFINEDTOTHERIGHTSOFTHEACCUSED4HERIGHTSOFVICTIMSAREINCLUDED
4HIS MUCH IS CLEAR FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE #ONSTITU
TIONAL#OURT PER!CKERMANN* IN"ASSON 3!#2## AT;=
)NOURCONSTITUTIONAL3TATETHECRIMINALLAWPLAYSANIMPORTANTROLEINPROTECTING
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDVALUES3O FOREXAMPLE THEPROSECUTIONOFMURDERISAN
ESSENTIALMEANSOFPROTECTINGTHERIGHTTOLIFE ANDTHEPROSECUTIONOFASSAULTAND
RAPEAMEANSOFPROTECTINGTHERIGHTTOBODILYINTEGRITY4HE3TATEMUSTPROTECTTHESE
RIGHTSTHROUGH AMONGSTOTHERTHINGS THEPOLICINGANDPROSECUTIONOFCRIME
3ECTIONREGULATESTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHECHAPTER IEITSVERTICALANDHORIZONTAL
OPERATIONSEEPARAABOVE
3ECTIONSnSTATETHEFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS RANGINGFROMTHERIGHTTOEQUALITY
TOTHERIGHTSOFARRESTED DETAINEDANDACCUSEDPERSONS3EEFURTHERPARA
BELOW
3ECTIONISTHESO CALLEDLIMITATIONCLAUSEITREGULATESTHESCOPEOFTHERIGHTS
ANDHOWTHEYMAYBELIMITEDEGHOWTHERIGHTTOPRIVACYMAYBELIMITEDSO
ASTOALLOWSEARCHANDSEIZUREINTHECOURSEOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE 4HESEC
TIONPROVIDES INTERALIA THATENTRENCHEDRIGHTSMAYBELIMITEDBYLAWONLYTO
THEEXTENTTHATSUCHLIMITATIONISREASONABLEANDJUSTIFIABLEINANOPENAND
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BASED ON HUMAN DIGNITY EQUALITY AND FREEDOM TAKING
INTOACCOUNTALLRELEVANTFACTORS INCLUDING
THENATUREOFTHERIGHT
THEIMPORTANCEOFTHEPURPOSEOFTHELIMITATION
THENATUREANDEXTENTOFTHELIMITATION
THERELATIONBETWEENTHELIMITATIONANDITSPURPOSEAND
LESSRESTRICTIVEMEANSTOACHIEVETHEPURPOSE
)TSHOULDBENOTEDTHATTHELISTINGOFCERTAINRIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSDOES
NOTMEANTHATOTHERRIGHTSEG GRANTEDBYTHECOMMONLAW ARENEGATED
S 3EEFURTHERPARABELOW
%ARLYRULINGSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTINTERMSOFTHELIMITATIONCLAUSE
ANDTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSOFTHE@INTERIM#ONSTITUTION !CTOF INCLUDE
7ILLIAMS 3! ## IN WHICH CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WAS HELD TO
VIOLATETHERIGHTTOHUMANDIGNITYANDTHEPROTECTIONAGAINSTCRUEL INHUMAN
ORDEGRADINGPUNISHMENT ANDCOULDNOTBESAVEDBYTHELIMITATIONCLAUSE
3ECTIONPROVIDESFORDEROGATIONFROMTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSFOLLOWINGTHEDEC
LARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCYONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEROGATION IS
STRICTLYREQUIREDBYTHESTATEOFEMERGENCYTHATTHELEGISLATIONISCONSISTENT
WITH THE 2EPUBLICS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE TO STATES
OFEMERGENCYSԜ ANDTHATTHEDEROGATIONDOESNOTAFFECTTHERIGHTSLIST
EDANDQUALIFIEDINTHE4ABLEOF.ON $EROGABLE2IGHTSFOLLOWINGSԜ )TIS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ANY COMPETENT COURT MAY ENQUIRE INTO THE VALIDITY
OF A DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY AS WELL AS ANY ACTION TAKEN UNDER
SUCHDECLARATIONSԜ 4HE@ABSOLUTERIGHTSINTHE4ABLEOF.ON $EROGABLE

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
2IGHTSWHICHMAYNEVERBELIMITEDORABOLISHEDATALL ARETHERIGHTSTOHUMAN
DIGNITYANDLIFE
3ECTIONLISTSTHOSEWHOHAVELOCUSSTANDIINCONSTITUTIONALLITIGATIONWHERE
FUNDAMENTALRIGHTSHAVEALLEGEDLYBEENVIOLATEDORTHREATENEDANYONEACTING
INTHEIROWNINTERESTANYONEACTINGONBEHALFOFANOTHERPERSONWHOCANNOT
ACTINHISORHEROWNNAMEANYONEACTINGASAMEMBEROF ORINTHEINTEREST
OF AGROUPORCLASSOFPERSONSANYONEACTINGINTHEPUBLICINTERESTANDAN
ASSOCIATIONACTINGINTHEINTERESTOFITSMEMBERS
3ECTIONCONTAINSCERTAINIMPORTANTPROVISIONSRELATINGTOTHEINTERPRETATION
OFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS INTERALIAREQUIRINGTHATCOURTSMUST ININTERPRETINGTHIS
CHAPTER @PROMOTETHEVALUESWHICHUNDERLIEANOPENANDDEMOCRATICSOCIETY
BASEDONHUMANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOMANDMUSTCONSIDERINTERNA
TIONALLAW)NADDITION COURTSMAYHAVETOCONSIDERFOREIGNLAW#OURTSMUST
PROMOTETHESPIRIT PURPORTANDOBJECTSOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
4HISSECTIONCONTAINSPROVISIONSOFGREATIMPORTANCEFORCRIMINALPROCEDURE RE
LATINGTOSOMEOFTHEBASICPRINCIPLESANDPROCEDURALRIGHTSDISCUSSEDINTHEREST
OFTHISBOOK4HESECTIONISREPRODUCEDINTHEAPPENDIXTOTHISBOOK4HEVARIOUSSUB
SECTIONSWILLOFTENBEREFERREDTOINTHECOURSEOFTHERESTOFTHEBOOK6ELDMANV
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS7,$ 3!#2## ;=n;=CONFIRMED
THATTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALEMBRACESMORETHANWHATISCONTAINEDINTHELISTOF
SPECIFICRIGHTSENUMERATEDINSԜ A nO OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HERIGHTTOAFAIR
TRIAL REQUIRES THAT CRIMINAL TRIALS BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTIONS OF
BASICFAIRNESSANDJUSTICE ANDITISTHEDUTYOFCRIMINALCOURTSTOGIVECONTENTTO
THESENOTIONS3EEFURTHERPARAIN#HAPTERBELOW
4HEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE
)TISIMPORTANTTONOTETHATCRIMINALPROCEDUREDOESNOTDEALWITHTHEDETECTION
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS BUT OF SUSPECTS AND ACCUSED PERSONS
@3USPECTGENERALLYREFERSTOAPERSONWHOHASNOTYETBEENCHARGED EGANARRESTED
PERSONWHOISBEINGTAKENTOTHEPOLICESTATION@ACCUSEDREFERSTOAPERSONWHO
HASBEENCHARGED4HETERMSARENOTMUTUALLYEXCLUSIVE NORISTHETERM@SUSPECT
ALEGALLYDEFINEDONE)NTHISHANDBOOK WESHALLUSE@ACCUSEDINWIDETERMSTO
INCLUDESUSPECTSASWELLASCHARGEDPERSONS ORINNARROWTERMSTOINCLUDEONLY
THELATTERTHEMEANINGSHOULDBECLEARFROMTHECONTEXT
7KHSUHVXPSWLRQRILQQRFHQFHDQGOHJDOJXLOW
$UETOTHEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE EVERYPERSONISREGARDEDASINNOCENTUNTIL
PROPERLY CONVICTED BY A COURT OF LAW 3EE GENERALLY 3CHWIKKARD 0RESUMPTION OF
)NNOCENCE n4HEADVERB@PROPERLYINVOLVES INTERALIA COMPLIANCEWITH
THERULESOFEVIDENCEANDCRIMINALPROCEDURE!CONVICTIONISANOBJECTIVEAND
IMPARTIAL OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT A PERSON HAS BEEN PROVED LEGALLY GUILTY
BYTHE3TATEPROSECUTION INAPROPERLYCONDUCTEDTRIAL INACCORDANCEWITHTHE
PRINCIPLEOFLEGALITY IEINATRIALWHERETHE3TATEOBEYEDTHERULESOFCRIMINALLAW
CRIMINALPROCEDURE EVIDENCE ANDTHE#ONSTITUTION!PERSONMAYINTHEPUBLICS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SUBJECTIVEVIEWBEFACTUALLYORMORALLYGUILTYOFACRIME BUTTHATDOESNOTMEAN
THATHEORSHEWILLORCANBEPROVEDTOBELEGALLYGUILTY)NASTATEUNDERTHERULE
OFLAW2ECHTSSTAAT ONLYLEGALGUILTCOUNTSTO@CONVICTAPERSONINANYOTHERWAY
MAYAMOUNTTOVIGILANTISM MOBTRIALSANDEVENANARCHY3EEFURTHERPARAIN
#HAPTERBELOW
7
KHSUHVXPSWLRQRILQQRFHQFHDVDVWDWHPHQWRIWKHSURVHFXWLRQpVEXUGHQRI
SURRI
)NORDERTOOBTAINACONVICTION THEPROSECUTIONMUSTPROVETHEACCUSEDSGUILT
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT 4HE ONUS OR BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE PROSECU
TION BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE REGARDING THE
ACCUSED4HISMEANSTHATANACCUSEDPERSONDOESNOTHAVETOPROVETHATHEORSHE
ISINNOCENT
7KHSUHVXPSWLRQRILQQRFHQFHDQGWKHQDWXUHRIWKHDOOHJHGFULPH
.EITHERTHEPREVALENCENORTHEOFFENSIVENESSOFTHEALLEGEDCRIMERAPE MURDER
ETC CANBEALLOWEDTODISTURB REPLACEORDETRACTFROMTHEPRESUMPTIONOFINNO
CENCE)N#OETZEE 3!#2## AT;=THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT PER
3ACHS* SAIDEMPHASISADDED
-UCHWASMADEDURINGARGUMENTOFTHEIMPORTANCEOFCOMBATINGCORPORATEFRAUDAND
OTHERFORMSOFWHITECOLLARCRIME)DOUBTTHATTHEPREVALENCEANDSERIOUSNESSOFCORPO
RATEFRAUDCOULDITSELFSERVEASAFACTORWHICHCOULDJUSTIFYREVERSINGTHEONUSOFPROOF
4HEREISAPARADOXATTHEHEARTOFALLCRIMINALPROCEDURE INTHATTHEMORESERIOUSTHECRIME
AND THE GREATER THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN SECURING CONVICTIONS OF THE GUILTY THE MORE IMPORTANT
DO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF THE ACCUSED BECOME 4HE STARTING POINT OF ANY BALANCING
ENQUIRYWHERECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSARECONCERNEDMUSTBETHATTHEPUBLICINTERESTIN
ENSURINGTHATINNOCENTPEOPLEARENOTCONVICTEDANDSUBJECTEDTOIGNOMINYANDHEAVY
SENTENCES MASSIVELYOUTWEIGHSTHEPUBLICINTERESTINENSURINGTHATAPARTICULARCRIMINAL
ISBROUGHTTOBOOK(ENCETHEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE WHICHSERVESNOTONLYTOPRO
TECTAPARTICULARINDIVIDUALONTRIAL BUTTOMAINTAINPUBLICCONFIDENCEINTHEENDURING
INTEGRITYANDSECURITYOFTHELEGALSYSTEM2EFERENCETOTHEPREVALENCEANDSEVERITYOFA
CERTAINCRIMETHEREFOREDOESNOTADDANYTHINGNEWORSPECIALTOTHEBALANCINGEXERCISE
4HEPERNICIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCEISONEOFTHEGIVENS AGAINSTWHICHTHEPRESUMPTION
OFINNOCENCEISPITTEDFROMTHEBEGINNING NOTANEWELEMENTTOBEPUTINTOTHESCALES
ASPARTOFAJUSTIFICATORYBALANCINGEXERCISE)FTHISWERENOTSO THEUBIQUITYANDUGLINESS
ARGUMENTCOULDBEUSEDINRELATIONTOMURDER RAPE CARJACKING HOUSEBREAKING DRUG SMUGGLING
CORRUPTIONTHELISTISUNFORTUNATELYALMOSTENDLESS ANDNOTHINGWOULDBELEFTOFTHEPRESUMP
TIONOFINNOCENCE SAVE PERHAPS FORITSRELICSTATUSASADOUGHTYDEFENDEROFRIGHTSINTHEMOST
TRIVIALOFCASES
4HERIGHTTOSILENCEINCLUDINGTHEPRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATION

.OTUNRELATEDTOTHEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCEISTHERULETHATANACCUSEDCAN
NEVER BE FORCED TO TESTIFY HE OR SHE HAS A RIGHT TO SILENCE WHICH IS ALSO CALLED
THEACCUSEDSPRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATIONORHISORHERRIGHTTOAPASSIVE
DEFENCE!NACCUSEDCANREMAINSILENTEVENIFHISORHERANSWERSWOULDNOTBE
SELF INCRIMINATING4HISAPPLIESTOTHEPRE TRIALSTAGEIETHEINVESTIGATIVEORPO
LICEPHASE ASWELLASTHEPLEADINGPHASE THETRIALPHASEANDALSOTHESENTENCING
STAGE$ZUKUDA 3!#2## !CCORDINGLY THE#ONSTITUTIONGUARAN

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
TEESTHERIGHTOFEVERYARRESTEETOREMAINSILENTSԜ A ANDNOTTOBECOMPELLED
TOMAKEACONFESSIONORADMISSIONWHICHCOULDBEUSEDINEVIDENCEAGAINSTHIM
ORHERSԜ C ASWELLASTHERIGHTOFEVERYACCUSEDTOREMAINSILENTANDNOTTO
TESTIFYDURINGTHEPROCEEDINGSSԜ H ANDJ !TTHEROOTOFTHISISTHEFACTTHAT
THESUSPECTACCUSEDISINOURLAWAFULLLEGALSUBJECTANDNOTMERELYANOBJECTOF
ENQUIRY4HEINTERRELATEDNESSOFTHEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCEANDTHERIGHTTO
SILENCEISAPPARENTINSԜ H ANDWASEXPLOREDIN:UMA 3!##
WHICHDECLAREDUNCONSTITUTIONALTHEREVERSEONUSINTHETHENSԜ B II OFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT WHICHREQUIREDANACCUSED INCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES TO
PROVETHATACONFESSIONWASNOTFREELYANDVOLUNTARILYMADE4HEPRESUMPTIONOF
INNOCENCEISTHEBASISFORTHERULETHATTHEONUSINCRIMINALCASESSHOULDALWAYS
RESTONTHE3TATE
4HEACCUSEDISAFULLLEGALSUBJECT ANDASSUCHISENTITLEDTOPARTICIPATEINHIS
ORHERTRIALACCORDINGTOHISORHEROWNAUTONOMOUSDECISIONSANDTOBEASSISTED
IFHEORSHESOWISHES BYALEGALREPRESENTATIVE7HENWEMENTIONANACCUSEDS
RIGHTTOCOUNSEL WEREFERINGENERALTOTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOBELEGALLYREPRESENTED
BYANATTORNEYORADVOCATEORANYOTHERPERMISSIBLELEGALADVISERORPRACTITIONER
3EETHE#ONSTITUTIONSԜ B ANDC ANDSԜ F ANDG 3INCEANACCUSEDIS
VIEWEDASALEGALSUBJECT HEORSHEMUSTBEABLETOPARTICIPATEMEANINGFULLYIE
WITHUNDERSTANDING ASHEORSHEWISHES INTHECRIMINALPROCESS4HEACCUSEDS
COUNSELWILLASSISTTHEACCUSEDINTHIS)FTHEACCUSEDISUNREPRESENTED HEORSHE
SHOULDATALLCRUCIALDECISION MAKINGOROPTION CHOOSINGSTAGESINTHEPROCESSBE
INFORMEDOFHISORHERRIGHTSANDOPTIONS ASWELLASTHEIRIMPLICATIONSFOREX
AMPLE HISORHERRIGHTTOCOUNSEL RIGHTTOSILENCE RIGHTTOCALLWITNESSES RIGHTTO
CROSS EXAMINEANDSOFORTHOTHERWISEHISORHERSTATUSASLEGALSUBJECTISEMPTY
ANDUSELESS4HEACCUSEDSPOSITIONASFULLLEGALSUBJECTINTHEMODERNCRIMINAL
PROCESSALSOIMPLIESTHATTHEACCUSEDCANNOTBETRIEDIFHEORSHEISMENTALLYUN
ABLETOUNDERSTANDENOUGHTOPARTICIPATEMEANINGFULLYANDCOMMUNICATEWITH
HISORHERLAWYERSEESԜOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
)FAPERSONHASCERTAINRIGHTS HEORSHESHOULDOBVIOUSLYNOTBEPENALISEDFOR
EXERCISINGTHOSERIGHTS OTHERWISETHERIGHTSINREALITYAMOUNTTONOTHINGATBEST
ANDTOLIABILITIESORTRAPSATTHEWORST!PERSONWHOEXERCISESHISORHERRIGHTTOSI
LENCEATHISORHERTRIALSHOULDACCORDINGLYNOTBEPENALISEDFORTHEEXERCISEOFTHE
RIGHTASSUCHNOADVERSEINFERENCESHOULDBEDRAWNFROMHISORHERDECISIONNOT
TOTESTIFY FORTWOREASONSFIRST NOSUCHINFERENCECOULDBEDRAWN FORTHEREMAY
BEAMULTITUDEOFREASONSWHYHEORSHEDOESNOTWISHTOTESTIFYHEORSHEMAY
THINKTHE3TATECASEISSOWEAKTHATITDOESNOTMERITANANSWERMAYNOTTRUSTTHE
COURTORLEGALSYSTEM ORMAYBEAFRAIDORIGNORANTASTOSTRATEGYORMAYSIMPLY
WANTTOEXERCISETHERIGHTTOSILENCEABOUTWHICHHEORSHEHASBEENINFORMED
SECONDLY NOSUCHINFERENCECOULDLOGICALLYBEDRAWNTOFILLGAPSINTHE3TATECASE
IFANELEMENTOFACRIMEEGIDENTITYINTHECASEOFROBBERY HASNOTBEENCOVERED
BYPRIMAFACIEPROOF THENOTHINGNESSOFTHEACCUSEDSSILENCECANNOTLOGICALLYFILL
THATGAPINTHE3TATESCASE
4HE FOREGOING HOWEVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN ACCUSEDS DEFENCE CANNOT BE
SEVERELYORFATALLYDAMAGEDBYHISORHERSILENCE)TCANHAPPENLIKETHISIFTHE
3TATEHASPROVEDAPRIMAFACIECASEAGAINSTTHEACCUSED IEITHASCOVEREDEACHAND
EVERYELEMENTOFTHECRIMEASDEFINEDBYSUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAW BYEVIDENCE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
WHETHERVERBALORDOCUMENTARY LAYOREXPERT DIRECTORCIRCUMSTANTIAL ANDTHE

ACCUSEDHASNOTRAISEDAREASONABLEDOUBTONANYOFTHESEELEMENTSEG BYSHAK
INGA3TATEWITNESSINCROSS EXAMINATION ANDHEORSHETHENDOESNOTTESTIFYIE
DOESNOTPUTHISORHERINNOCENTVERSIONBEFORETHECOURT THECOURTASAMATTER
OFFACTONLYHASTHEUNCONTROVERTED3TATEEVIDENCETOGOONTHEPRIMAFACIEPROOF
HARDENSINTOSUFFICIENTEVIDENCEFORACONVICTION"UTNOTETHATTHISHAPPENSSIM
PLYBECAUSETHEDEFENCEDIDNOT@DISTURBTHE3TATESCASETHESILENCEOFTHEDEFENCE
DIDNOTADDANYTHINGPOSITIVELYTOTHE3TATESCASE4HEINFERENCEISNOTREALLYAN
INFERENCE IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE WORD BUT SIMPLY AN OBSERVATION OR CONCLU
SIONTHATTHEACCUSEDCOULDNOTORWOULDNOTDISTURBTHE3TATESPRIMAFACIECASE
WITHTHERESULTTHATTHELATTERSTANDSUNCONTROVERTEDANDBECOMESPROOFBEYONDA
REASONABLEDOUBT3EEFURTHER"OESAK 3!#2## AT)N4ANDWA
3!#23#! ITWASSAIDTHATALTHOUGHTHEACCUSEDWASCONSTITUTIONALLYEN
TITLEDTOREFUSETOTESTIFY @HISEXERCISEOFTHERIGHTDOESNOTSUSPENDTHEOPERATION
OF ORDINARY RATIONAL PROCESSES 3EE ALSO -AVININI 3!#2 3#! AND
-DLONGWA 3!#23#!
!
##53!4/2)!,!.$).15)3)4/2)!,02/#%$52%3!.$!"2)%&
()34/29/&3/54(!&2)#!.#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
2EGARDINGTHEHISTORYANDANTECEDENTSOF3OUTH!FRICANCRIMINALPROCEDURE SEE
INGENERAL$UGARD3OUTH!FRICAN#RIMINAL,AWAND0ROCEDUREVOL)NTRODUCTIONTO
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE n
4HE ROOTS OF 3OUTH !FRICAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MAY BE FOUND IN THE 2OMAN
2OMAN $UTCHAND%NGLISHLAW"EFOREEXPOUNDINGONASPECTSOFTHIS SOMEDIS
TINCTIONSBETWEENTHEACCUSATORIALANDINQUISITORIALSYSTEMSMUSTBENOTED4HE
ESSENTIALDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHEACCUSATORIALANDINQUISITORIALMODELSOFCRIMINAL
PROCEDURELIESINTHEFUNCTIONSOFTHEPARTIES IETHEJUDICIALOFFICER THEPROSECU
TIONANDTHEDEFENCE)NANINQUISITORIALSYSTEMASAMODERNEXAMPLEOFWHICH
WEMAYCITETHE&RENCHSYSTEM THEJUDGEISTHEMASTEROFTHEPROCEEDINGSDO
MINUS LITIS IN THE SENSE THAT HE OR SHE ACTIVELY CONDUCTS AND EVEN CONTROLS THE
SEARCHFORTHETRUTHBYDOMINATINGTHEQUESTIONINGOFWITNESSESANDTHEACCUSED
!FTERARREST THEACCUSEDISQUESTIONEDPRIMARILYBYTHEINVESTIGATINGJUDGE NOT
BY THE POLICE )N THE TRIAL THE PRESIDING JUDGE PRIMARILY DOES THE QUESTIONING
NOT THE COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENCE #ONVERSELY IN ACCUSATORIAL
SYSTEMS THE MODERN EXAMPLES OF WHICH ARE THE !NGLO !MERICAN SYSTEMS THE
JUDGEISINTHEROLEOFDETACHEDUMPIRE WHOSHOULDNOTENTERTHEARENAOFTHE
FIGHT BETWEEN THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE FOR FEAR OF BECOMING PARTIAL OR
LOSING PERSPECTIVE AS A RESULT OF ALL THE DUST CAUSED BY THE FRAY 4HE POLICE ARE
THEPRIMARYINVESTIGATIVEFORCETHEYHANDOVERTHECOLLECTEDEVIDENCE INDOSSIER
FILE FORMAT TOTHEPROSECUTION WHICHTHENBECOMESDOMINUSLITISTHEPROSECU
TION DECIDES ON THE APPROPRIATE CHARGES THE APPROPRIATE COURT ETC 3EE FURTHER
PARAGRAPHIN#HAPTERBELOW)NCOURT THETRIALTAKESTHEFORMOFACONTEST
BETWEEN TWO THEORETICALLY EQUAL PARTIES THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE WHO
DOTHEQUESTIONING INTURNLEADINGTHEIROWNWITNESSESANDCROSS EXAMININGTHE
OPPOSITIONSWITNESSES)TFOLLOWSTHATTHEACCUSATORIALSYSTEMALSOKNOWNASTHE
@ADVERSARIALSYSTEM CANONLYFUNCTIONOPTIMALLYIFTHEPROSECUTIONANDDEFENCE

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
PERFORMTHEIRDUTIESPROPERLY)N3EBOFI 3!#2'* 3UTHERLAND*STATED

AT;= EMPHASISADDED
4HECALIBREOFTHECASEPRESENTATIONS BOTHPROSECUTIONANDDEFENCE WASUNACCEPTABLE
FORACASEOFTHISSERIOUSNESS!PROSECUTORCANNOTPRESENTACASEBYJUSTPOURINGOUTA
JUMBLEOFRANDOMFACTSASIFONEWEREPOURINGTREACLEFROMAJAR)TISUNFAIRTOACOURT
ANDITRETARDSTHEAIMOFAFAIRTRIALWHICH APARTFROMOTHERFACTORS NEEDSTOBECOHER
ENTANDORDERLY4HEDEFENCEFARESLITTLEBETTERTHECROSS EXAMINATIONHARDLYPLUMBED
THEBODYOFEVIDENCEANDAPPEAREDTOHAVENOPLANOROBJECTIVEANDWASEITHERBLINDOR
INATTENTIVETOSEVERALMATERIALORPOTENTIALLYMATERIALDETAILS4HENARRATIVEOFTHETESTI
MONYREFERSTORELEVANTASPECTSWHICHWEREIGNOREDOROVERLOOKED!NADVERSARIALPROCESS
ISFOUNDEDONPROPERPREPARATIONANDCOMMITMENTTOTESTINGTHETESTIMONYAVAILABLE)TISNOT
SERVEDBYTREATINGTHEPROCESSASACLERICALCHORE
3OUTH!FRICANCRIMINALPROCEDURE ASWILLBESEENINLATERCHAPTERSOFTHISBOOK
HAS BASICALLY BEEN ACCUSATORIAL "UT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES A JUDGE MAY AND
SOMETIMES EVEN MUST CALL WITNESSES OF HIS OR HER OWN 3EE PARAGRAPH IN
#HAPTERBELOW4HEPROCEDUREOFQUESTIONINGTHATMAYTAKEPLACEUNDERSԜ
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY CONTAINS INQUISITORIAL ELEMENTS AS DOES PART OF SԜ QUES
TIONINGPURSUANTTOAPLEAOFGUILTY ONTHEOTHERHAND THEFACTTHATANACCUSED
CANBEFOUNDGUILTYSOLELYONHISORHERPLEAOFGUILTYWITHOUTTHEJUDGEDOING
ANYQUESTIONINGTOINVESTIGATETHE@TRUTHISASTRONGACCUSATORIALELEMENTEVEN
THOUGHITCANHAPPENONLYINTHECASEOFRELATIVELYMINOROFFENCES
-ODERN 7ESTERN %UROPEAN SYSTEMS ARE DUE PROCESS INQUISITORIAL SYSTEMS )N
'ERMANY ANACCUSEDHASALLTHERIGHTSTHATANACCUSEDHASUNDER!NGLO !MERICAN
SYSTEMS IFNOTMORETHEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCEISFULLYOPERATIVEIFTHECOURT
HAS REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER ANY ELEMENT OF AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY
PROVED BY THE PROSECUTION THE ACCUSED WILL BE ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED HAS THE
RIGHT TO SILENCE AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCES MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE EXERCISE OF
THATRIGHTEVIDENCEWRONGFULLYOBTAINED FOREXAMPLETHROUGHTRICKORTORTURE IS
INADMISSIBLE
.OT ALL ACCUSATORIAL SYSTEMS ARE NECESSARILY ALSO DUE PROCESS SYSTEMS )N THE
NOT TOO DISTANTPASTITWASPOSSIBLEUNDER3OUTH!FRICANCRIMINALPROCEDUREFORA
PERSONTOBEDETAINEDINDEFINITELYINCOMMUNICADO WITHOUTACCESSTOALAWYERORTO
THECOURTSILLEGALLYOBTAINEDEVIDENCEWASFULLYADMISSIBLEINTERRORISMCASESTHE
ACCUSEDHAD UNDERCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES TOPROVEHISORHERINNOCENCEBEYOND
REASONABLEDOUBT
-ODERN3OUTH!FRICANCRIMINALPROCEDUREHASSHIFTEDINCREASINGLYTOWARDSTHE
DUEPROCESSMODELASACONSEQUENCEOFTHENEWCONSTITUTIONALORDER3EEPARA
ABOVE4HEPRESENTSYSTEMDIFFERSMATERIALLYFROMTHE%UROPEANSYSTEMTHATWAS
BROUGHTTO3OUTHERN!FRICAMORETHANTHREEANDAHALFCENTURIESAGO
7ITHTHE$UTCHOCCUPATIONOFTHE#APEIN THESYSTEMOFCRIMINALPROCE
DUREBASEDONTHE0HILIP))/RDINANCEOFWASINTRODUCED4ORTUREWASWIDELY
PRACTISED 0UNISHMENTS WERE EQUALLY SEVERE AND INCLUDED HANGING STRANGLING
BREAKING ON THE WHEEL BURNING DROWNING WHIPPING BRANDING KEELHAULING
DISMEMBERMENTANDTHEPILLORY
4HEFIRST"RITISHOCCUPATIONn SAWTHEABOLITIONOFLEGALISEDTORTUREIN
TWOYEARSBEFOREITWASABOLISHEDINTHE.ETHERLANDS!FTERTHESECOND"RITISH
OCCUPATION THE2OMAN $UTCHLAWOFCRIMINALPROCEDURENEVERTHELESSRE
MAINEDINFORCEINTHE#APE4HESTRUCTUREOFTHECOURTSWAS HOWEVER SUBJECTTO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS WHICH RESULTED IN UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHICH PROCEDURE THE
NEWER COURTS SHOULD FOLLOW 4HIS LED TO THE #HIEF *USTICE AND THE MEMBERS OF
THE#OURTOF*USTICEISSUINGACODEOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREIN WHICHDOCU
MENTINTRODUCINGELEMENTSOF%NGLISHCRIMINALPROCEDUREBECAMEKNOWNAS
#ROWN4RIAL%VENTUALLYALLPROSECUTIONSINTHE#APEFELLUNDERTHEAUTHORITYOFAN
OFFICIALCALLEDTHEFISCAL)N ACOMMISSIONOFENQUIRYRECOMMENDEDTHATTHE
SYSTEMOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREINTHE#APESHOULDAPPROXIMATEEVENMORECLOSELY
THAT OF %NGLAND 4HE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE LARGELY ACCEPTED RESULTING IN THE
&IRST#HARTEROF*USTICEIN WHICHWASREPLACEDBYAVERYSIMILAR3ECOND#HARTER
OF*USTICEIN4HE&IRST#HARTEROF*USTICEWASFOLLOWEDBY/RDINANCES
ONCRIMINALPROCEDURE AND ONEVIDENCE WHICHVIRTUALLYCOMPLETED
THEANGLICISATIONOFTHELAWOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREANDEVIDENCEANDWHICHFORM
THEFOUNDATIONOFOURMODERNLAW PUTTINGANENDTOTHEINQUISITORIALSYSTEMAND
REPLACINGITWITHTHEACCUSATORIAL%NGLISHPROCEDURETHETRIALNOWTOOKTHEFORM
OFANOPENCONFRONTATIONBETWEENPROSECUTORANDACCUSEDWITHTHECOURTACTING
ASPASSIVEADJUDICATOR4HEORETICALLY HOWEVER THE2OMAN $UTCHLAWOFCRIMINAL
PROCEDURE STILL REMAINS THE COMMON LAW OF THE 3OUTH !FRICAN LAW OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
!FTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 5NION OF 3OUTH !FRICA IN THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE AND %VIDENCE !CT OF WAS ENACTED WHICH WAS A COMPREHEN
SIVECODEOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE POPULARLYCALLED@4HE#ODE-ANYAMENDMENTS
FOLLOWED THEONEOFBEINGTHEMOSTIMPORTANT4HE*UDGES2ULESWEREFOR
MULATEDBYACONFERENCEOFJUDGESINASGUIDELINESINTENDEDTOPROTECTTHE
ACCUSEDSPRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATIONDURINGPOLICEINTERROGATION!CON
SOLIDATING#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT!CTOF REPLACEDTHE!CT4RIAL
BYJURY ALREADYEXCEPTIONALINPRACTICE WASABOLISHEDDEJUREBYTHE!BOLITIONOF
*URIES!CTOF4HEPRESENT#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFCAMEINTO
FORCEON*ULY4HE#ONSTITUTIONOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA ALSO
CONTAINSIMPORTANTPROVISIONSAFFECTINGCRIMINALPROCEDURE3EEPARAABOVE
3/52#%3/&3/54(!&2)#!.#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
4HE #ONSTITUTION CONTAINS PROVISIONS WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY GOVERN OUR
CRIMINALPROCEDURALSYSTEM3EEPARAABOVE!NDASARESULTOFTHESUPREMACY
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION THESEPROVISIONSARETHEMOSTIMPORTANTSOURCESOFCRIMINAL
PROCEDURALRULES)TSHOULDBENOTEDTHOUGHTHATTHE#ONSTITUTIONDOESNOTDENY
THE EXISTENCE OF STATUTORY OR COMMON LAW RIGHTS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
"ILLOF2IGHTS3EESԜ OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HEINTERACTIONBETWEENCONSTITU
TIONALPROVISIONSANDCOMMON LAWANDSTATUTORYCRIMINALPROCEDUREISEXPLAINED
ASFOLLOWSBY3TEYTLER#ONSTITUTIONAL#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!PARTFROMCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTHATCANBEAPPLIEDDIRECTLY CRIMINALJUSTICE
WILLCONTINUETOBEADMINISTEREDINTERMSOFSTATUTORYANDCOMMON LAWRULESOF
CRIMINALPROCEDURE4HECONSTITUTIONALSTANDARDSSETBYTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSSERVE
THEN ONLYASASAFETYNETANDANINTERPRETIVENORM7HILETHE"ILLOF2IGHTSSETS
THEFOUNDATIONALNORMSOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE ITISNOSUBSTITUTEFORORREPLACE
MENTOFTHEORDINARYRULESANDPRINCIPLESOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE#OURTSSHOULD

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
APPLYTHEUSUALRULESANDPRINCIPLES INTERPRETEDINTHELIGHTOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
ANDONLYIFTHEYDONOTVINDICATEAPERSONSCLAIM DOESTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSCOME
INTOPLAY4HECONVERSEISALSOTRUEBECAUSETHE"ILLOF2IGHTSCONSTITUTESAMINI
MUMSETOFGUARANTEES ORDINARYRULESOFCRIMINALPROCEDURECANPROVIDEMORE
PROTECTIONTHANWHATTHE#ONSTITUTIONDEMANDS
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF
4HEABOVE!CTCONTAINSDETAILEDPROVISIONSCONCERNINGCRIMINALPROCEDURE)TNOT
ONLYREGULATESTHEDAY TO DAYMECHANICSOFTHESYSTEM BUTALSOCONTAINSIMPOR
TANTPROVISIONSWHICHGIVEPRACTICALEFFECTANDMEANINGTOTHERIGHTSCONTAINED
INTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS#OMPARE FOREXAMPLE SOFTHE!CTANDS H ANDI
OFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS4HE!CTCONSISTSOFASECTIONONDEFINITIONSANDCHAPTERS
DEALINGWITHMATTERSSUCHASTHEASCERTAINMENTOFBODILYFEATURESOFACCUSEDPER
SONS THE CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS VERDICTS ETC 4HE !CT IS SOMETIMES
REFERREDTOASTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE#ODE WHICHMIGHTIMPLYTHATITISTHESOLE
SOURCEOFCRIMINALPROCEDURALRULES)TIS HOWEVER NOTTHESOLESOURCEOFCRIMINAL
PROCEDURALRULES)TISONLYTHEMAINSOURCEANDISSUPPLEMENTEDBYOTHERSOURCES
3EE FOREXAMPLE PARASANDBELOW)NTHISWORKTHEEMPHASISWILLBEON
THE!CT
,EGISLATIONOTHERTHANTHE!CT
7KH&KLOG-XVWLFH$FWRI
4HE #HILD *USTICE !CT OF CAME INTO OPERATION ON !PRIL )N THE
0REAMBLEITISSTATEDTHATTHIS!CTSEEKSTOESTABLISH@ACRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMFOR
CHILDRENINACCORDANCEWITHTHEVALUESUNDERPINNINGOUR#ONSTITUTIONANDOUR
INTERNATIONALOBLIGATIONSBYCREATING ASACENTRALFEATUREOFTHISNEWCRIMINAL
JUSTICESYSTEMFORCHILDREN THEPOSSIBILITYOFDIVERTINGMATTERSINVOLVINGCHILDREN
WHILECHILDRENWHOSEMATTERSARENOTDIVERTED ARETOBEDEALTWITHINTHECRIMI
NALJUSTICESYSTEMINCHILDJUSTICECOURTS4HEFOLLOWINGSHOULDBENOTED
 )NTERMSOFSԜOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTA@CHILDMEANS@ANYPERSONUNDERTHE
AGEOFYEARSAND INCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES MEANSAPERSONWHOISYEARS
OROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSWHOSEMATTERISDEALTWITHINTERMSOF
SԜ OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
 3ECTIONALSODEFINESA@CHILDJUSTICECOURTAS@ANYCOURTPROVIDEDFORINTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT DEALINGWITHTHEBAILAPPLICATION PLEA TRIALORSEN
TENCINGOFACHILD
 7HEREACHILDANDANADULTARECHARGEDTOGETHERINTHESAMETRIALINRESPECT
OFTHESAMEFACTSINTERMSOFSSԜ ANDOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT ACOURTMUSTAPPLYTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTINRESPECTOF
THECHILD ANDTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINRESPECTOFTHE
ADULT3EESԜ OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTANDPARAIN#HAPTERBELOW
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTAMENDSSEVERALSECTIONSINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
OF)TSHOULDBENOTEDTHATTHEAMBITOFTHE@CRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMFORCHIL
DREN AS REFERRED TO IN THE 0REAMBLE TO THE #HILD *USTICE !CT IS DETERMINED BY
SԜOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT WHICHPROVIDESTHATTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTAP

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PLIESINRELATIONTOCHILDREN EXCEPTINSOFARASTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTPROVIDESFOR
AMENDED ADDITIONALORDIFFERENTPROCEDURES4HECHANGESBROUGHTABOUTBYTHE
#HILD*USTICE!CTAREEXTENSIVEANDCOVERPRE TRIAL TRIALANDPOST TRIALMATTERS
3CHEDULETOTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTCONTAINSAVALUABLEANDINFORMATIVEEXPOSI
TIONOFTHEINTERFACEBETWEENTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTANDTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CT (OWEVER IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS 3CHEDULE @IS NOT PART OF THE ;#HILD
*USTICE=!CTANDDOESNOTHAVETHEFORCEOFLAW3EESԜ B OFTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CT
9DULRXVRWKHUVWDWXWHV
4HEREAREALSOVARIOUSOTHERSTATUTES INADDITIONTOTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
ANDTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT WHICHREGULATEASPECTSOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE3OMEEX
AMPLESARETHEFOLLOWINGTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOFANDTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS!CTOFBOTHOFWHICHDEAL FOREXAMPLE WITHTHESTRUCTUREOFTHE
COURTSANDJURISDICTIONALMATTERSASDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTERBELOW THE.ATIONAL
0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY!CTOF ASDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTERBELOWTHE,EGAL
!ID3OUTH!FRICA!CTOF@THE,!3!!CT ASDISCUSSEDINPARAIN#HAPTER
BELOWTHE%XTRADITION!CTOF WHICHISBRIEFLYDISCUSSEDINPARAOF
#HAPTERBELOWTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOF ASDISCUSSEDIN
PARASTOOF#HAPTERBELOWTHE$RUGSAND$RUG4RAFFICKING!CT
OF ASREFERREDTOINPARAOF#HAPTERBELOWTHE!DJUSTMENTOF&INES!CT
OF ASDISCUSSEDINPARAOF#HAPTERBELOWAND FURTHERMORE THE
#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOFREGARDINGMINIMUMSENTENCES AMAT
TERWHICHISDISCUSSEDINPARAOF#HAPTERBELOW
&RPPRQODZUXOHVDQGFDVHODZ
.OT ALL CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL MATTERS STEM FROM LEGISLATION #OMMON LAW RULES
SEEPARAABOVE ARE FOREXAMPLE APPLIEDTORECUSALINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSA
PROCEDUREWHICHISDISCUSSEDINPARAOF#HAPTERBELOW,EGISLATIONISSILENT
ONTHEMATTEROFRECUSAL
$ECIDEDCASESINWHICHCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVEANDCOMMON LAWPROVISIONS
WEREINTERPRETEDAREOBVIOUSLYALSOINTERMSOFTHEDOCTRINEOFPRECEDENTAN
IMPORTANTSOURCE
2%-%$)%3
7EHAVEDISCUSSEDTHEPROPOSITIONTHATSUSPECTSANDACCUSEDPERSONSAREACCORD
EDCERTAINRIGHTSANDTHATTHEPOWERSOFTHEAUTHORITIESARESUBJECTTOLIMITATIONS
INCRIMINALPROCEDURE)THASBECOMEEVIDENTTHATITISINSOCIETYSINTERESTTHATTHE
POLICESHOULDACTLAWFULLYANDTHATMEANINGFULCONTROLSHOULDBEEXERCISEDOVER
THEACTIONSOFTHEEXECUTIVEINCLUDINGLAWENFORCEMENTOFFICIALS INTHECRIMINAL
PROCESS
)TISCLEARTHATJUDICIALSUPERVISIONANDCONTROLAREOFTHEUTMOSTIMPORTANCEFOR
THEMAINTENANCEOFTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITYINTHEMODERNSTATEUNDERTHERULEOF
LAWTHE2ECHTSSTAAT 4HEJUDICIARYISINDEEDTHEULTIMATEGUARDIANOFTHEPRINCIPLE
OFLEGALITY ANDACCESSTOANINDEPENDENTANDSTRONGBENCHISTHEHIGHESTGUAR

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
ANTEEOFRESPECTFORANDMAINTENANCEOFTHERIGHTSOFTHEINDIVIDUAL!SHASBEEN
POINTEDOUT THE#ONSTITUTIONANDITS"ILLOF2IGHTSACKNOWLEDGETHISSԜ PRO
VIDESTHATTHECOURTSAREINDEPENDENTANDSUBJECTONLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAND
THELAW3ECTIONPROVIDESINTERALIATHATTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASTHEFINAL
SAYONALLMATTERSRELATINGTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONSEESԜ
7E NOW WISH TO DRAW ATTENTION BRIEFLY TO SOME REMEDIES FOR INFRACTIONS OR
THREATENEDINFRACTIONSOFFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS
4
HEWRITOFHABEASCORPUSORTHEINTERDICTUMDELIBEROHOMINEEXHIBENDO
4HEWRITOFHABEASCORPUSSTEMSFROMTHE%NGLISHCOMMONLAW)TS2OMAN $UTCH
LAWEQUIVALENTISKNOWNASTHEINTERDICTUMDELIBEROHOMINEEXHIBENDO)TISANIM
PORTANTREMEDYANDPROTECTSTHEINDIVIDUALAGAINSTUNLAWFULINFRINGEMENTOFHIS
ORHERLIBERTY4HECOURTISASKEDFORANORDERTHATTHERESPONDENTWHOMAYBE
THE-INISTER THECOMMANDINGOFFICER THECHIEFWARDER ETC PRODUCETHEBODYOF
8THEDETAINEE BEFORETHECOURTATACERTAINDATEANDTIME4HISORDERISCOUPLED
WITHARULENISITHATTHERESPONDENTMUSTSHOWREASONWHY8SHOULDNOTBERE
LEASED0RIMAFACIEREASONSFORBELIEVINGTHATTHEDETENTIONISWRONGFULMUSTBE
ADDUCED4HEAPPLICATIONISUSUALLYHEARDBYASINGLEJUDGEINACIVILCOURTWHERE
IT ENJOYS PREFERENCE ON THE ROLL 4HE APPLICATION MAY BE MADE EX PARTE 4HE RE
TURN DATE IS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE AND THE CASE MAY BE DEALT WITH SUMMARILY ON
THESTRENGTHOFORALEVIDENCE)TISQUITEPOSSIBLE FOREXAMPLE THATBYSPECIALAR
RANGEMENTTHEAPPLICATIONISMADEATHTHATTHERETURNDATEISSETFORH
THESAMEDAYANDTHAT AFTERARGUMENT THEDETAINEEOBTAINSHISORHERRELEASEAT
HSEE+ENTRIDGE@(ABEASCORPUSPROCEDUREIN3OUTH!FRICA3!,* )T
ISIMMEDIATELYAPPARENTHOWIMPORTANTINTERALIATHEFOLLOWINGRIGHTSAREFORTHE
SUCCESSFULIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHISREMEDYSPECIFIEDPLACEOFDETENTIONINFORMA
TIONASTOREASONSOFARRESTANDACCESSTOFRIENDS COUNSEL ETC
)N,OMBOLENIAND4EN/THER!PPEAL#ASESV4HE3TATE .2.,$
SENTENCED PRISONERS WHO HAD THE RIGHT TO ARGUE THEIR APPEALS IN THE .AMIBIAN
(IGH#OURT COULDNOTBETRACED4HEPRISONAUTHORITIESWERE@UNABLETOACCOUNT
FORTHEWHEREABOUTSOFTHESEPRISONERSWHOWERERECEIVEDINTOTHEIRCUSTODYAT
;= )TWASHELDTHATTHEWRITOFHABEASCORPUSWAS@ALSOAVAILABLEFORPURPOSESOFRE
QUIRINGTHEAUTHORITIESTOBRINGAPERSONBEFORETHECOURTTOENABLETHEVENTILATION
OFARIGHTALLOWEDTOHIMBYLAWAT;= )TSHOULDBENOTEDTHATIN,OMBOLENI
ABOVE THEREWASNOFORMALHABEASCORPUSAPPLICATIONBEFORETHE(IGH#OURT4HE
(IGH#OURTITSELFTOOKTHEINITIATIVEINORDERINGTHEPRISONAUTHORITIESTOPRODUCE
THEPRISONERSBEFORETHECOURTATHONASPECIFIEDDATE
!CIVILACTIONFORDAMAGES
!NACTIONFORDAMAGES FOREXAMPLEONTHEGROUNDOFWRONGFULARREST ISANEX
AMPLEOFDELICTUALLIABILITYWHICHMAYARISEINTHECOURSEOFTHECRIMINALPROCESS
ANDWHICHMAYBEUSEDBYSUSPECTSTOCOMPENSATETHEMFORANYABUSEWHICHTHEY
SUFFERED3EEFURTHER%&V-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#23#!
WHICHISALSOREFERREDTOINPARAOF#HAPTERBELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEINTERDICT
4HISISANORDEROFCOURTWHEREBYAPERSONISPROHIBITEDFROMACTINGINACERTAIN
WAY3INCEITSPURPOSEISTOLIMITORPREVENTHARMORDAMAGE ITMAYEVENBEOB
TAINEDWHEREHARMHASNOTYETOCCURREDBUTISTHREATENING4HISLEGALREMEDYCAN
BEFRUITFULLYEMPLOYEDDURINGCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTOOBTAINRELIEF FOREXAMPLE
FORDETAINEES
-ANDAMUS
4HISISTHEREVERSEOFANINTERDICTITISAPOSITIVEORDERTHATAFUNCTIONARYPERFORM
HIS OR HER DUTY EG FURNISH AN ACCUSED WITH PROPER PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE
CHARGES WHEREASANINTERDICTISANEGATIVEORDERTHATAPERSONREFRAINFROMDOING
SOMETHING
4HEEXCLUSIONARYRULE
4HISEVIDENTIAL@REMEDYISRECOGNISEDINSԜ OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDWASQUOT
EDINPARAABOVE.OTETHATEXCLUSIONISNOTAUTOMATICBUTISCONTINGENTONA
FINDINGTHATADMISSIONWOULDBEUNFAIRORDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOF
JUSTICE/URCOURTSTHUSHAVEAGUIDEDDISCRETIONTOEXCLUDEORTOADMIT
4HEEXCLUSIONARYRULE INANYOFITSFORMS ISAREMEDYTHATPROPERLYBELONGSTO
THESPHEREOFTHELAWOFEVIDENCE)TWASDEVELOPEDINTHE53!ANDAIMS INTER
ALIA TODETERUNLAWFULPOLICECONDUCTINTHEPRE TRIALCRIMINALPROCEDUREBYREN
DERINGINADMISSIBLEINACOURTANYEVIDENCEWHICHWASOBTAINEDBYSTATEOFFICIALS
BY UNLAWFUL MEANSFOR EXAMPLE DURING ILLEGAL DETENTION OR AS A RESULT OF AN
UNLAWFULSEARCH ORASARESULTOFOVERBEARINGQUESTIONINGINFRINGEMENTOFTHE
RIGHTTOSILENCE ORTORTURETHIRD DEGREEMETHODS ORTHROUGHDENIALOFTHERIGHT
TOPRE TRIAL COUNSEL)NOURVIEWITISMORESATISFACTORYTOVIEWTHISREMEDYAS
AMEANSOFMAINTAININGANDVINDICATINGTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITYTHANJUSTASA
POLICEDETERRENTSEEALSOPARAABOVE
4HEEXCLUSIONARYRULEMUSTBEUNDERSTOODINTHELIGHTOFTHECONCEPTOFLEGAL
GUILT
;!=PERSONISNOTTOBEHELDGUILTYOFCRIMEMERELYONASHOWINGTHATINALLPROBABILITY
BASEDUPONRELIABLEEVIDENCE HEDIDFACTUALLYWHATHEISSAIDTOHAVEDONE)NSTEAD HE
ISTOBEHELDGUILTYIFANDONLYIFTHESEFACTUALDETERMINATIONSAREMADEINAPROCEDURALLY
REGULARFASHIONANDBYAUTHORITIESACTINGWITHINCOMPETENCIESDULYALLOCATEDTOTHEM
;0ACKER4HE,IMITSOFTHE#RIMINAL3ANCTION =
4HE ARGUMENT SOMETIMES RAISED AGAINST THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE VIZ THAT IT LETS
CRIMINALSGOFREE ISWITHOUTSUBSTANCEFORTWOREASONS&IRST ITSHOWSNOUNDER
STANDINGOFTHECONCEPTOF@LEGALGUILTSECONDLY ITLOSESSIGHTOFTHEFACTTHATIF
THEPOLICEHADACTEDLAWFULLY THE@CRIMINALWOULDINANYCASEHAVEGONEFREE AS
THEFOLLOWINGILLUSTRATIONWILLSHOW)NTERMSOFSԜB OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT A POLICEMAN WHO HAS A MERE SUSPICION THAT THE
DELAY IN OBTAINING A WARRANT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSES OF THE SEARCH MAY NOT
SEARCHWITHOUTAWARRANTABELIEFONREASONABLEGROUNDSISREQUIRED4HEREFORE
THELAW ABIDINGPOLICEMANWHOKNOWSTHAT OBJECTIVELYSPEAKING HEORSHEHAS
NOREASONABLEGROUNDSTORELYON WILLRESTRAINHIMSELFORHERSELFEVENIFHEORSHE
HASASTRONGSUBJECTIVENOTION SIXTHSENSEORSUSPICIONASABASISFORACTION(E

#(!04%2r!"!3)#).42/$5#4)/.4/#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
ORSHEWILLFIRSTOBTAINAWARRANT)NTHEMEANTIME THECULPRITDISAPPEARSWITH
ALLTHEEVIDENCE4HISPOSSIBLERESULTISACALCULATEDRISKTHATWEMUSTRUNIFWE
VALUEOURPERSONALLIBERTYANDHUMANRIGHTSSOHIGHLYTHATWEARENOTPREPAREDTO
DELIVEROURSELVESTOTHEMERESUSPICIONSOFPOLICEOFFICIALS4HEEXCLUSIONARYRULE
EXPOSTFACTOCOMPELSTHESAMERESULT@;)=FTHECRIMINALGOESFREEINORDERTOSERVE
ALARGERANDMOREIMPORTANTEND THENSOCIALJUSTICEISDONE EVENIFINDIVIDUAL
JUSTICE IS NOT'OLDSTEIN @4HE 3TATE AND THE ACCUSED "ALANCE OF ADVANTAGE IN
CRIMINALPROCEDUREԜ9ALE,AW*OURNAL
)NFORMALREMEDIES
!NINFORMALWAYOFOBTAININGRELIEFISTORESISTUNLAWFULARRESTORTOESCAPEFROM
UNLAWFULCUSTODY)NPRACTICETHISRESORTMAY OFCOURSE BERISKY
#ONSTITUTIONALMECHANISMS
6ARIOUSMECHANISMSFORTHEPROMOTIONOFTHEMAINTENANCEOFHUMANRIGHTSAND
LEGALITY AS AGAINST OVERBEARING STATE ACTION ARE CONTAINED IN THE #ONSTITUTION
3ECTION FORINSTANCE LISTSTHOSEWHOMAYAPPROACHACOMPETENTCOURTTOALLEGE
THATARIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSHASBEENINFRINGEDORTHREATENED
&URTHER @STATE INSTITUTIONS SUPPORTING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY ARE LISTED IN
#HAPTEROFTHE#ONSTITUTION INCLUDINGTHEOFFICEOF0UBLIC0ROTECTOR ANDTHE
(UMAN2IGHTS#OMMISSION/FGREATIMPORTANCEAREALSOMANYPRIVATEIENON
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONSWHICHOFFERHELPTOCITIZENS
2%-!2+3).#/.#,53)/.
4HE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY 3CHAEFER @&EDERALISM AND STATE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Ԝ(ARVARD,AW2EVIEWԜWASCITEDWITHAPPROVALBY7ARREN#*IN-IRANDA
V !RIZONA 53 Ԝ @4HE QUALITY OF A NATIONS CIVILIZATION CAN BE
LARGELYMEASUREDBYTHEMETHODSITUSESINTHEENFORCEMENTOFITSCRIMINALLAW
(OWEVER CONSIDERATIONSSUCHASREALORPERCEIVEDCRIMEPROBLEMS EMPHASISON
HUMANRIGHTS WARANDSTATESOFEMERGENCYWILLALWAYSPLAYAROLEINDETERMIN
INGRIGHTSANDPOWERSINAPARTICULARCOUNTRYATAPARTICULARTIME4HEPENDULUM
ALWAYSSWINGSITISNEVERSTATIONARY/VERTHEPASTTWOANDAHALFDECADES3OUTH
!FRICA UNDERANEWCONSTITUTIONALDISPENSATIONWHICHEMPHASISESHUMANRIGHTS
HASBEENMOVINGTOWARDSMORERIGHTS WITHCONCOMITANTLIMITATIONSONPOWERS
0ERHAPSWEHAVEREACHEDASTAGEWHEREITISAPPROPRIATETOSAYTHAT@;T=HEACHIEVE
MENT OF A SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN CRIME CONTROL AND DUE PROCESS MIGHT
WELL REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE RECONSIDERATION $AVIS * IN (OHO 3!#2 #
B 3EE ALSO 6AN $IJKHORST @4HE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN JEOPARDY)S THE
#ONSTITUTIONOURBANE#ONSULTUS

#(!04%2
4HECRIMINALCOURTSOFTHE
2EPUBLIC
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
4(%350%2)/2#/5243
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
4HECOMPOSITIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
#ONSTITUTIONALJURISDICTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
!PPEALJURISDICTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
#OMPOSITIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
#ONSTITUTIONALJURISDICTIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEAL
!PPEALJURISDICTIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
4HE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
4HECOMPOSITIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
#ONSTITUTIONALJURISDICTIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH
!FRICA
!PPEALANDREVIEWJURISDICTIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF
3OUTH!FRICA
#IRCUITCOURTSOFADIVISION
4(%,/7%2#/5243
-AGISTRATESmCOURTS
#OMPOSITIONOFLOWERCOURTS
#ONSTITUTIONANDAPPEALJURISDICTION
/THERLOWERCOURTS
*52)3$)#4)/./&#2)-).!,#/5243
*URISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
4HEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA


#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
$ISTRICTCOURTS
2EGIONALCOURTS
*URISDICTIONANDEXTENDEDJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
COMMITTEDON3OUTH!FRICANTERRITORY
4HEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
$ISTRICTCOURTSANDREGIONALCOURTS
3UMMARYTRIALS
0REPARATORYEXAMINATIONSANDPRELIMINARY
ENQUIRIES
*URISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCESCOMMITTEDOUTSIDE3OUTH
!FRICA
*URISDICTIONWITHREGARDTOSENTENCING
'ENERAL
$IVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
2EGIONALCOURTS
$ISTRICTCOURTS
*URISDICTIONTOPRONOUNCEUPONTHEVALIDITYOFLAWSORTHE
CONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT
3ECTIONr*UDICIALAUTHORITY
4HEJUDICIALAUTHORITYOFTHE2EPUBLICISVESTEDINTHECOURTS
4HECOURTSAREINDEPENDENTANDSUBJECTONLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDTHELAW WHICH
THEYMUSTAPPLYIMPARTIALLYANDWITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICE
.OPERSONORORGANOFSTATEMAYINTERFEREWITHTHEFUNCTIONINGOFTHECOURTS
/RGANSOFSTATE THROUGHLEGISLATIVEANDOTHERMEASURES MUSTASSISTANDPROTECTTHE
COURTSTOENSURETHEINDEPENDENCE IMPARTIALITY DIGNITY ACCESSIBILITYANDEFFECTIVE
NESSOFTHECOURTS
!NORDERORDECISIONBYACOURTBINDSALLPERSONSTOWHOMANDALLORGANSOFSTATETO
WHICHITAPPLIES
4HE#HIEF*USTICEISTHEHEADOFTHEJUDICIARYANDEXERCISESRESPONSIBILITYOVERTHE
ESTABLISHMENTANDMONITORINGOFNORMSANDSTANDARDSFORTHEEXERCISEOFTHEJUDICIAL
FUNCTIONSOFALLCOURTS
3ECTIONr*UDICIALSYSTEM
3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONPROVIDESTHATTHECOURTSAREr
D THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
E THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
F THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
G THE-AGISTRATESm#OURTSAND

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
H ANYOTHERCOURTESTABLISHEDORRECOGNISEDINTERMSOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT INCLUDING
ANYCOURTOFASTATUSSIMILARTOEITHERTHE(IGH#OURTORTHE-AGISTRATESm#OURTS
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr$EFINITIONS
)NTHIS!CT UNLESSTHECONTEXTINDICATESOTHERWISEr
lCHILDJUSTICECOURTmMEANSANYCOURTPROVIDEDFORINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT DEALING
WITHTHEBAILAPPLICATION PLEA TRIALORSENTENCINGOFACHILD
lCHILDRENmSCOURTmMEANSTHECOURTESTABLISHEDUNDERSECTIONOFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT
3EE BELOW
).42/$5#4)/.
4HE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE 2EPUBLIC IS VESTED IN THE COURTS S OF THE
#ONSTITUTION OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA @THE #ONSTITUTION THE
COURTSAREINDEPENDENTANDSUBJECTONLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDTHELAW WHICH
THEYMUSTAPPLYIMPARTIALLYANDWITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICES OFTHE
#ONSTITUTION 4HEHIERARCHYOFTHE3OUTH!FRICANCOURTSSYSTEMIN3OUTH!FRICA
ASFARASTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMISCONCERNED CONSISTSOFSUPERIORCOURTSAND
LOWERCOURTS7HILETHESUPERIORCOURTSCONSISTOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT THE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA@HIGHCOURTS ANDANY
COURTOFASTATUSSIMILARTOTHEHIGHCOURTS THELOWERCOURTSCONSISTOFTHECOURTSOF
REGIONALDIVISIONSREGIONALCOURTS ANDDISTRICTCOURTSCHILDJUSTICECOURTSARENOT
SEPARATECRIMINALTRIALCOURTSBUTFUNCTIONWITHINTHEORDINARYCRIMINALCOURTS
STRUCTURECONSEQUENTLY THEREISNOSEPARATECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMEXCLUSIVELY
FORCHILDREN ALTHOUGHTHEREARESPECIFICPROVISIONSRELATINGTOCHILDOFFENDERSIN
THEPRE TRIAL TRIALANDPOST TRIALCRIMINALPROCESSCONTAINEDINTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CTANDTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFINTERMSOFTHEJUDICIALMATTERS
SECONDAMENDMENTACTOFCERTAINDIVISIONSOFTHEHIGHCOURTANDCERTAIN
MAGISTRATESCOURTSMAYBEDESIGNATEDBYTHEMINISTERASSPECIALSEXUALOFFENCES
COURTSDEALINGWITHSEXUALOFFENCES
4HE#ONSTITUTION3EVENTEENTH!MENDMENT!CT ANDTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS
!CTOF BOTHOFWHICHCAMEINTOOPERATIONON!UGUST RATIONAL
ISED AND BROUGHT ABOUT A NUMBER OF CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE COURTS
ANDDEFINEDTHEROLEOFTHE#HIEF*USTICEASTHEHEADOFTHEJUDICIARY4HE#HIEF
*USTICE OF THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT AND THE /FFICE OF THE #HIEF *USTICE EXERCISE
RESPONSIBILITYOVERALLCOURTSANDARERESPONSIBLEFORESTABLISHINGANDMONITORING
NORMSANDSTANDARDSNECESSARYFOREXERCISINGTHEJUDICIALFUNCTIONSOFALLCOURTS
S OFTHE#ONSTITUTION )NVIEWOFTHIS THE3!*UDICIAL%DUCATION)NSTITUTE
WASESTABLISHEDINTOPROMOTETHEINDEPENDENCE IMPARTIALITY DIGNITY AC
CESSIBILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COURTS THROUGH JUDICIAL EDUCATION BY VIRTUE
OFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN*UDICIAL%DUCATION)NSTITUTE!CTOF3EETHE*UDICIAL
-ATTERS!MENDMENT!CTOFINTHISREGARD3EEALSO ONTHECONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITYOFTHECONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTINTHEPROCESSOFEXTENDINGTHETERMOF

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
OFFICEOFTHE#HIEF*USTICE *USTICE!LLIANCEOF3OUTH!FRICAV0RESIDENTOF2EPUBLICOF
3OUTH!FRICA 3!## AT;= ;=
3INCE THE #ONSTITUTION ALSO PROVIDES FOR A SINGLE (IGH #OURT OF 3OUTH
!FRICA ANDREGULATESTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTANDTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEAL4HE2ENAMINGOF(IGH#OURTS!CTOFANDTHE3UPREME
#OURT!CTOFWEREREPEALEDBYTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF4HE
TRADITIONALAPPELLATIONSOF@THE3UPREME#OURT OR@A(IGH#OURT OR@ADIVISIONOF
THE3UPREME#OURTARE INTERMSOFSS ANDB OF!CTOF REPLACED
BYTHECOLLECTIVENAMEOF@THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAWITHAMAINSEATOFA
DIVISIONANDLOCALSEATS ESTABLISHEDUNDERADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH
!FRICA
4HECOMPOSITIONOFTHECOURTSOF3OUTH!FRICAANDTHECRIMINALJURISDICTION
OFCOURTSOFFIRSTINSTANCEFORMTHEFOCUSOFTHISCHAPTER*URISDICTIONREFERSGENER
ALLYTOTHEAUTHORITYOFACOURTTOHEARANDDECIDEANYISSUEORASPECIFICMATTER
WHETHERONTRIAL ONAPPEALORONREVIEW
4(%350%2)/2#/5243
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
7KHFRPSRVLWLRQRIWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDO&RXUW
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTWITHITSSEATIN*OHANNESBURG ISTHEHIGHESTCOURTOF
THE2EPUBLICANDCONSISTSOFA#HIEF*USTICE A$EPUTY#HIEF*USTICEANDNINEOTHER
JUDGES S OF THE #ONSTITUTION ! MATTER BEFORE THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT
MUSTBEHEARDBYATLEASTEIGHTJUDGESS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDO&RXUW
4HISCOURTHASFINALJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFALLMATTERS4HISCOURTMAYDECIDE
ALLCONSTITUTIONALMATTERSANDMAYDECIDEANYFACTUALORLEGALMATTERSONLYIFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTGRANTSLEAVETOAPPEALONTHEGROUNDSTHATTHEMATTERRAISES
ANARGUABLEPOINTOFLAWOFGENERALPUBLICIMPORTANCEWHICHOUGHTTOBECONSID
EREDBYTHISCOURTS A 4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTMAKESTHEFINALDECISION
ON WHETHER A MATTER IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTIONS C OF THE #ONSTITUTION
4HE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT ALSO MAKES THE FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER AN !CT OF
0ARLIAMENT APROVINCIAL!CTORTHECONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTISCONSTITUTIONAL)T
MUSTCONFIRMANYORDEROFINVALIDITYMADEBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL THE
(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAORACOURTOFSIMILARSTATUS BEFORETHATORDERHASANY
FORCES )N TERMS OF S THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT IS THE ONLY COURT
THATMAYDECIDE
I DISPUTESBETWEENORGANSOFSTATEINTHENATIONALORPROVINCIALSPHERECONCERN
INGTHECONSTITUTIONALSTATUS POWERSORFUNCTIONSOFANYOFTHOSEORGANSOF
STATE
II THECONSTITUTIONALITYOFANYPARLIAMENTARYORPROVINCIAL"ILL
III THECONSTITUTIONALITYOFANYAMENDMENTTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONOR
IV THEQUESTIONWHETHER0ARLIAMENTORTHE0RESIDENTHASFAILEDTOFULFILACONSTI
TUTIONALOBLIGATION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT DECIDES WHETHER AN APPLICANT MAY BRING A CONSTITU
TIONAL MATTER DIRECTLY TO THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT ! CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
INCLUDESANYISSUEINVOLVINGTHEINTERPRETATION PROTECTIONORENFORCEMENTOFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONS CF"OESAK 3!#2## AND6AN6UUREN
3!#2##
4HE-INISTERMAYBYVIRTUEOFS OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOFIN
VOKETHEDECISIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTONAQUESTIONOFLAWWHENTHEREARE
CONFLICTINGDECISIONSONAQUESTIONOFLAWORWHENTHE-INISTERHASANYDOUBTAS
TOTHECORRECTNESSOFANYDECISIONGIVENBYANYDIVISIONINANYCRIMINALCASEONA
QUESTIONOFLAW7HENEVERADECISIONINANYCRIMINALCASEONAQUESTIONOFLAWIS
GIVENBYANYDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAWHICHISINCONFLICTWITH
ADECISIONINANYCRIMINALCASEONAQUESTIONOFLAWGIVENBYANYOTHERDIVISIONOF
THE(IGH#OURT THE-INISTERMAYSUBMITSUCHDECISIONOR ASTHECASEMAYBE SUCH
CONFLICTINGDECISIONSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTANDCAUSETHEMATTERTOBEARGUED
BEFORETHATCOURTINORDERTHATITMAYDETERMINESUCHQUESTIONOFLAWFORTHEFUTURE
GUIDANCEOFALLCOURTSCFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT DISCUSSEDBELOW
$SSHDOMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDO&RXUW
!CCESS TO THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT ON APPEAL WITH LEAVE TO APPEAL IS REGU
LATED BY THE #ONSTITUTION AND IS FURTHER DEALT WITH IN #HAPTER BELOW 4HE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASAPPEALJURISDICTIONTOGRANTLEAVETOAPPEALINTERMSOF
S B II OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONTODECIDEANAPPEALOFGENERALPUBLICIMPORTANCE
FORTHELAW
&RPSRVLWLRQRIWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWRI$SSHDO
4HISCOURTHASITSSEATIN"LOEMFONTEINBUTMAY WHENITISEXPEDIENTORINTHE
INTERESTOFJUSTICE MOVEITSSEATSB OF!CTOF
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALCONSISTSOFTHE0RESIDENTAND$EPUTY 0RESIDENT
OFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALANDASMANYOTHERJUDGESASMAYBEDETERMINED
INACCORDANCEWITHTHEPRESCRIBEDCRITERIA ANDAPPROVEDBYTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE
3UPREME#OURT4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORDINARILYCONSISTSOFFIVEJUDGES
FORALLCRIMINALMATTERS4HE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYDIRECT
THATANAPPEALBEHEARDBEFOREACOURTOFTHREEJUDGESOR IFHEORSHECONSIDERSIT
NECESSARYINVIEWOFTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHEMATTER BYACOURTOFMORETHANFIVE
JUDGESS OF!CTOF
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWRI$SSHDO
4HISCOURTMAYDECIDEANYMATTERONAPPEALANDMAYENQUIREINTOANDRULEON
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY LEGISLATION OR ANY CONDUCT OF THE 0RESIDENTS
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION#ONSEQUENTLY THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYMAKEAN
ORDERCONCERNINGTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT APROVINCIAL!CT
OR ANY CONDUCT OF THE 0RESIDENT BUT SUCH AN ORDER MUST BE CONFIRMED BY THE
#ONSTITUTIONAL #OURTS OF THE #ONSTITUTION 4HIS COURT HAS THE INHERENT
POWERTODEVELOPTHECOMMONLAWWITHDUEREGARDTOTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
SOFTHE#ONSTITUTION

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
$SSHDOMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWRI$SSHDO
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASTHEAUTHORITYTODECIDE
I APPEALS
II MATTERSRELEVANTTOAPPEALS
III A
NY MATTER REFERRED TO THIS COURT IN TERMS OF AN !CT OF 0ARLIAMENT
S OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISACOURTOFAPPEALONLYANDNOTACOURTOFFIRST
INSTANCE4HISCOURTDOESNOTHAVEORIGINALSENTENCINGJURISDICTION BUTMAYCOR
RECT INCORRECT SENTENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SENTENCING JURISDICTION OF THE
TRIALCOURTASACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE4HISCOURTHASINHERENTPOWERTOPROTECT
ANDREGULATEITSOWNPROCEDURESSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION 4HECOURTASWELLAS
OTHERSUPERIORCOURTSMAYORDERTHEREMOVALOFANYPERSONINTERRUPTINGTHEPRO
CEEDINGSORINFLUENCINGORINSULTINGANYMEMBEROFTHECOURTSOF!CTOF
3ECTIONOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOFALLOWSANYSUPERIORCOURT
THEPOWEROFREMOVALANDABRIEFDETENTIONTILLTHERISINGOFTHECOURTOFAPERSON
INTERRUPTINGTHECOURTPROCEEDINGSORIMPROPERLYTRYINGTOINFLUENCEANYCOURTIN
RESPECTOFANYMATTERBEINGORTOBECONSIDEREDBYTHECOURT4HEDECISIONTOTRY
SUCHPERSONFORCONTEMPTREMAINSTHATOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASTHEAUTHORITYTOHEARANAPPEALAGAINSTANY
ORDERORJUDGMENTOFTHE(IGH#OURTANDTODECIDESUCHAPPEALS !CTOF
ANDSOF!CTOF0ERSONSWHOHAVEBEENFOUNDGUILTYBYADIVI
SION OF THE (IGH #OURT MAY NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPEAL TO THE 3UPREME #OURT OF
!PPEAL4HEGENERALPRINCIPLEISTHATLEAVEHASFIRSTTOBESOUGHTFROMTHE(IGH
#OURTORONREFUSALFROMTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL BEFOREANAPPEALCANBE
MADETOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
)NADDITIONTOTHEJURISDICTIONJUSTDISCUSSED THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
ALSOHASCERTAINPOWERSINTERMSOFSOF!CTOF4HISSECTIONPRO
VIDESTHATWHENEVERTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEHASANYDOUBTASTOTHECORRECTNESS
OFANYDECISIONGIVENBYANYDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTINANYCRIMINALCASE
ONAQUESTIONOFLAW ORWHENEVERADECISIONINANYCRIMINALCASEONAQUESTION
OFLAWISGIVENBYANYDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTWHICHISINCONFLICTWITHA
DECISIONINANYCRIMINALCASEONAQUESTIONOFLAWGIVENBYANYOTHERDIVISION
OFTHE(IGH#OURT THE-INISTERMAYSUBMITTHATDECISIONOR ASTHECASEMAY
BE SUCHCONFLICTINGDECISIONSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALANDCAUSETHE
MATTERTOBEARGUEDBEFOREIT INORDERTHATITMAYDETERMINETHESAIDQUESTION
FORTHEFUTUREGUIDANCEOFALLCOURTS!PREVIOUSJUDGMENTOFANOTHERCOURTIS
NOTREVERSEDORAMENDEDINANYWAYBYSUCHADECISIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEAL ALTHOUGHTHEEXECUTIVE ASDISTINCTFROMTHEJUDICIARY MAYBEPRE
PARED IN SPECIAL CASES TO SHOW CLEMENCY TO A CONVICTED PERSON WHEN IN THE
LIGHTOFSUCHADECISION ITAPPEARSTHATHISORHERCONVICTIONWASNOTJUSTIFI
ABLE!NEXAMPLEOFTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHISSECTIONISSEENIN%XPARTE-INISTER
OF*USTICE)NRE2V"OLON!$)NTHISCASETHE-INISTERREFERREDTOTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALKNOWNATTHATTIMEASTHE!PPELLATE$IVISION THE
QUESTIONOFWHATDEGREEOFPROOFWASREQUIREDFROMANACCUSEDWHENASTATUTE
STATEDTHATTHEONUSOFPROOFWASONTHEACCUSED4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
HELDTHATSUCHANONUSWASTHESAMEASTHATINACIVILTRIALTHEACCUSEDHAD

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES NOT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT 4HE-INISTERHASREPEATEDLYMADEUSEOFSTOOBTAINAFINALVERDICT
FROMTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALONCONFLICTINGDECISIONSOF@PROVINCIALAND
@LOCAL DIVISIONS !NOTHER EXAMPLE IS TO BE FOUND IN %X PARTE DIE -INISTER VAN
*USTISIE)NRE3V$E"RUIN 3!!
4HE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
&RPSRVLWLRQRIWKH+LJK&RXUWRI6RXWK$IULFD
)N ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIONALISATION PROCESS ENVISAGED IN 3CHEDULE OF THE
#ONSTITUTION THENAME@3UPREME#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAWASINITIALLYCHANGEDTO
@(IGH#OURTSOF3OUTH!FRICA BUTWITHRETENTIONOFTHENAMESOFTHEERSTWHILE
@PROVINCIALAND@LOCALDIVISIONSOFTHE@3UPREME#OURT3UBSEQUENTLY NEWNAMES
FOR THE (IGH #OURTS WERE INTRODUCED BY THE 2ENAMING OF (IGH #OURTS !CT
OF WITHOUT HOWEVER AMENDINGTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHESECOURTS4HIS!CT
HASBEENREPEALEDBY!CTOF&IRSTLY THENINEMAINSEATSOR@PROVINCIAL
DIVISIONS ASTHEYWEREPREVIOUSLYCALLED OFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAARE
LISTEDINPARAGRAPHA BELOW ANDSECONDLY INPARAGRAPHB THE@LOCALSEATSOF
THE(IGH#OURTARELISTED.OTETHATTHEREISNOLONGERANYREFERENCETO@LOCAL
OR @PROVINCIAL DIVISIONS IN THE APPELLATION OF ANY OF THE DIVISIONS OF THE (IGH
#OURT 4HENEWCOMPOSITIONORCONSTITUTIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
ISSETOUTBELOW.OTETHATTHEMAINSEAT OR@PERMANENTSEATOFADIVISIONEG
'RAHAMSTOWN FORMSPARTOFTHENAMEOFTHEDIVISIONCONCERNED7HEREAPPLI
CABLE NEWPLACE NAMESAPPEARINPARENTHESES
A 4HE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAINCLUDESTHEFOLLOWINGDIVISIONS
 (DVWHUQ&DSH'LYLVLRQ*UDKDPVWRZQ 0DNKDQGD
 )UHH6WDWH'LYLVLRQ%ORHPIRQWHLQ
 *DXWHQJ'LYLVLRQ3UHWRULD
 .ZD=XOX1DWDO'LYLVLRQ3LHWHUPDULW]EXUJ
 /LPSRSR'LYLVLRQ3RORNZDQH
 0SXPDODQJD'LYLVLRQ1HOVSUXLW 0ERPEHOD VLQFH0D\WKLVLVWKHSHUPDQHQW
VHDWRIWKLVGLYLVLRQDFFRUGLQJWRWKH2IILFHRIWKH&KLHI-XVWLFH#2&-࡞ ‫ޚ‬56$
 1RUWKHUQ&DSH'LYLVLRQ.LPEHUOH\
 1RUWK:HVW'LYLVLRQ0DKLNHQJ 0PDEDWKR
 :HVWHUQ&DSH'LYLVLRQ&DSH7RZQ
B "ELOWARETHEEIGHT@LOCALSEATSOFDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTTHENUMBER
OFWHICHCOULDBEINCREASEDIFCERTAINCRITERIAEXISTSEE''OF*ANUARY

 (DVWHUQ&DSH'LYLVLRQ%LVKR
 (DVWHUQ&DSH'LYLVLRQ0WKDWKD
 (DVWHUQ&DSH'LYLVLRQ3RUW(OL]DEHWK
 *DXWHQJ'LYLVLRQ-RKDQQHVEXUJ
 .ZD=XOX1DWDO'LYLVLRQ'XUEDQ
 /LPSRSR'LYLVLRQ7KRKR\DQGRXDQG/HSKDODOH VHH**RI-DQXDU\ORFDO
VHDWVRIWKH/LPSRSR'LYLVLRQ
 0SXPDODQJD'LYLVLRQ0LGGHOEXUJ

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
%ACH DIVISION OF THE (IGH #OURT CONSISTS OF A *UDGE 0RESIDENT AND ONE OR MORE
$EPUTY *UDGES 0RESIDENT AS DETERMINED BY THE 0RESIDENT EACH WITH SPECIFIED
HEADQUARTERSWITHINTHEAREAUNDERTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHATDIVISION ANDASMANY
OTHERJUDGESFOREACHDIVISIONASMAYBEDETERMINEDINACCORDANCEWITHTHEPRE
SCRIBEDCRITERIA ANDAPPROVEDBYTHE0RESIDENTS OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAND
SOF!CTOF!SINGLEJUDGEPRESIDESINATRIALMATTERUNLESSAFULLBENCHOF
THREEJUDGESISAPPOINTEDS OF!CTOF!NAPPEALISHEARDBYEITHER
TWOORTHREEJUDGES
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH+LJK&RXUWRI6RXWK$IULFD
4HISCOURTHASJURISDICTIONTODECIDETHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFANYLEGISLATIONORANY
CONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION)TMAYDEVELOPTHECOMMON
LAWSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
$SSHDODQGUHYLHZMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH+LJK&RXUWRI6RXWK$IULFD
4HEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAHAVEAPPEALANDREVIEWJURISDICTION
INRESPECTOFCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSEMANATINGFROMLOWERCOURTS&URTHERMORE ALL
THEMAINDIVISIONSLISTEDINPARAGRAPHA ABOVEANDTHE'AUTENG$IVISIONOFTHE
(IGH #OURT *OHANNESBURG WHEN SITTING AS A @FULL COURT IE SITTING WITH THREE
JUDGES HAVEAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONTOHEARANAPPEALINACRIMINALCASEDECIDEDBY
ASINGLEJUDGEIFTHEQUESTIONSOFLAWANDOFFACTANDOTHERCONSIDERATIONSINVOLVED
INTHEAPPEALAREOFSUCHANATURETHATTHEAPPEALDOESNOTREQUIRETHEATTENTION
OFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL4HEAPPELLATEANDREVIEWINGJURISDICTIONOFTHE
MAINDIVISIONSANDTHE'AUTENG$IVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT *OHANNESBURG WILL
BE DISCUSSED IN #HAPTERS AND 4HE 'AUTENG $IVISION OF THE (IGH #OURT
*OHANNESBURG HASEXACTLYTHESAMEAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONASTHEMAINDIVISIONS
LISTEDINPARAGRAPHA ABOVE,EAVETOAPPEALISREQUIREDUNLESSSPECIFICCIRCUM
STANCESRELATINGTOCHILDOFFENDERSAREPRESENT
4HEMAINSEATOFADIVISIONHASCONCURRENTAPPEALJURISDICTIONOVERTHEAREAOF
JURISDICTIONOFA@LOCALSEATOFTHATDIVISION WHICHMEANSTHATTHEMAINSEATHAS
PARALLELJURISDICTIONWITHTHELOCALSEATOPERATINGATTHESAMETIMEANDTHECASE
COULDBEMOVEDFROMTHELOCALSEATTOTHEMAINSEAT
#IRCUITCOURTSOFADIVISION
4HE *UDGE 0RESIDENT OF A DIVISION OF THE (IGH #OURT ESTABLISHES A CIRCUIT COURT
UNDERTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHATDIVISIONTOADJUDICATECIVILANDCRIMINALMATTERS
%ACH CIRCUIT COURT OF A DIVISION MUST SITATLEASTTWICEAYEARATSUCHTIMESAND
PLACESASMAYBEDETERMINEDBYTHE*UDGE0RESIDENTSOF!CTOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4(%,/7%2#/5243
-AGISTRATESmCOURTS
&RPSRVLWLRQRIWKHORZHUFRXUWV
)NTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT @LOWERCOURTMEANSANYCOURTESTAB
LISHEDUNDERTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOF4HECOURTS
SOESTABLISHEDARETHEMAGISTRATESCOURTSWITHORDINARYJURISDICTIONANDTHERE
GIONAL COURTSS OF THE -AGISTRATES #OURTS !CT )N S J OF THE -AGISTRATES
#OURTS!CT PROVISIONISALSOMADEFORTHEINSTITUTIONOFPERIODICALCOURTS
!MAGISTRATESCOURTISINSTITUTEDFORADISTRICTFORTHESAKEOFBREVITY REFERRED
TOASTHEDISTRICTCOURT ANDACOURTFORAREGIONALDIVISIONSIMPLYREFERREDTOAS
THEREGIONALCOURT ISINSTITUTEDINTERMSOFSOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CT
0ERIODICALCOURTSAREMAGISTRATESCOURTSWHICHSITATREGULARINTERVALSATPLACES
OTHERTHANTHESEATSOFFIXEDPERMANENTDISTRICTCOURTS0ERIODICALCOURTSPERFORM
THESAMEFUNCTIONINLARGEANDSPARSELYPOPULATEDAREASASCIRCUITCOURTSINTHE
CASEOFTHE(IGH#OURT4HEJURISDICTIONOFAPERIODICALCOURTISEXACTLYTHESAME
ASTHATOFADISTRICTCOURT EXCEPTTHATTHEREARECERTAINLIMITATIONSASREGARDSITS
TERRITORIALJURISDICTION(OWEVER NOPERSONSHALL WITHOUTHISORHERCONSENT BE
LIABLETOAPPEARASANACCUSEDBEFOREANYPERIODICALCOURTUNLESSHEORSHERESIDES
NEARERTOTHEPLACEWHERETHEPERIODICALCOURTISHELDTHANTOTHESEATOFTHEMAG
ISTRACYOFTHEDISTRICTS B OFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CT
&RQVWLWXWLRQDODQGDSSHDOMXULVGLFWLRQ
,OWER COURTS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENQUIRE INTO OR RULE ON THE CONSTITU
TIONALITY OF ANY LEGISLATION OR ON ANY CONDUCT OF THE 0RESIDENTS OF THE
#ONSTITUTION!LTHOUGHLOWERCOURTSMUSTDECIDETHEISSUEOFGRANTINGORDENYING
LEAVETOAPPEALTOA(IGH#OURT LOWERCOURTSDONOTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOHEARAND
DECIDEAMATTERONAPPEALORREVIEWEXCEPTBYVIRTUEOFS!OFTHE-AGISTRATES
#OURTS !CT WHERE AN APPEAL IS LODGED AGAINST A CONVICTION AND OR SENTENCE OF
CHIEFS HEADMENANDCHIEFSDEPUTIES
2WKHUORZHUFRXUWV
)T IS FORESEEN THAT IF OR WHEN TRADITIONAL COURTS ARE INTRODUCED AS PART OF A TRA
DITIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN TERMS OF THE 4RADITIONAL ,EADERSHIP AND
'OVERNANCE &RAMEWORK !CT OF READ WITH THE 4RADITIONAL #OURTS "ILL
;"= WHICHISCURRENTLYUNDERREVIEW THESECOURTSWILLHAVEJURISDICTION
TOTRYCERTAINOFFENCESCOMMITTEDWITHINATRADITIONALCOURTSJURISDICTIONACCORD
INGTOTRADITIONALLAWANDCUSTOMS
*52)3$)#4)/./&#2)-).!,#/5243
7ITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS OF THE 2EPUBLIC THE FOL
LOWING MAY BE DISTINGUISHED JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES TERRITORY AND
PUNISHMENTANDJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFTHEVALIDITYOFTHEPROVISIONSOFANY
!CT

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
*URISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
7KHGLYLVLRQVRIWKH+LJK&RXUWRI6RXWK$IULFD
4HEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVEORIGINALJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFALLOFFENCES
'LVWULFWFRXUWV
!DISTRICTCOURTHASJURISDICTIONTOTRYALLCRIMESEXCEPTTREASON MURDER RAPEAND
COMPELLEDRAPE!DISTRICTCOURTMAYEVENTRYSOMESERIOUSOFFENCESAGAINSTTHE
STATE
5HJLRQDOFRXUWV
! REGIONAL COURT MAY TRY ALL CRIMES EXCEPT TREASONSEE S !CT OF !
REGIONALCOURTMAYTHEREFORETRYMURDERANDRAPE
* URISDICTIONANDEXTENDEDJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
COMMITTEDON3OUTH!FRICANTERRITORY
7KHGLYLVLRQVRIWKH+LJK&RXUWRI6RXWK$IULFD
4HEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAHAVEORIGINALJURISDICTIONINRE
SPECT OF ALL OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS AS DEFINED IN THE
3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF
4HERULETHATALLDIVISIONSEXERCISEJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCESCOMMIT
TEDWITHINTHEIRRESPECTIVEAREASHASBEENEXTENDEDINTHEFOLLOWINGRESPECTS
)N(ULL 3!# ITWASHELDTHATADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAS
JURISDICTIONTOPUTINTOEFFECTASUSPENDEDSENTENCEIMPOSEDBYANOTHERDIVI
SIONORBYAMAGISTRATESCOURT
4HELEGISLATURESOMETIMESLAYSDOWN INRESPECTOFSPECIFICOFFENCES THATTHEY
SHALLFORTHEPURPOSESOFJURISDICTIONBEDEEMEDTOHAVEBEENCOMMITTEDIN
ANYPLACEWHERETHEACCUSEDHAPPENSTOBE!NEXAMPLEISFOUNDINSOFTHE
#IVIL!VIATION/FFENCES!CTOF
)N &AIRFIELD #0$ IT WAS HELD THAT IF AN !CT CREATES AN OFFENCE AND
CONFERSJURISDICTIONMERELYONALOWERCOURTINRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCE THE
JURISDICTIONOFA(IGH#OURTISNOTOUSTEDINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCEUNLESS OF
COURSE THEREISANEXPRESSPROVISIONINTHE!CTTOTHISEFFECT
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTEMPOWERSTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF
0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSTODIRECTTHATATRIALBEHELDINACOURTWITHINTHEAREAOF
ADIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSALTHOUGHTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDWITHIN
THEAREAOFANOTHERDIRECTOR4HISSECTIONISCLEARLYAPPLICABLETOLOWERCOURTS
ASWELLASTOTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA3EE.DZEKU 3!#2
! &URTHERMORE ACCORDINGTOS OFTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY
!CT OF WHERE THE .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS .$00
OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AUTHORISED THERETO IN WRITING BY
THE.$00 DEEMSITINTHEINTERESTOFTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICETHATANOF
FENCECOMMITTEDASAWHOLEORPARTIALLYWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFONE
DIRECTORBEINVESTIGATEDANDTRIEDWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFANOTHER
DIRECTOR HEORSHEMAY SUBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0RO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CEDURE!CT INWRITINGDIRECTTHATTHEINVESTIGATIONANDCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
INRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCEBECONDUCTEDANDCOMMENCEDWITHINTHEAREAOF
JURISDICTION OF SUCH OTHER DIRECTOR 4HE DIRECTIVE MUST BE ISSUED BEFORE THE
INDICTMENTHASBEENSERVEDONTHEACCUSEDSEE-AMASE;=!LL3!
3#! (OWEVER S DOESNOTPROHIBITSUCHREMOVALEVENTHOUGHTHEAC
CUSEDHASALREADYAPPEAREDINCOURT
'LVWULFWFRXUWVDQGUHJLRQDOFRXUWV
(EREWEMUSTDISTINGUISHBETWEENASUMMARYTRIALANDAPREPARATORYEXAMINA
TION )N A SUMMARY TRIAL THE ACCUSED IS CHARGED IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT AND
THISCOURTITSELFDECIDESWHETHERHEORSHEISGUILTYORNOTGUILTY)NTHECASEOFA
PREPARATORYEXAMINATION THEREISAHEARINGINWHICHTHEACCUSEDISNOTTRIEDTHE
MAGISTRATEDOESNOTJUDGEWHETHERHEORSHEISGUILTYORNOTGUILTY BUTONLYHEARS
THEEVIDENCEWHICHISTHENSENTTOTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSWHOWILL
DECIDEWHETHERTOINSTITUTEAPROSECUTIONORNOT ANDINWHICHCOURT
3UMMARYTRIALS
3ECTIONOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTLAYSDOWNTHATADISTRICTCOURTANDA
REGIONALCOURTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOHEARTRIALSOFPERSONSWHOARECHARGEDWITHAN
OFFENCECOMMITTEDWITHINTHEDISTRICTORWITHINTHEREGIONALDIVISIONCONSISTING
OF A NUMBER OF DISTRICTS RESPECTIVELY 4HIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY THE
FURTHERPROVISIONSOFSTHESO CALLEDFOURKILOMETRESRULE ASFOLLOWS
7HENANYPERSONISCHARGEDWITHANYOFFENCE
A COMMITTED WITHIN THE DISTANCE OF FOUR KILOMETRES ;FORMERLY TWO MILES=
BEYONDTHEBOUNDARYOFTHEDISTRICT OROFTHEREGIONALDIVISIONOR
B COMMITTEDINORUPONANYVESSELORVEHICLEONAVOYAGEORJOURNEY ANY
PARTWHEREOFWASPERFORMEDWITHINADISTANCEOFFOURKILOMETRESFROMTHE
BOUNDARYOFTHEDISTRICTORTHEREGIONALDIVISIONOR
C COMMITTEDONBOARDANYVESSELONAJOURNEYUPONANYRIVERWITHINTHE
2EPUBLIC OR FORMING THE BOUNDARY OF ANY PART THEREOF AND SUCH JOUR
NEYORPARTTHEREOFWASPERFORMEDINTHEDISTRICTORREGIONALDIVISIONOR
WITHINFOURKILOMETRESOFITOR
D COMMITTEDONBOARDANYVESSELONAVOYAGEWITHINTHETERRITORIALWATERS
OF THE 2EPUBLIC AND THE SAID TERRITORIAL WATERS ADJOIN THE DISTRICT OR RE
GIONALDIVISIONOR
E BEGUNORCOMPLETEDWITHINTHEDISTRICTORWITHINTHEREGIONALDIVISION
SUCHPERSONMAYBETRIEDBYTHECOURTOFTHEDISTRICTOROFTHEREGIONALDIVISION
ASTHECASEMAYBE ASIFHEORSHEHADBEENCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCECOMMITTED
WITHINTHEDISTRICTORWITHINTHEREGIONALDIVISIONRESPECTIVELY
7ITHREGARDTOTHEFOURKILOMETRESRULE APERSONMAYBETRIEDINAPARTICULAR
AREA FOR AN OFFENCE COMMITTED IN ANOTHER PROVINCE BUT WITHIN FOUR KILOMETRES
BEYONDTHEBOUNDARYOFTHEPARTICULARAREAIFITISANOFFENCEUNDERTHECOMMON
LAWIMPLICITINTHEDECISIONIN"ABA*3' ANDPROBABLYALSOIFITISANOF
FENCEINTERMSOFSTATUTORYLAWOPERATIVEINBOTHPROVINCESCONCERNED4HECOURT
CANNOT HOWEVER BYVIRTUEOFTHISRULE APPLYSTATUTORYLAWOPERATIVEINITSOWN

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
AREAIFTHEACTOROMISSIONCONCERNEDTOOKPLACEINANOTHERPROVINCEWHERETHE
PARTICULARSTATUTORYPROVISIONISNOTAPPLICABLE EVEN ITWOULDAPPEAR IFTHEREISA
SIMILARSTATUTORYPROVISIONAPPLICABLEINTHATOTHERPROVINCE)N"ABAABOVE THE
COURT DECIDED THAT A PERSON COULD NOT BE TRIED IN +IMBERLEY IN THE ERSTWHILE
#APE0ROVINCE FORTHEOFFENCEOFRESISTINGTHEPOLICECONTRARYTOTHEPROVISIONSOF
A#APE!CT WHERETHEPERSONSACTTOOKPLACEINTHEDISTRICTOF"OSHOF INTHE&REE
3TATE WITHINTWOMILESBEYONDTHEBOUNDARYOFTHEDISTRICTOF+IMBERLEYTHEFACT
THATTHEREWASASIMILAR!CTOPERATIVEINTHE&REE3TATEDIDNOTAFFECTTHEISSUE
4HE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT COULD APPLY STATUTORY LAW OPERATIVE IN THE
PROVINCE WHERE THE ACT OR OMISSION TOOK PLACE BUT NOT OPERATIVE IN ITS OWN
PROVINCEEG INTHECASEOF"ABAABOVE WHETHER"ABACOULDHAVEBEENTRIEDIN
+IMBERLEYFORATRANSGRESSIONOFTHE&REE3TATE!CTCOMMITTEDINTHEDISTRICTOF
"OSHOF HASCORRECTLYBEENDECIDEDINTHENEGATIVEIN-PIKA*3% 4HE
POSITIONISSIMILARIFTHETWOOFFENCESARETHESAMEBUTINTHEONEAREAAMANDA
TORYMINIMUMSENTENCEMUSTBEIMPOSEDAFTERCONVICTIONWHILETHISISNOTTHE
CASEINTHEOTHERAREA+HUZWAYO 3!.
3UBJECTTOTHEREMARKSONEXTRATERRITORIALJURISDICTIONBELOW A3OUTH!FRICAN
COURTDOESNOTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOADJUDICATEUPONANOFFENCECOMMITTEDINA
FOREIGNSTATEANDTHEFOURKILOMETRESRULEISTHUSNOTAPPLICABLE-ASEKI
3!4
7HEREITISUNCERTAININWHICHOFSEVERALJURISDICTIONSANOFFENCEHASBEEN
COMMITTED ITMAYBETRIEDINANYOFSUCHJURISDICTIONS
!PERSONCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEMAYBETRIEDBYTHECOURTOFANYDISTRICTOR
ANYREGIONALDIVISION ASTHECASEMAYBE WHEREINANYACT OMISSIONOREVENT
WHICHISANELEMENTOFTHEOFFENCETOOKPLACE
! PERSON CHARGED WITH THEFT OF PROPERTY OR WITH OBTAINING PROPERTY BY AN
OFFENCE ORWITHANOFFENCEWHICHINVOLVESTHERECEIVINGOFANYPROPERTYBY
HIMORHER MAYALSOBETRIEDBYTHECOURTOFANYDISTRICTORREGIONALDIVISION
ASTHECASEMAYBE WHEREINHEORSHEHASORHADPARTOFTHEPROPERTYINHISOR
HERPOSSESSION
!PERSONCHARGEDWITHKIDNAPPING CHILD STEALINGORABDUCTIONMAYALSOBE
TRIEDBYTHECOURTOFANYDISTRICT OROFANYREGIONALDIVISION THROUGHORIN
WHICH HE OR SHE CONVEYED OR CONCEALED OR DETAINED THE PERSON KIDNAPPED
STOLENORABDUCTED
7HEREBYANYSPECIALSTATUTORYPROVISIONAMAGISTRATESCOURTHASJURISDICTION
INRESPECTOFANOFFENCECOMMITTEDBEYONDTHELOCALLIMITSOFTHEDISTRICTOR
OFTHEREGIONALDIVISION SUCHCOURTISNOTDEPRIVEDOFSUCHJURISDICTIONBY
ANYOFTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CT
7HEREANACCUSEDISALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMITTEDVARIOUSOFFENCESWITHINDIF
FERENTDISTRICTSWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFANYDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROS
ECUTIONS THELATTERMAYINWRITINGDIRECTTHATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSBECOM
MENCEDINAMAGISTRATESCOURTWITHINHISORHERAREAOFJURISDICTIONASIFSUCH
OFFENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED WITHIN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURT
!REGIONALCOURTWITHINWHOSEAREAOFJURISDICTIONSUCHMAGISTRATESCOURTIS
SITUATEDSHALLLIKEWISEHAVEJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCEIFTHEOF
FENCEMAYBETRIEDBYAREGIONALCOURTS !CTOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)NONEINSTANCETHEACCUSEDMAYEVEN UPONAWRITTENORDEROFTHEDIRECTOR
OFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS BECHARGEDINTHECOURTOFANYDISTRICTORREGIONALDI
VISIONOFTHEPROVINCEORAREAFORWHICHTHATDIRECTORHOLDSOFFICE4HISMAY
HAPPENWHENTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDEEMSITEXPEDIENTOWINGTO
THENUMBEROFACCUSEDINVOLVEDINANYCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSORWITHAVIEW
TOAVOIDINGEXCESSIVEINCONVENIENCEORTHEDISTURBANCEOFTHEPUBLICORDER
S !CTOF
)NTERMSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT IFAPER
SONIS ASFARASTERRITORIALJURISDICTIONISCONCERNED WRONGLYCHARGEDBEFOREA
PARTICULARCOURTANDFAILSTOOBJECTTIMEOUSLY SUCHCOURTWILLTHEREBYACQUIRE
JURISDICTIONTOTRYSUCHPERSON
4HEREARESPECIFICSTATUTORYPROVISIONSINTERMSOFWHICHAMAGISTRATESCOURT
MAYEXERCISEJURISDICTION4HUSSOFTHE!VIATION!CTOFPROVIDES
THATINRESPECTOFANYOFFENCEUNDERTHAT!CTANDINRESPECTOFANYOFFENCE
COMMITTEDONA3OUTH!FRICANAIRCRAFT THEOFFENCEISDEEMEDFORTHEPURPOSE
OFCRIMINALJURISDICTIONTOHAVEBEENCOMMITTEDINANYPLACEWHERETHEAC
CUSEDHAPPENSTOBE
,ASTLY SOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTCONFERSUPONTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOR
OF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSANUNLIMITEDDISCRETIONTOORDERATRIALTOTAKEPLACE
INTHEAREAOFANOTHERDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS.OTETHEEXTENSIONIN
S OF!CTOFITEM INABOVE
0REPARATORYEXAMINATIONSANDPRELIMINARYENQUIRIES
3ECTION REGULATES THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES COURTS ! PREPARATORY EX
AMINATIONISCONDUCTEDINAMAGISTRATESCOURTWITHINWHOSEAREAOFJURISDICTION
THE OFFENCE HAS ALLEGEDLY BEEN COMMITTED 4HE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
MAY HOWEVER IFITAPPEARSTOHIMORHEREXPEDIENTONACCOUNTOFTHENUMBEROF
ACCUSEDINVOLVEDORINORDERTOAVOIDEXCESSIVEINCONVENIENCEORAPOSSIBLEDIS
TURBANCEOFTHEPUBLICORDER DIRECTTHATTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONBEHELDIN
ANOTHERCOURTWITHINTHEAREAOFHISORHERJURISDICTION
)NTERMSOFS C OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTTHECHILDINCONFLICTWITHTHELAW
ANDBELOWYEARSOFAGEMUSTAPPEARBEFOREALOWERCOURT4HEPROCEDUREOFTHE
PRELIMINARYENQUIRYISSETOUTINSOFTHE!CT!TTHECONCLUSIONOFTHEPRELIMI
NARYENQUIRYTHEMAGISTRATEATSUCHENQUIRYMAYORDERTHATTHEMATTERBEDIVERTED
INTERMSOFS OFTHE!CTORTHATTHEMATTERBEREFERREDTOACHILDJUSTICECOURT
*URISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCESCOMMITTEDOUTSIDE3OUTH!FRICA
4HEGENERALPRINCIPLEISTHATTHECOURTSOFTHE2EPUBLICWILLEXERCISEJURISDICTION
WITHREGARDTOOFFENCESCOMMITTEDON3OUTH!FRICANTERRITORYONLYCF-AKHUTLA
3!/ -ATHABULA 3!. AND-ASEKI 3!4
4HISPOSITIONWASCONFIRMEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTIN+AUNDAV0RESIDENTOF
THE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!## PARA;= WHERETHECOURTSTATED
ASFOLLOWS@)TISAGENERALRULEOFINTERNATIONALLAWTHATTHELAWSOFA3TATEORDINAR
ILYAPPLYONLYWITHINITSOWNTERRITORY
(OWEVER THEREAREANUMBEROFEXCEPTIONS4HEEXCEPTIONSAPPLYWITHREGARDTO
THEFOLLOWINGOFFENCESORINSTANCES

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
(IGHTREASON"YITSVERYNATUREHIGHTREASONISANOFFENCEWHICHISFREQUENTLY
COMMITTEDONFOREIGNTERRITORY EGWHEREA3OUTH!FRICANCITIZENINWARTIME
HAPPENS TO BE RESIDENT IN AN ENEMY COUNTRY AND JOINS THE ENEMY ARMY IN
ORDERTOOVERTHROWTHE3OUTH!FRICANGOVERNMENT
7ITHREGARDTOCRIMESOFGENOCIDE CRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITYANDWARCRIMES
JURISDICTIONISVESTEDIN3OUTH!FRICANCOURTSASCONTEMPLATEDINS OFTHE
)MPLEMENTATIONOFTHE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT!CT
OF!WRITTENPERMISSIONOFTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECU
TIONSTOINSTITUTEAPROSECUTIONISREQUIRED3ECTION OFTHE)MPLEMENTA
TIONOFTHE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT!CTOF
PROVIDESTHATANYPERSONCOMMITTINGCERTAINOFFENCESSUCHASGENOCIDE WAR
CRIMESANDCRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITYINTERMSOFTHIS!CTISDEEMEDTOHAVE
COMMITTEDTHEOFFENCEINQUESTIONINTHE2EPUBLICIFHEORSHE INTERALIA IS
A3OUTH!FRICANCITIZENORAPERMANENTRESIDENTORIS AFTERTHECOMMISSION
PRESENTON3OUTH!FRICANTERRITORY
4RAFFICKINGOFPERSONS3ECTIONPROVIDESFOREXTRATERRITORIALJURISDICTIONOF
3OUTH !FRICAN COURTS IN RESPECT OF TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS AS PROVIDED FOR IN
#HAPTEROFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS!CTOF
DEPENDINGONCERTAINJURISDICTIONALFACTSANDWITHTHEWRITTENPERMIS
SIONOFTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
!3OUTH!FRICANCOURTWILLHAVEJURISDICTIONTOHEARACHARGEOFTHEFTWHICHIS
ACONTINUINGOFFENCE COMMITTEDINAFOREIGNSTATENOTBECAUSEITISREGARDED
ASTHEFTINTHEFOREIGNCOUNTRY BUTBECAUSEANACCUSEDISREGARDEDASCONTINU
ING TO APPROPRIATE THE STOLEN OBJECT WITH THE NECESSARY INTENTION IN 3OUTH
!FRICA+RUGER 3!!
/FFENCESCOMMITTEDONSHIPS(EREONEHASTODISTINGUISHBETWEEN ONTHE
ONEHAND OFFENCESCOMMITTEDON3OUTH!FRICANSHIPSONTHEOPENSEAORON
OTHER SHIPS BY 3OUTH !FRICAN CITIZENS DEALT WITH BY S OF THE -ERCHANT
3HIPPING!CTOF AND ONTHEOTHER OFFENCESCOMMITTEDWITHINTHE
TERRITORIALWATERSOFTHE2EPUBLICANDPIRACY4HETERRITORIALWATERSOFASTATE
MUSTBYVIRTUEOFINTERNATIONALLAWBECONSIDEREDASPARTOFTHATSTATE SOTHAT
LEGISLATIONINTHISREGARDISUNNECESSARY3ECTION OF!CTOFNOW
REGULATESTHEJURISDICTIONOFMAGISTRATESCOURTSREGARDINGOFFENCESCOMMITTED
WITHINADJACENTTERRITORIALWATERS3EEABOVE
/FFENCES COMMITTED ON AIRCRAFT /NE HAS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OFFENCES
COMMITTEDON3OUTH!FRICANAIRCRAFT WHEREVERTHEYMIGHTBEINTHEWORLD
EITHERINTHEAIRORONLANDSEESOFTHE!VIATION!CTOF ANDCERTAIN
OFFENCESGENERALLYRELATEDTOHIJACKING COMMITTEDOUTSIDETHE2EPUBLICON
BOARDAIRCRAFTOTHERTHAN3OUTH!FRICAN)NRESPECTOFTHELATTERCATEGORYITIS
REQUIREDTHAT
A SUCHAIRCRAFTLANDINTHE2EPUBLICWITHTHEOFFENDERSTILLONBOARDOR
B THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OR PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF THE LESSEE OF
SUCHAIRCRAFTBEINTHE2EPUBLICOR
C THEOFFENDERBEPRESENTINTHE2EPUBLICS OFTHE#IVIL!VIATION/F
FENCES!CTOF
/FFENCESCOMMITTEDONTERRITORYWHICHISSUBSEQUENTLYANNEXEDBYTHE2E
PUBLIC

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
/FFENCESCOMMITTEDBY3OUTH!FRICANCITIZENSIN!NTARCTICAAREJUSTICIABLEIN
3OUTH!FRICA&ORTHEPURPOSESOFTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE !NTARCTICAIS
DEEMEDTOBESITUATEDWITHINTHEMAGISTERIALDISTRICTOF#APE4OWNSOFTHE
3OUTH!FRICAN#ITIZENSIN!NTARCTICA!CTOF
!SSTATEDABOVE TERRITORIALITYHASBEENTHETRADITIONALBASISONWHICHCOURTS
ESTABLISHEDJURISDICTION BUTINTERNATIONALCUSTOMARYLAWRELATINGTOPIRACY
SLAVETRADING WARCRIMES CRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITYANDTORTURE AND3OUTH
!FRICANJURISPRUDENCEANDLAW RECOGNISEOTHERMETHODSOFASSERTINGJURISDIC
TIONSEE"ASSON 3!## AT;=n;=.ATIONAL#OMMISSIONEROF
4HE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICEV3OUTHERN!FRICAN(UMAN2IGHTS,ITIGATION#ENTRE
3!## AT;=/CCASIONALLY 3OUTH!FRICANCOURTSMAYEXERCISE
JURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCESCOMMITTEDBEYOND3OUTH!FRICANBORDERS
4HEFOLLOWINGAREFURTHEREXAMPLESOFEXTRATERRITORIALJURISDICTIONSTATUTORILY
SECURED
A 4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPROVIDESINS! THATIFANY3OUTH!FRICAN
CITIZEN WHO COMMITS AN OFFENCE OUTSIDE THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF THE
2EPUBLICANDWHOCANNOTBEPROSECUTEDBYTHECOURTSOFTHECOUNTRYIN
WHICHTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED DUETOTHEFACTTHATTHEPERSONISIM
MUNEFROMPROSECUTIONASARESULTOFTHEOPERATIONOFTHEPROVISIONSOF
CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS OR TREATIES SUCH AS THE 0RIVILEGES AND
)MMUNITIESOFTHE5NITED.ATIONS 0RIVILEGESAND)MMUNITIESOFTHE
3PECIALISED!GENCIES 6IENNA#ONVENTIONON$IPLOMATIC2ELATIONS
6IENNA#ONVENTIONON#ONSULAR2ELATIONS ISFOUNDWITHIN
THEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFANYCOURTINTHE2EPUBLICWHICHWOULDHAVE
HADJURISDICTIONTOTRYTHEOFFENCEIFITHADBEENCOMMITTEDWITHINITSAREA
OFJURISDICTION THATCOURTSHALLHAVEJURISDICTIONTOTRYTHATOFFENCE4HE
REQUIREMENTSTHATHAVETOBECOMPLIEDWITHBEFORESUCHPROSECUTIONMAY
BEINSTITUTEDARETHATTHEOFFENCEMUSTBEANOFFENCEUNDERTHELAWSOF
THE2EPUBLICANDTHATTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSMUST
INSTRUCTTHATSUCHPROSECUTIONBEINSTITUTED&URTHERMOREEMBASSIESHAVE
TRADITIONALLYBEENREGARDEDASPARTOFTHETERRITORYOFTHESTATEREPRESENT
ED BUT THIS NOTION HAS FALLEN INTO DISREPUTE OVER THE YEARS ON ACCOUNT
OF MALPRACTICES EG HARBOURING OF CRIMINALS 4HE 6IENNA #ONVENTION
OFPROVIDESFORDIPLOMATICIMMUNITYFROMCRIMINALJURISDICTIONIN
COUNTRIESWHEREDIPLOMATICAGENTSREPRESENTTHEIROWNSTATES$IPLOMATS
OFCOURSEREMAINSUBJECTTOTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHEIRHOMESTATESS
OF THE SAID #ONVENTION PROVIDES @4HE IMMUNITY OF A DIPLOMATIC AGENT
FROMTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHERECEIVINGSTATEDOESNOTEXEMPTHIMFROMTHE
JURISDICTIONOFTHESENDINGSTATE3ECTION!NOWREGULATESSUCHJURIS
DICTION3OUTH!FRICANCOURTSHAVEJURISDICTIONWHEREACRIMEINVOLVING
THEDEATHORINJURYOFAPERSONISALLEGEDAGAINSTAFOREIGNLEADERORHIS
ORHERSPOUSE BEINGACCUSEDOFKILLINGORASSAULTINGTHATPERSON#ONSE
QUENTLY DIPLOMATICIMMUNITYMAYNOTBEGRANTEDTOLEADERSOFFOREIGN
STATESORTHEIRSPOUSESWHERETHEAPPLICATIONFORIMMUNITYRELATESTOTHE
DEATH OR INJURY OF ANOTHER PERSON ALLEGEDLY PERPETRATED BY THE FOREIGN
LEADERORHISORHERSPOUSE$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV-INISTEROF)NTERNATIONAL

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
2ELATIONS AND #O OPERATION %NGELS V -INISTER OF )NTERNATIONAL2ELATIONS AND

#O OPERATION;=:!'00(# 3!#2'0 AT;=
B I 4HE 0ROTECTION OF #ONSTITUTIONAL $EMOCRACY AGAINST 4ERRORIST AND
2ELATED!CTIVITIES!CTOF WHICHDEALSWITHTHEOFFENCESOFTERROR
ISM GRANTS3OUTH!FRICANCOURTSEXTRATERRITORIALJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOF
SPECIFIEDOFFENCESCOMMITTEDOUTSIDE3OUTH!FRICA3PECIFICJURISDICTIONAL
FACTSFORTHEPURPOSEOFDETERMININGTHEJURISDICTIONALREACHOFACOURTTO
TRYTHEOFFENCEAREENUMERATEDINS AND OF!CTOF SUCH
AS3OUTH!FRICANRESIDENCYTHEPRESENCEOFTHEOFFENDERIN3OUTH!FRICA
WHERE THE OFFENCE TOOK PLACE OR WHERE THE OFFENDER WAS ARRESTED AND
THESEMUSTBEESTABLISHEDINORDERTOESTABLISHTHEJURISDICTIONALREACHOF
THECOURT.OPROSECUTIONUNDERS H OFTHIS!CTMAYBEINSTITUTED
WITHOUTTHEWRITTENAUTHORITYOFTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECU
TIONS)NTERMSOFTHIS!CT 3OUTH!FRICANCOURTSHAVEJURISDICTIONTOTRY
SPECIFIEDTERRORISTACTSCOMMITTEDABROADBEYONDTHEFINANCINGOFTERROR
ISM ORASLONGASTHEREISAPARTICULARNEXUSBETWEENTHEACTORPERSON
AND3OUTH!FRICA/KAH 3!#2## AT;=3EETHE)NTERNATIONAL
#ONVENTIONFORTHE3UPPRESSIONOF4ERRORIST"OMBINGSTHE)NTERNATIONAL#ON
VENTIONONTHE3UPPRESSIONOFTHE&INANCINGOF4ERRORISM ANDTHE#ONVENTION
ONTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4ERRORISM!LLOFTHESEINSTRUMENTSARE
RATIFIEDBYTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICAANDAREINCORPORATEDINTO!CT
OF
II 3ECTION OF THE 0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF 4ORTURE OF 0ERSONS
!CTOFPROVIDESFOREXTRATERRITORIALJURISDICTIONFOR3OUTH!FRICAN
COURTSIFANOFFENCEINTERMSOFTHIS!CTWASCOMMITTEDINANOTHERCOUN
TRY BY AN ACCUSED AGAINST A FELLOW 3OUTH !FRICAN OR AN ACCUSED WHO IS
A 3OUTH !FRICAN CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OR PRESENT IN 3OUTH !FRICA OR 3OUTH
!FRICANTERRITORIALWATERS IRRESPECTIVEOFWHETHERTHEOFFENCECONSTITUTESAN
OFFENCEINSUCHFOREIGNCOUNTRY4HE.$00MUSTDIRECTSUCHPROSECUTION
III 3ECTIONOFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF#ORRUPT!CTIVITIES
!CT OF PROVIDES IN SIMILAR MANNER FOR EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDIC
TIONOF3OUTH!FRICANCOURTSEVENIFTHECORRUPTACTIVITIESWERECOMMITTED
OUTSIDE3OUTH!FRICANBORDERS#OURTSARESEIZEDWITHJURISDICTIONONLYIF
CERTAIN JURISDICTIONAL FACTS ARE PROVED SUCH AS CITIZENSHIP RESIDENCE OR
THATTHEACCUSEDWASPRESENTIN3OUTH!FRICA
IV 3ECTIONOFTHE%LECTRONIC#OMMUNICATIONSAND4RANSACTIONS!CT
OFPROVIDES FOREXAMPLE THATACOURTINTHE2EPUBLICTRYINGAN
OFFENCEINTERMSOFTHIS!CT COMMITTEDELSEWHERE HASJURISDICTIONWHERE
THEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDBYA3OUTH!FRICANCITIZENORAPERSONWITH
PERMANENTRESIDENCEINTHE2EPUBLIC ORAPERSONCARRYINGONBUSINESSIN
THE2EPUBLIC
V 3OME OFFENCES FURTHERMORE EG INTENTIONALLY GAINING UNAUTHOR
ISED ACCESS TO ANY COMPUTER BELONGING TO OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
$EPARTMENT OF #ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES WILL IN TERMS OF S OF THE
#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOF BESUBJECTTOTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHE
3OUTH!FRICANCOURTS EVENIFSUCHANOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDOUTSIDETHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
2EPUBLIC IFTHEACCUSEDORTHECOMPUTERCONCERNEDWASINTHE2EPUBLICAT
SOMESTAGE
VI )NTERMSOFSOFTHE0ROTECTIONOF)NFORMATION!CTOF ANY
ACT CONSTITUTING AN OFFENCE UNDER THIS !CT WHICH IS COMMITTED OUTSIDE
THE 2EPUBLIC BY ANY 3OUTH !FRICAN CITIZEN OR ANY PERSON DOMICILED IN
THE2EPUBLICSHALLBEDEEMEDTOHAVEBEENCOMMITTEDINTHE2EPUBLIC
*URISDICTIONISDETERMINEDBYWHERETHEOFFENCEWASACTUALLYCOMMITTED
ANDALSOBYTHEPLACEWHERETHEACCUSEDHAPPENSTOBE(OWEVER ANAC
CUSEDSMEREPRESENCEDOESNOTALWAYSSETTLETHEMATTERWHENANACCUSED
ISILLEGALLYABDUCTEDFROMAFOREIGNSTATEBYAGENTSOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN
AUTHORITIESANDSUBSEQUENTLYHANDEDOVERTOTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE THE
COURTBEFOREWHICHSUCHABDUCTEDPERSONISARRAIGNEDHASNOJURISDICTION
TOTRYSUCHPERSON%BRAHIM 3!! 0ILISO 3!#2
4K "EAHAN 3!#2:3
*URISDICTIONWITHREGARDTOSENTENCING
*HQHUDO
4HEFACTTHATTHEVARIOUSCOURTSMENTIONEDBELOWHAVETHEJURISDICTIONTOIMPOSE
ANYOFTHERESPECTIVESENTENCESINDICATEDBELOWDOESNOTMEANTHATTHEYMAYDO
SOWHENEVERTHEYFEELLIKEIT4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTLAYSDOWNSPECIFICRULES
WITHREGARDTOTHEOFFENCESFORWHICH THEPERSONSUPONWHOMANDTHECIRCUM
STANCESINWHICHSOMEOFTHESESENTENCESMAYORMAYNOTBEIMPOSED4HE#HILD
*USTICE!CT PROVIDESINS THATACHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYNOTIMPOSEA
SENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTONACHILDWHOISUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSATTHETIME
OFBEINGSENTENCEDFORTHEOFFENCECOMMITTEDANDWHENSENTENCINGACHILDWHO
ISYEARSOROLDERATTHETIMEOFBEINGSENTENCEDFORTHEOFFENCECOMMITTED A
COURTMUSTONLYDOSOASAMEASUREOFLASTRESORTANDFORTHESHORTESTAPPROPRIATE
PERIOD OF TIME 7HEN A COURT SENTENCES A CHILD TO IMPRISONMENT IN RESPECT OF
CERTAINOFFENCESORCIRCUMSTANCES THEPERIODOFIMPRISONMENTMAYNOTEXCEED
YEARS!PARTFROMTHAT SEVERAL!CTSOF0ARLIAMENT ORDINANCESANDREGULATIONS
CONTAINPROVISIONSPRESCRIBINGTHEMINIMUMORMAXIMUMSENTENCESTHATMAYBE
IMPOSEDFORCERTAINOFFENCES)NADDITION AWHOLEBODYOFCASELAWHASBEENBUILT
UPOVERTHEYEARSINWHICHGUIDELINESHAVEBEENLAIDDOWNCONCERNINGTHEWAYIN
WHICHACOURTSHOULDEXERCISEITSDISCRETIONINSENTENCINGANACCUSED4HERULES
ANDGUIDELINESWITHREGARDTOTHEEXERCISEBYTHECOURTOFITSSENTENCINGDISCRETION
WILLBEDISCUSSEDINMOREDETAILIN#HAPTER
'LYLVLRQVRIWKH+LJK&RXUWRI6RXWK$IULFD
4HEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTMAYIMPOSETHEFOLLOWINGSENTENCES
IMPRISONMENT INCLUDINGIMPRISONMENTFORLIFE
PERIODICALIMPRISONMENT
DECLARATIONASANHABITUALCRIMINAL
COMMITTALTOATREATMENTCENTRE
AFINE
CORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONAND

#(!04%2r4(%#2)-).!,#/5243/&4(%2%05",)#
IMPRISONMENTFROMWHICHTHEPERSONMAYBEPLACEDUNDERCORRECTIONALSU
PERVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
5HJLRQDOFRXUWV
!REGIONALCOURTMAYIMPOSETHEFOLLOWINGSENTENCES
IMPRISONMENTFORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGYEARS
DECLARATIONASANHABITUALCRIMINAL
A FINE NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNTDETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERFROMTIMETO
TIMEBYNOTICEINTHE'AZETTETHEAMOUNTDETERMINEDWITHEFFECTFROM&EB
RUARYIN''OF*ANUARYIS2
#OURTS OF A REGIONAL DIVISION REGIONAL COURTS HAVE INCREASED SENTENCING JU
RISDICTIONINRESPECTOFCERTAINSTATUTES)NTHECASEOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW
!MENDMENT!CTOF INRESPECTOFOFFENCESMENTIONEDIN3CHEDULE0ART
OFTHESAID!CT THEREGIONALCOURTMUSTIMPOSEASENTENCEOFLIFEIMPRISONMENTIF
NOSUBSTANTIALANDCOMPELLINGCIRCUMSTANCESEXISTWHICHJUSTIFYALESSERSENTENCE
)FAN!CTHASCONFERREDANINCREASEDJURISDICTIONUPONTHEREGIONALCOURT SUCH
SENTENCEMAYBEIMPOSEDEVENIFITEXCEEDSTHISCOURTSORDINARYJURISDICTION
$ISTRICTCOURTS
!DISTRICTCOURTMAYIMPOSETHEFOLLOWINGSENTENCESANDNOOTHER
IMPRISONMENTNOTEXCEEDINGAPERIODOFTHREEYEARSIFAN!CTHASCONFERRED
ANINCREASEDJURISDICTIONUPONTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTS THESECOURTSMAYIM
POSESUCHSENTENCESNOTWITHSTANDINGTHEFACTTHATSUCHPUNISHMENTSEXCEED
THEORDINARYJURISDICTIONOFTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTS
A FINE NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNTDETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERFROMTIMETO
TIMEBYNOTICEINTHE'AZETTETHEAMOUNTDETERMINEDWITHEFFECTFROM&EB
RUARYIN''OF*ANUARYIS2
*URISDICTIONTOPRONOUNCEUPONTHEVALIDITYOFLAWSORTHECONDUCTOF
THE0RESIDENT
3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONPROVIDESTHATALLSUPERIORCOURTSSHALLBECOMPE
TENTTOPRONOUNCEONTHEVALIDITYOFANYLAWORCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT)FINANY
PROCEEDINGSBEFOREALOWERCOURTITISALLEGEDTHATANYLAWORANYCONDUCTOFTHE
0RESIDENTISINVALIDONTHEGROUNDSOFITSINCONSISTENCYWITHTHE#ONSTITUTION OR

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THATANYLAWISINVALIDONANYGROUNDOTHERTHANITSCONSTITUTIONALITY THECOURT
SHALLDECIDETHEMATTERONTHEASSUMPTIONTHATSUCHLAWORCONDUCTISVALID4HE
PARTYWHICHALLEGESTHATALAWORCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTISINVALIDMAY HOWEVER
ADDUCEEVIDENCEREGARDINGTHEINVALIDITYOFTHELAWORCONDUCTINQUESTION
7HEREANACCUSEDPLEADSNOTGUILTYINALOWERCOURTANDHISORHERDEFENCEIS
BASEDONTHEALLEGEDINVALIDITYOFAPROVINCIALORDINANCEORAPROCLAMATIONISSUED
BYTHE0RESIDENT THEACCUSEDMUSTBECOMMITTEDFORSUMMARYTRIALBEFOREA(IGH
#OURTHAVINGJURISDICTIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT

#(!04%2
4HEPROSECUTIONOFCRIME
3%VANDER-ERWE
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
05",)#!.$02)6!4%02/3%#54)/.3
#2)-).!,02/3%#54)/.3!.$#)6),!#4)/.3
05",)#02/3%#54)/.3
4HECONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONSANDLEGISLATIVEFRAMEWORK
4HE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY!CTOF
4HEPROFESSIONALINDEPENDENCEOFTHEPROSECUTING
AUTHORITY
0ROFESSIONALINDEPENDENCEANDPRIVATEFUNDINGOFTHE
PROSECUTIONTHERISKOFANUNFAIRTRIAL
3TRUCTUREANDCOMPOSITIONOFTHESINGLENATIONALPROSECUTING
AUTHORITY
)NVESTIGATINGDIRECTORATES
!PPOINTMENTOFSPECIALDIRECTORS
4HEPOWERTOINSTITUTEANDCONDUCTCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
S OF!CTOF
4HEAUTHORITYANDHIERARCHYOFPOWERTOINSTITUTECRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS
4HENATIONALDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS.$00 ANDTHE
DEPUTYNATIONALDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS$.$00S
!PPOINTMENT
4HEQUALIFICATIONSFORAPPOINTMENTAS.$00OR
$.$00
4ERMOFOFFICEOFTHE.$00ANDA$.$00
4HE.$00ANDA$.$00SUSPENSIONANDREMOVALFROM
OFFICE
0OWERS FUNCTIONSANDDUTIESOFTHE.$00ANDA
$.$00


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
0ROSECUTIONPOLICYANDISSUINGOFPOLICYDIRECTIVES

!CCOUNTABILITYTO0ARLIAMENT
-INISTERIALRESPONSIBILITYOVERTHEPROSECUTING
AUTHORITY
7RITTENAUTHORISATIONOF.$00REQUIREDFOR
PROSECUTIONOFCERTAINOFFENCES
4HEDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS$00S
!PPOINTMENT QUALIFICATIONS TERMOFANDREMOVAL
FROMOFFICEANDACCOUNTABILITY
0OWERS DUTIESANDFUNCTIONSOFA$00ANDA$$00
0ROSECUTORS
!PPOINTMENT
0OWERS DUTIESANDFUNCTIONSOFPROSECUTORS
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYANDTHEJUDICIARY
%XTRAORDINARYPOWERSOFA$00
#ONTROLOVERLOCALPROSECUTORS
4HEPROSECUTIONANDTHEPOLICE
4HEPROSECUTION THEPOLICE THEPUBLICANDTHEREPORTINGOF
CRIME
4HEPROSECUTIONASDOMINUSLITIS
4HEDISCRETIONTOPROSECUTE
4HEEXERCISEOFADISCRETION
4HEDISTINCTIONBETWEENWITHDRAWALOFACHARGEAND
STOPPINGOFTHEPROSECUTION
0RESCRIPTIONOFTHERIGHTTOPROSECUTE
4HEPROSECUTIONANDLEGALETHICS
4HEPROSECUTIONANDTHEASSISTANCEOFAPRIVATELEGAL
PRACTITIONER
$IVERSIONOFTHECRIMINALTRIAL
$IVERSIONBYPROSECUTORINRESPECTOFMINOROFFENCES
#HAPTERSSq OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF

$IVERSIONBYTHEPROSECUTIONINTERMSOF#HAPTER
SSq OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFDIVERSIONOFMATTERS
INVOLVING3CHEDULEOFFENCESANDTHEPOWERSAND
DUTIESOFA$00
#RIMINALCAPACITYOFCHILDRENTHEDECISIONTOPROSECUTE
CHILDRENANDTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
OF

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
$ECISIONTOPROSECUTEACHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDER
BUTUNDER
7ITHDRAWALOFCASESAGAINSTCHILDREN
02)6!4%02/3%#54)/.3
)NTRODUCTION
0RIVATEPROSECUTIONUNDERSTATUTORYRIGHT
3ECTION E OFTHE3OCIETIESFORTHE0REVENTIONOF
#RUELTYTO!NIMALS!CTOF
3ECTION I OFTHE,EGAL0RACTICE!CTOF
3ECTIONOFTHE.ATIONAL%NVIRONMENTAL!CTOF

3ECTIONOFTHE%XTENSIONOF3ECURITYOF4ENURE!CT
OF
0RIVATEPROSECUTIONBYANINDIVIDUALONACERTIFICATEQROOH
SURVHTXL
)NTRODUCTION
/RFXVVWDQGLOFAPRIVATEPROSECUTOR
4HECERTIFICATEQROOHSURVHTXL
3ECURITYBYPRIVATEPROSECUTOR
&AILUREOFPRIVATEPROSECUTORTOAPPEAR
#OSTSOFASUCCESSFULPRIVATEPROSECUTION
#OSTSOFACCUSEDINANUNSUCCESSFULPRIVATE
PROSECUTION
)NTERVENTIONBYTHE3TATEINAPRIVATEPROSECUTION
!PRIVATEPROSECUTIONANDS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CTOF
3ECTIONr%QUALITY
%VERYONEISEQUALBEFORETHELAWANDHASTHERIGHTTOEQUALPROTECTIONANDBENEFITOF
THELAW
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0ROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
3EETHEFULLTEXTOFSASCITEDINBELOW
3ECTION r,EGALCONSEQUENCESOFDIVERSION
!PRIVATEPROSECUTIONINTERMSOFSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAYNOTBE
INSTITUTEDAGAINSTACHILDINRESPECTOFWHOMTHEMATTERHASBEENDIVERTEDINTERMSOF
THIS!CT3EEBELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTION r$IVERSION BY PROSECUTOR BEFORE PRELIMINARY )NQUIRY IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES
REFERREDTO)N3CHEDULE
!PROSECUTORMAYDIVERTAMATTERINVOLVINGACHILDWHOISALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMITTED
AN OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN 3CHEDULE AND MAY FOR THIS PURPOSE SELECT ANY LEVEL ONE
DIVERSIONOPTIONSETOUTINSECTION ORANYCOMBINATIONTHEREOF IFTHEPROSECUTOR
ISSATISFIEDr
D THATTHEFACTORSREFERREDTOINSECTION D TO G HAVEBEENCOMPLIEDWITHAND
E INTHECASEOFACHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS THAT
CRIMINALCAPACITYISLIKELYTOBEPROVEDINTERMSOFSECTION
4HEDIVERSIONREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION MUSTTAKEPLACEr
D INACCORDANCEWITHDIRECTIVESISSUEDBYTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
ASPROVIDEDFORINSECTION D I EE
E SUBJECTTOSUBSECTION AFTERANASSESSMENTOFTHECHILDINACCORDANCEWITH#HAP
TERAND
F BEFOREAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYASPROVIDEDFORIN#HAPTER
)FTHECHILDHASNOTBEENASSESSED THEPROSECUTORMAYDISPENSEWITHTHEASSESSMENT
IFITISINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDTODOSO0ROVIDEDTHATTHEREASONSFORDISPENSING
WITHTHEASSESSMENTMUSTBEENTEREDONTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSBYTHEMAGISTRATE
INCHAMBERSREFERREDTOINSECTION
)FTHEPROSECUTORISOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHECHILDISINNEEDOFCAREANDPROTECTIONAS
ENVISAGEDBYSECTIONOFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT HEORSHEMUSTNOTDIVERTTHEMATTERBUT
REFERTHEMATTERTOAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYFORCONSIDERATIONOFREFERRINGITTOACHILDRENmS
COURT
)NORDERTODECIDEWHETHERTODIVERTTHEMATTERORNOT THEPROSECUTORMUSTTAKEINTO
ACCOUNTWHETHERTHECHILDHASARECORDOFPREVIOUSDIVERSIONS
)FTHEPROSECUTORDECIDESNOTTODIVERTAMATTERINTERMSOFTHISSECTION HEORSHEMUST
IMMEDIATELYMAKEARRANGEMENTSFORTHECHILDTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYREFERRED
TOIN#HAPTER
3ECTIONr$IVERSIONOPTIONTOBEMADEORDEROFCOURT
)FAMATTERISDIVERTEDINTERMSOFSECTION THECHILDAND WHEREPOSSIBLE HISORHER
PARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANMUSTAPPEARBEFOREAMAGISTRATEINCHAMBERS IN
ORDERTOHAVETHEDIVERSIONOPTIONTHATHASBEENSELECTEDBYTHEPROSECUTOR MADEAN
ORDEROFCOURT
4HEPROVISIONSOFSECTIONAPPLYWITHTHECHANGESREQUIREDBYTHECONTEXT TOA
CHILDWHOFAILSTOCOMPLYWITHANYORDERREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION
).42/$5#4)/.
)N PRIMITIVE SOCIETIES ALL WRONGS WERE PRIVATE WRONGS AND PRIVATE VENGEANCE
COULDLAWFULLYBETAKENBYTHEWRONGEDAGAINSTTHEWRONGDOER"LACKV"ARCLAYS
:IMBABWE .OMINEES 0VT ,TD 3!#2 7 E 4HIS RIGHT TO EXACT
PRIVATE VENGEANCEWHICH HAD OFTEN ESCALATED INTO BLOOD FEUDS BETWEEN CLANS
ORTRIBESWASGRADUALLYDISPLACEDBYTHEIDEATHATTHEREHADTOBESOMEFORMOF
OFFICIALLYENFORCEDSYSTEMOFCRIMINALJUSTICEINTERMSOFWHICHTHEGUILTOFANAL
LEGEDPERPETRATORCOULDBEESTABLISHED ANDINTERMSOFWHICHPUNISHMENTCOULD
BEMETEDOUTWITHOUTTHEDIRECTINVOLVEMENTOFTHEINDIVIDUALVICTIMCONCERNED
4HEREWASANEEDFORWHATWEWOULDTODAYCALL@LEGALITYOR@DUEPROCESSOFLAW
3EVERALFACTORSCONTRIBUTEDTOTHISDEVELOPMENT

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
&IRST SOCIETIESBECAMEPROGRESSIVELYMORECIVILISED4HEYBEGANTOVIEWPRIVATE
VENGEANCEPERSONALRETALIATION SELF HELP ASADISRUPTIVEMETHODOFEXACTINGRET
RIBUTIONANDASAMOSTINEFFECTIVEMEANSOFSEEKINGTORESTOREHARMONYBETWEEN
WRONGDOERANDVICTIM ANDBETWEENWRONGDOERANDSOCIETY
3ECONDLY THEFORMATIONOFORGANISEDFORMSOFGOVERNMENTANDTHEDEVELOPMENT
OFPOLITICALUNITSKNOWNASSTATESMADEITPOSSIBLETOTRANSFER@PRIVATEVENGEANCE
TOAFACELESSENTITYWHICHHADTHENECESSARYRESOURCES ANDWHICHCOULDCREATETHE
APPROPRIATE STRUCTURES PUBLICLY TO ENFORCE JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF SOCIETY THEREBY
INDIRECTLYACCOMMODATINGORSATISFYINGINANON PERSONALMANNERMANSPRIMI
TIVE BUT PERHAPS NATURAL URGE TO SEEK RETRIBUTION 4HIS PROGRESS WAS ACCELERATED
WHENITBECAMECLEARTHATTHEREHADTOBEADISTINCTIONBETWEENAPRIVATEWRONG
ANDAPUBLICWRONG THELATTERBEINGAWRONGOFSUCHANATURETHATITREQUIREDTHE
STATETOINTERVENEINTHEPUBLICINTEREST4HESE@PUBLICWRONGSWEREIDENTIFIEDAS
CRIMES ANDALSOCONTRIBUTEDTOTHEDISTINCTIONBETWEENPRIVATEANDPUBLICLAW
4HIRDLY ASSOONASTHESTATEBECAMERESPONSIBLEFORTHEENFORCEMENTOFCRIMINAL
LAW ITWASNOLONGERPOSSIBLETOTOLERATESELF HELP)NFACT ITTHENBECAMEUNLAW
FULTOEXACTPRIVATEVENGEANCE3EE"URCHELL0RINCIPLESOF#RIMINAL,AWED
)N.DLOVU 3!#2## AT;=AUNANIMOUS#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
STATED@;7=HENEVENTHEMOSTHEINOUSOFCRIMESARECOMMITTEDAGAINSTPERSONS
THEPEOPLECANNOTRESORTTOSELF HELP
&OURTHLY THEDUEANDPROPERADMINISTRATIONOFCRIMINALJUSTICEREQUIRESTHATTHE
STATESHOULDINPRINCIPLESHOULDERTHEPROSECUTORIALTASK4HERECANBENOFAIRAND
EQUALADMINISTRATIONOFTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMIFPROSECUTIONSFORCRIMEARE
ENTIRELYLEFTTOTHEWHIM INITIATIVESORRESOURCESOFINDIVIDUALVICTIMS
4HISISONEOFTHEREASONSWHYINOURLOCALCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMITISPOSSIBLE
FOR THE PROSECUTING OFFICIALS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETION TO PROSECUTE TO
DECIDETOPROCEEDWITHAPROSECUTIONDESPITETHEVICTIMSORCOMPLAINANTSWISH
TOHAVETHECASEWITHDRAWN7IDERPUBLICINTERESTSAREATSTAKE!MERIKA
3!#27## AT;=Ú;= /NTHESAMEBASISTHEPROSECUTINGOFFICIALSMAY
AGAINSTTHEWISHESOFTHEVICTIMREFUSETOINSTITUTEAPROSECUTION3EE7ICKHAMV
-AGISTRATE 3TELLENBOSCH 3!#27## AT;=Ú;=(OWEVER TOAVOID
PRIVATEVENGEANCE THEVICTIMMAYTHENINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESINSTITUTEAPRI
VATEPROSECUTIONSEEPARASANDBELOW
&IFTHLY INMOSTLEGALSYSTEMSTHEREAREALSOSO CALLEDVICTIMLESSCRIMES)NOTHER
WORDS CERTAINHUMANACTIVITIESHAVEBEENCRIMINALISEDONTHEBASISTHATTHEYARE
HARMFULTOALARGERPUBLICINTERESTEVENTHOUGHTHEREUSUALLYISNOREADILYIDENTI
FIABLEVICTIMORCOMPLAINANT)TFALLSUPONTHESTATEANDITSOFFICIALSTOPROSECUTE
THESECRIMESWHERENECESSARY
3ECTION OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONPROVIDESTHATTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYHAS
THEPOWERTOINSTITUTECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSONBEHALFOFTHESTATE ANDTOCARRYOUT
ANYNECESSARYFUNCTIONSINCIDENTALTOINSTITUTINGCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS3ECTION
OFTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY!CTOFGIVESMOREDETAILEDEFFECT
TOTHISCONSTITUTIONALPROVISION3EEPARABELOW&ORALLPRACTICALPURPOSES IT
ISTHESTATEWHICHTHROUGHITSAPPOINTEDOFFICIALSPROSECUTESTHOSEWHOTRANS
GRESSTHERULESOFSUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAW
#HARGESHEETSACCORDINGLYREAD@4HE3TATEVERSUS*ONES!NDINDICTMENTSINTHE
(IGH #OURT MENTION THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IS PROSECUTING ON

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
BEHALFOFTHESTATE7HEN3OUTH!FRICAWASSTILLA5NION WEFOLLOWEDTHEFICTION
WHICHHADORIGINATEDIN%NGLAND THATTHEFORMALHEADOFSTATETHE+INGORTHE
1UEENASTHECASEMAYBE WASINJUREDBYEVERYCRIME0UBLICPROSECUTIONSWERE
THEREFOREINSTITUTEDINTHENAMEOFTHE+ING2EX ORTHE1UEEN2EGINA DEPEND
INGONWHOREIGNEDATTHERELEVANTTIME4HEUSUALABBREVIATIONUSEDINTHELAW
REPORTS UP TO -AY WAS 2 V *ONES !ND UP TO THIS DATE THE PROSECUTING
AUTHORITYWASCOMMONLYKNOWNAS@THE#ROWN!FTER-AYCRIMINALCASES
HAVEBEENREPORTEDAS3TATEVERSUS*ONES ORAS3V*ONESINABBREVIATEDFORM4HE
PROSECUTING AUTHORITY IS NOW COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS @THE 3TATE )N THIS WORK
WEUSETHETERMS@3TATE @PROSECUTION @PROSECUTORAND@PUBLICPROSECUTORINTER
CHANGEABLYANDFORTHESAKEOFBREVITY WESIMPLYUSE*ONESTODENOTE2V*ONESOR
3V*ONES ASTHECASEMAYBE
05",)#!.$02)6!4%02/3%#54)/.3
7HENINDIVIDUALSRELINQUISHEDTHEIRRIGHTTOPRIVATEVENGEANCETOTHESTATE THEY
DIDSOONTHETACITUNDERSTANDINGTHATTHESTATEWOULDDUTIFULLYPROSECUTECRIME
3EE "URCHELL 0RINCIPLES OF #RIMINAL ,AW ED (OWEVER MOST STATES DO
NOTADHERETOTHEPRINCIPLEOFCOMPULSORYPROSECUTION0ROSECUTINGOFFICIALSARE
VESTEDWITHADISCRETIONWHETHERTOPROSECUTEORNOT4HEREAREGOODREASONSWHY
PROSECUTINGAUTHORITIESSHOULDHAVEADISCRETIONSEEPARABELOW (OWEVER
AN OFFICIAL REFUSAL TO PROSECUTE MIGHT OCCASIONALLY AGGRIEVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
HAPPENSTOBETHEVICTIMOFACRIMEANDWHO OFCOURSE HASNOWBEENDEPRIVED
OFHISORHERANCIENTRIGHTTOSELF HELP )NORDERTOAVOIDADEADLOCKOFTHISNATURE
ANDINANATTEMPTTOSUPPRESSORACCOMMODATEMANSPRIMITIVEURGETORESORTTO
SELF HELP SOMESTATESHAVEINADDITIONTOTHEIRSYSTEMOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONALSO
CREATEDASYSTEMOFPRIVATEPROSECUTION4HISISASYSTEMINTERMSOFWHICHTHEAG
GRIEVEDINDIVIDUALMAYINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESINHISORHERPERSONALCAPACITY
PROCEEDAGAINSTTHEALLEGEDPERPETRATORINANATTEMPTTOPROVETHELATTERSGUILT
BEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTINACOURTOFLAWANDHAVEHIMORHERPUNISHEDWITHIN
THE AMBIT OF LEGITIMATE PROCEDURES WHICH WERE CREATED BY THE STATE AND WHICH
WEREALSOAVAILABLETOTHESTATEHADITNOTDECLINEDTOPROSECUTE4HE3OUTH!FRICAN
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFORPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSINCERTAINLIM
ITEDINSTANCES0RIVATEPROSECUTIONSAREDEALTWITHINPARABELOW)NPARAGRAPHS
TOBELOWREFERENCEISMADETOSPECIFIC!CTSWHICHEMPOWERINDIVIDUALS
ANDJURISTICPERSONSTOINSTITUTEPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSINRESPECTOFCERTAINCRIMES
ANDINCERTAINSPECIFIEDCIRCUMSTANCES0ROSECUTIONSOFTHISNATUREAREONTHEIN
CREASE0UBLICPROSECUTIONS HOWEVER REPRESENTTHEVASTMAJORITYOFPROSECUTIONS
#2)-).!,02/3%#54)/.3!.$#)6),!#4)/.3
(AVING REGARD TO THE EVOLUTION FROM PRIVATE VENGEANCE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTION
MOSTMODERNSTATESPERCEIVETHECOMMISSIONOFACRIMEASAVIOLATIONOFTHEPUB
LICINTEREST0UNISHMENTISINPRINCIPLESOUGHTONBEHALFOFSOCIETY ANDONLYINAN
INCIDENTALWAYINRESPECTOFANINDIVIDUALWHOHASSUFFEREDSOMEPERSONALHARM
ORDAMAGESINCONSEQUENCEOFACRIME)TISTHEREFORECONSIDEREDPROPERTHATTHE
STATESHOULDINPRINCIPLEPERFORMTHENECESSARYPROSECUTORIALFUNCTIONSEVENIN

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
THOSECIRCUMSTANCESWHEREANIDENTIFIABLEVICTIMCLEARLYSUFFEREDSOMEPERSONAL
HARMTOHISORHERLEGITIMATEINTERESTS FOREXAMPLE THEPATRIMONIALECONOMIC
LOSS SUFFERED BY THE VICTIM OF A THEFT "UT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PROSECU
TIONWHETHERPUBLICORPRIVATEDEPRIVESTHEINJUREDPARTYOFANYCIVILREMEDIES
HEORSHEMIGHTHAVE)NOUREXAMPLETHEVICTIMOFTHETHEFTMIGHTSTILLSEEKTO
RECOVER HIS OR HER LOSSES IN A CIVIL COURT 4HIS IS A PRIVATE LAW MATTER AND DOES
NOTINVOLVEPUNISHMENTTHROUGHTHEAPPLICATIONOFPROCEDURALANDSUBSTANTIVE
CRIMINALLAWRULES4HECIVILACTIONISAMATTERBETWEENTWOINDIVIDUALSTHEVIC
TIMASPLAINTIFFANDTHEALLEGEDTHIEFASDEFENDANT4HECIVILACTIONISINPRINCIPLE
POSSIBLEIRRESPECTIVEOFTHEOUTCOMEOFTHECRIMINALCASE3ECTIONOFTHE!CT
PROVIDESTHATACONVICTIONORANACQUITTALINRESPECTOFANYOFFENCESHALLNOTBARA
CIVILACTIONFORDAMAGESATTHEINSTANCEOFANYPERSONWHOHASSUFFEREDDAMAGES
INCONSEQUENCEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHATOFFENCE4HEEXCEPTIONTOTHISRULEIS
WHERETHECRIMINALCOURTHASORDEREDACONVICTEDACCUSEDTOPAYCOMPENSATION
TOTHECOMPLAINANTORTORETURNSTOLENPROPERTY3EESSAND DISCUSSEDIN
GREATERDETAILIN#HAPTER4HEVICTIMPLAINTIFF CANNOTBECOMPENSATEDTWICE
INRESPECTOFONEANDTHESAMELOSS
3ECTIONALSOPROVIDESTHATANACQUITTALOFANACCUSEDSHALLNOTBARACIVIL
ACTION4HISISNOTAPECULIARPROVISION)TMUSTBEUNDERSTOODINTHELIGHTOFTHE
DIFFERENCESBETWEENCIVILANDCRIMINALCASES)NACRIMINALCOURTTHEPROSECUTION
MUSTPROVEITSCASEBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT4HEPROSECUTIONWILLBEUNSUCCESSFUL
IFITFAILSTOMEETTHISSTANDARDOFPROOF"UTINACIVILCASETHEPLAINTIFFWILLACHIEVE
SUCCESSIFTHELESSERSTANDARDOFPROOFUPONABALANCEOFPROBABILITIESISMET4OREVERT
TOOURHYPOTHETICALTHEFTCASE)NTHEABSENCEOFPROOFBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT
THEALLEGEDTHIEFMUSTBEACQUITTED"UTTHEVICTIMOFTHETHEFTCAN INHISORHER
CAPACITYASPLAINTIFFINACIVILACTIONINSTITUTEDBYHIMORHER POSSIBLYSTILLACHIEVE
SUCCESSBECAUSEHEORSHENEEDONLYPROVEHISORHERCASEONABALANCEOFPROB
ABILITIESTHELESSERSTANDARD
4HEINSTITUTIONOFACIVILACTIONBASEDONCERTAINFACTSAGAINSTASPECIFICPERSON
DOESNOTPRECLUDETHEINSTITUTIONOFAPUBLICORPRIVATE PROSECUTIONAGAINSTTHE
SAMEPERSON ARISINGOUTOFTHESAMEFACTS/NCEAGAIN TORETURNTOOURTHEFTCASE
4HEFACTTHATTHEVICTIMHASINSTITUTEDACIVILACTIONTORECOVERHISLOSSESCANNOT
PREVENTTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMFROMTAKINGITSCOURSEANDPROCEEDINGWITH
ACHARGEOFTHEFT(OWEVER IFTHEVICTIMHASINHISORHERCAPACITYASPLAINTIFFIN
THECIVILACTION SUCCESSFULLYRECOVEREDHISLOSSES THECRIMINALCOURTCANINTHE
EVENTOFACONVICTIONNOTMAKEANYCOMPENSATORYORDER)TSHOULDMERELYIMPOSE
SOMEFORMOFPUNISHMENTANDNOTORDERCOMPENSATIONORRETURNOFPROPERTYAS
ENVISAGEDBYSSAND
05",)#02/3%#54)/.3
4HECONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONSANDLEGISLATIVEFRAMEWORK
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOSURYLVLRQV
3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONWHICHSHOULDBEREADWITH3CHEDULEITEM
OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDSOFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION PROVIDESASFOLLOWS
4HEREISASINGLENATIONALPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYINTHE2EPUBLIC STRUCTUREDINTERMS
OFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT ANDCONSISTINGOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
A ANATIONALDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS WHOISTHEHEADOFTHEPROSECUT
ING AUTHORITY AND IS APPOINTED BY THE 0RESIDENT AS HEAD OF THE NATIONAL
EXECUTIVEAND
B DIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSANDPROSECUTORSASDETERMINEDBYAN!CTOF
0ARLIAMENT
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYHASTHEPOWERTOINSTITUTECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSONBE
HALFOFTHESTATE ANDTOCARRYOUTANYNECESSARYFUNCTIONSINCIDENTALTOINSTITUTING
CRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
.ATIONALLEGISLATIONMUSTENSURETHATTHEDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
A AREAPPROPRIATELYQUALIFIEDAND
B ARERESPONSIBLEFORPROSECUTIONSINSPECIFICJURISDICTIONS SUBJECTTOSUB S
.ATIONALLEGISLATIONMUSTENSURETHATTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYEXERCISESITSFUNC
TIONSWITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICE
4HENATIONALDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
A MUSTDETERMINE WITHTHECONCURRENCEOFTHE#ABINETMEMBERSRESPONSIBLE
FORTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE ANDAFTERCONSULTINGTHEDIRECTORSOFPUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS PROSECUTIONPOLICY WHICHMUSTBEOBSERVEDINTHEPROSECU
TIONPROCESS
B MUST ISSUE POLICY DIRECTIVES WHICH MUST BE OBSERVED IN THE PROSECUTION
PROCESS
C MAY INTERVENE IN THE PROSECUTION PROCESS WHEN POLICY DIRECTIVES ARE NOT
COMPLIEDWITHAND
D MAY REVIEW A DECISION TO PROSECUTE OR NOT TO PROSECUTE AFTER CONSULTING
THERELEVANTDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSANDAFTERTAKINGREPRESENTATIONS
WITHIN A PERIOD SPECIFIED BY THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
FROMTHEFOLLOWING
I 4HEACCUSEDPERSON
II 4HECOMPLAINANT
III ! NYOTHERPERSONORPARTYWHOMTHENATIONALDIRECTORCONSIDERSTOBE
RELEVANT
4HE #ABINET MEMBER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE MUST EXERCISE
FINALRESPONSIBILITYOVERTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
!LL OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY MUST BE DETERMINED BY
NATIONALLEGISLATION
3ECTION PROVIDES THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK WHICH MUST GOVERN PUB
LICPROSECUTIONSLEGISLATIVEORCOMMON LAWPROVISIONSWHICHCONFLICTWITHTHIS
FRAMEWORK ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL 3ECTION IS NOT INFRINGED BY THE PROVISIONS
OF THE -ILITARY $ISCIPLINE 3UPPLEMENTARY -EASURES !CT OF 3EE -INISTER
OF$EFENCEV0OTSANE,EGAL3OLDIER0TY ,TDV-INISTEROF$EFENCE 3!#2
##
%XECUTIVE ACTIONS OR DECISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH PROSECUTORIAL INDEPENDENCE
ARESUBJECTTOJUDICIALREVIEWANDCONTROL3EE#ORRUPTION7ATCH.0#V0RESIDENTOF
THE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!#2## AT;=AND;=
7KH1DWLRQDO3URVHFXWLQJ$XWKRULW\$FWRI
0ARLIAMENTPASSEDTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY!CTOFHEREAFTER
REFERREDTOAS@!CTOF INORDERTOGIVEEFFECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSOF
THE#ONSTITUTION3EE$ELPORT 3!#23#! AT;=.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF
0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV:UMA 3!3#! AT;=AND6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN
3!#23#! AT;=!CTOFALSOREGULATESFURTHERMATTERSGOV
ERNING THE PROSECUTION OF CRIME AT THE INSTANCE OF THE STATE 4HE WHOLE OF THE
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL!CTOFWHICHPREVIOUSLYGOVERNEDTHEAPPOINTMENT

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
ANDESSENTIALPOWERSOFOFFICIALSRESPONSIBLEFORPUBLICPROSECUTIONSWASREPEALED
BYSOF!CTOF
4HE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITYHASBEENDESCRIBEDAS@ALEGALENVIRONMENT
THATREQUIRESPEOPLEWITHLEGALQUALIFICATIONSTOLEADANDTOOPERATEWITHINITPER
-OGOENG#*IN(ELEN3UZMAN&OUNDATIONV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA
3!## "#,2## AT;=
!NIMPORTANTTRANSITIONALPROVISIONISCONTAINEDINSOF!CTOFANY
REFERENCE IN ANY LAW TO AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL BE
CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO A DIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS4HISMEANS FOREXAMPLE THATAREFERENCETOANATTORNEY
GENERALINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMUSTBEREADASAREFERENCETOADIRECTOR
OFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSAPPOINTEDINTERMSOF!CTOF3EEFURTHER(ARKSEN
V$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS #APEOF'OOD(OPE 3!#2# FnI
7KHSURIHVVLRQDOLQGHSHQGHQFHRIWKHSURVHFXWLQJDXWKRULW\
)N9ENGENI 3!#24 AT;=ITWASSAID@4HE#ONSTITUTIONGUARANTEES
THE PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS
AND EVERY PROFESSIONAL MEMBER OF HIS STAFF WITH THE OBVIOUS AIM OF ENSURING
THEIR FREEDOM FROM ANY INTERFERENCE IN THEIR FUNCTIONS BY THE POWERFUL THE
WELL CONNECTED THERICHANDTHEPEDDLERSOFPOLITICALINFLUENCE)NTHISCASETHE
ACCUSEDAFORMERMEMBEROFPARLIAMENT HADATTENDEDAPRE TRIALMEETINGWITH
THETHEN.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSANDTHETHEN-INISTEROF*USTICE
AND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT4HEMEETINGTOOKPLACEATTHE-INISTERSHOME
WHEREITWASINFORMALLYAGREEDTHATSHOULDTHEACCUSEDPLEADGUILTYTOA@WATERED
DOWNCHARGE THESTATEWOULDNOTSEEKACUSTODIALSENTENCE(OWEVER ATTHETRIAL
THEREGIONALCOURTDIDIMPOSEACUSTODIALSENTENCE/NAPPEALITWASARGUEDTHAT
GIVENTHEPRIORINFORMALARRANGEMENTTHESENTENCEWASTOOSEVERE!FTERHAVING
REFERREDTOSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDSS F ANDOF!CTOF THE
COURTOBSERVEDASFOLLOWSAT;= EMPHASISADDED
;)=TWASINDUBITABLYILL ADVISEDFORTHEFORMER.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSTO
BESEENTOPARTICIPATEINADISCUSSIONWITHTHE-INISTERANDTHEAPPELLANT4HEINDEPEND
ENCEOFTHEOFFICETHATHEHELD ANDTHEFEARLESSANDUNFETTEREDEXERCISEOFTHEEXTENSIVEPOWERS
THATTHISOFFICECONFERS AREINCOMPATIBLEWITHANYHINTORSUGGESTIONTHATHEMIGHTHAVE
LENTANEARTOPOLITICIANSWHOMIGHTWISHTOADVANCETHEBESTINTERESTSOFACRONYRATHER
THAN THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE CRIMINAL AND PENAL
PROCESS
4HE PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION MUST ALSO BE ASSESSED IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE FACT THAT THE -INISTER HAS MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITYA MATTER
WHICHISDISCUSSEDINPARABELOW
3
URIHVVLRQDOLQGHSHQGHQFHDQGSULYDWHIXQGLQJRIWKHSURVHFXWLRQWKHULVNRI
DQXQIDLUWULDO
)N "ONUGLI 3!#2 4 THE TWO APPLICANTS CHARGED WITH FRAUD CON
TENDEDTHATTHEDECISIONOFTHEDEPUTYNATIONALDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
$.$00 TOAPPOINTTWOADVOCATESINPRIVATEPRACTICEASPROSECUTORSWASUNLAW
FUL4HETWOADVOCATES BOTHMEMBERSOFTHE*OHANNESBURGBAR HADBEENRETAINED
BYTHECOMPLAINANTTOADVISEWHETHERFRAUDHADBEENCOMMITTEDBYTHEAPPLI

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CANTS4HEPROSECUTIONASWELLASADVOCATESFEESWERE FURTHERMORE FUNDEDBYTHE

COMPLAINANTATB 4HERESPONDENTSALSOADMITTEDTHAT BUTFORTHECOMPLAIN
ANTSFUNDING THEPROSECUTIONWOULDNOTHAVETAKENPLACEATBnC $U0LESSIS
*ACCEPTEDTHATS OFTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY!CTOFPER
MITTEDFEESOFPROSECUTORSAPPOINTEDINTERMSOFSTOBEPAIDBYSOMEONEOTHER
THANTHESTATEATFnG "UTATGnI$U0LESSIS*CONCLUDEDASFOLLOWS
)NTHISCASE HOWEVER THEADVOCATESAREPAIDBYTHECOMPLAINANTWHOURGEDTHEPROSECU
TIONAFTERITHADBEENWITHDRAWN ANDWHOISENGAGEDINCIVILLITIGATIONWITHTHETRUST
WHEREOFTHEFIRSTAPPLICANTISTHEONLYTRUSTEE)NMYVIEW AREASONABLEANDINFORMED
PERSONWOULDONTHEBASISOFTHESEFACTSALREADYREASONABLYAPPREHENDTHATTHEADVO
CATESWOULDNOTTHROUGHOUT ALBEITSUBCONSCIOUSLY ACTWITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICE
)NTHECOURSEOFACRIMINALPROSECUTIONTHEPROSECUTORMUST VIRTUALLYONADAILYBASIS
TAKEDECISIONSTHATMIGHTSERIOUSLYIMPACTONTHERIGHTSANDINTERESTSOFTHEACCUSED
4HEPOTENTIALFORAPROSECUTORPAIDBYTHECOMPLAINANTWHOHADURGEDTHEPROSECUTION
SUBCONSCIOUSLYTOHAVEUNDUEREGARDTOTHEINTERESTSOFTHECOMPLAINANTWHOFOOTSTHE
BILL ISSELF EVIDENT
$U 0LESSIS * ALSO TOOK THE VIEW THAT @IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF A FAIR TRIAL THAT THE
PROSECUTORMUSTNOTONLYACTWITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICE BUTALSOTHATHE
MUSTBESEENSOTOACTATB C 4HEFACTTHATAJUNIORMEMBEROFTHESTAFFOF
THE .ATIONAL 0ROSECUTING !UTHORITY FORMED PART OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM COULD
NOTREMEDYTHEMATTERATB C )TWASACCORDINGLYHELDTHATTHEAPPOINTMENT
OFTHETWOADVOCATESASPROSECUTORSOFFENDEDTHECONSTITUTIONALFAIRTRIALRIGHTSOF
THEAPPLICANTSANDWAS THEREFORE UNLAWFULATCnD )N$ELPORT 3!#2
3#! AT;=ITWASNOTED WITHOUTDECIDING THAT"ONUGLIWASIMPLICITLYOVER
RULEDIN0ORRITTV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#23#!
)TISSUBMITTEDTHAT"ONUGLISHOULDBEUNDERSTOODANDINTERPRETEDINTHECONTEXT
OFITSOWNPECULIARFACTS ESPECIALLYTHEFACTTHATTHEPROSECUTIONWOULDNOTHAVE
TAKENPLACEBUTFORTHECOMPLAINANTSFUNDING
4HE DECISION OF (ARTZENBERG * IN 4SHOTSHOZA 3!#2 '.0 STANDS
ONADIFFERENTFOOTING)NTHISCASEFOURMAJORBANKSHADAGREED INRESPONSETO
A REQUEST BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL BACKING TO AN INITIATIVE THAT
WOULDCO ORDINATEANDCENTRALISETHEINVESTIGATIONASWELLASPROSECUTIONOFCASH
IN TRANSITROBBERIESANDBANKROBBERIES4HESECRIMINALACTIVITIESNOTONLYAFFECTED
BANKSMOSTIMMEDIATELY BUTALSOHADANIMPACTONTHEPUBLICSCONFIDENCEINTHE
SAFETYSITUATIONINTHECOUNTRY4HEISSUEWASWHETHERAPRIVATEADVOCATEREMU
NERATED BY THE BANKING INDUSTRY AND DULY APPOINTED BY THE $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS TO PROSECUTE BANK ROBBERIES AND CASH IN TRANSIT ROBBERIESCOULD
LAWFULLYPROSECUTE4HEAPPOINTMENT HELD(ARTZENBERG* COMPLIEDWITHSOF
!CTOF3EEPARABELOW4HEBANKINGINDUSTRYASFINANCIALSPONSOR
HADNODIRECTCONTROLOVERTHEPRIVATEADVOCATEACTINGASPROSECUTORTHEPROSECU
TORCONCERNEDALSOHADNODIRECTCONTACTWITHANYSPECIFICBANKANDTHEBANKS
COULDNOTPRESCRIBETOTHEPROSECUTORTHATHESHOULDPROSECUTE ORHOWHESHOULD
PROSECUTE(ARTZENBERG* WRITINGFORTHEFULLBENCH ACCORDINGLYHELDTHATARIGHT
MINDED PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE A PERCEPTION OF POSSIBLE PREJUDICE AT 4HE
APPLICATIONOFTHETWOAPPLICANTSTOHAVETHEPROSECUTORREMOVEDWASREFUSEDAT
4HECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALWASNOTATRISKONACCOUNTOFTHEMAN
NERANDFUNDINGOFTHEPROSECUTORSAPPOINTMENT

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
)N-OUSSA 3!#23#! ITWASHELDTHATTHEAPPOINTMENTOF@OUTSIDE

PROSECUTORS AS PROVIDED FOR IN S OF !CT OF IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FAIR TRIAL RIGHT
OFANACCUSED
3ECTION MUST ALSO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA
TIONSIN4SHOTSHOZAAT;=@!LLOVERTHEWORLD OUTSIDEPROSECUTORSAREENGAGEDTO
PROSECUTEONBEHALFOFTHE3TATE4HERECANNOTBEOBJECTIONINTHISCOUNTRYTOTHE
ENGAGEMENTOFOUTSIDEPROSECUTORSINSPECIFICCASES4HEREAREMANYREASONSWHY
ITMAYBECOMENECESSARYFORTHE.0!TOENGAGEOUTSIDERS/NETHINKSOFASHORT
AGEOFSTAFFOROFSTAFFWITHTHENECESSARYEXPERTISEANDEXPERIENCETOPROSECUTEIN
PARTICULARCASES4HESEOBSERVATIONSWEREALSOREFERREDTOIN-OUSSAAT;=
3
TRUCTUREANDCOMPOSITIONOFTHESINGLENATIONALPROSECUTING
AUTHORITY
)NTHEPAST3OUTH!FRICAHADATTORNEYS GENERALHEADSOFPROSECUTIONS ATVARIOUS
DIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURT4HESEATTORNEYS GENERALACTEDINDEPENDENTLYOFEACH
OTHER4HEREWASNOSINGLENATIONALPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
3ECTIONOF!CTOFASREADWITHSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONESTABLISHED
ASINGLENATIONALPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY3EE -OUSSA 3!#23#! AT
;=
4HESTRUCTUREOFTHESINGLEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYCONSISTSOFTHEOFFICEOFTHE
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSSEESA OF!CTOF ANDTHEVARI
OUSOFFICESOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYATTHE(IGH#OURTS ANDISESTABLISHEDIN
TERMSOFS OF!CTOFSEESB OF!CTOF
)NTERMSOFSOF!CTOF THEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYCOMPRISESTHEFOL
LOWINGA THENATIONALDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSHEREAFTERREFERREDTOAS
THE @.$00 B THE DEPUTY NATIONAL DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS HEREAFTER
THE@$.$00S C THEDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTHEFORMERATTORNEYS GEN
ERALANDHEREAFTERTHE@$00S D THEDEPUTYDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTHE
FORMERDEPUTYATTORNEYS GENERALANDHEREAFTERTHE@$$00S ANDE PROSECUTORS
4HEOFFICEOFTHE.$00ASESTABLISHEDINTERMSOFS SHALLINTERMSOFS
CONSISTOFTHEFOLLOWINGA THE.$00 WHOISTHEHEADOFANDCONTROLSTHEOFFICEB
$.$00SWHOMAYNOTEXCEEDFOURINNUMBERS C INVESTIGATINGDIRECTORS
SEEPARABELOW ANDSPECIALDIRECTORSSEEPARABELOW ANDD OTHER
MEMBERSOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYAPPOINTEDORASSIGNEDTOTHEOFFICEOFTHE
.$00
3ECTION ESTABLISHESOFFICESOFTHENATIONALSINGLEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYAT
SEATSOFTHE(IGH#OURT)NTERMSOFS EACHOFTHESEOFFICESCONSISTSOFA$00
OR$$00 WHOISHEADOFANDCONTROLSTHEOFFICECONCERNED$$00SPROSECUTORS
ANDPERSONSCONTEMPLATEDINS IE PERSONSAPPOINTEDONANADHOCBASISON
ACCOUNTOFTHEIRQUALIFICATIONSANDEXPERIENCETOPERFORMSERVICESINSPECIFICCASES
)FA$$00ISAPPOINTEDASHEADOFONEOFTHESEOFFICES HEORSHESHALLEXERCISEHIS
ORHERFUNCTIONSSUBJECTTOTHECONTROLANDDIRECTIONSOFA$00APPOINTEDINWRIT
INGBYTHE.$00S

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
,QYHVWLJDWLQJGLUHFWRUDWHV
4HE 0RESIDENT MAY BY PROCLAMATION IN THE 'AZETTE ESTABLISH ONE OR MORE @IN
VESTIGATINGDIRECTORATESINTHEOFFICEOFTHE.$00 INRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCESOR
CRIMINALORUNLAWFULACTIVITIESASARESETOUTINTHEPROCLAMATIONS OF!CTOF
ASSUBSTITUTEDBYSOFTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY!MENDMENT!CT
OF 4HELATTER!CTREPEALEDTHEPROVISIONSRELATINGTOTHE$IRECTORATEOF
3PECIAL/PERATIONS@$3/ORSO CALLED@3CORPIONS WHILEFURTHERAMENDMENTSTO
THE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOFENSUREDTHATTHE$3/WASREPLACED
BYTHE$IRECTORATEFOR0RIORITY#RIME)NVESTIGATION@$0#)ORSO CALLED@(AWKS
)NTWO#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTDECISIONSSEVERALPROVISIONSINTHEAMENDINGLEGISLA
TIONWEREFOUNDUNCONSTITUTIONAL3EE'LENISTERV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH
!FRICA 3!## (ELEN3UZMAN&OUNDATIONV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF
3OUTH!FRICA 3!## 4HESETWODECISIONSENSUREDTHATTHE$0#)HASTHE
OPERATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED ANTI CORRUPTION UNIT
FREEFROMPOLITICALINTERFERENCE(OWEVER THEFACTREMAINSTHATTHE$0#)IS UNLIKE
THE$3/ NOTPROSECUTION DRIVENITISADIVISIONWITHINTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE
3ERVICEANDNOTUNDERTHECONTROLOFTHENATIONALPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
!NEXAMPLEOFAPROSECUTION DRIVENINVESTIGATINGDIRECTORATEISTHE)NVESTIGATING
$IRECTORATE IN THE /FFICE OF THE .$00 4HE 0RESIDENT PROCLAIMED THE ESTABLISH
MENTOFTHISDIRECTORATEIN'OVERNMENT'AZETTEOF!PRIL(EDIDSOIN
TERMSOFS !CTOF4HISDIRECTORATEISPROSECUTION DRIVENBECAUSEITS
DIRECTORISSUBJECTTOTHECONTROLANDDIRECTIONSOFTHE.$003EES OF!CTOF
)NTERMSOFTHERELEVANTPROCLAMATIONTHREEBROADCATEGORIESOFOFFENCESFALL
WITHINTHEAMBITOFTHEDIRECTORATESINVESTIGATION#ATEGORYONEIDENTIFIESSOME
COMMON LAWCRIMESINVOLVINGDISHONESTY FOREXAMPLE FRAUDANDTHEFT#ATEGORY
TWOREFERSTOCONTRAVENTIONSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFCERTAINSTATUTES4HESESTATUTES
INCLUDE FOR EXAMPLE THE 0REVENTION AND #OMBATING OF #ORRUPT !CTIVITIES !CT
OF THE 0REVENTION OF /RGANISED #RIME !CT OF AND THE ,OCAL
'OVERNMENT-UNICIPAL&INANCE-ANAGEMENT!CTOF ASWELLASANYOTHER
STATUTECREATINGANOFFENCEINVOLVINGDISHONESTY#ATEGORYTHREEMAKESREFERENCE
TO@ANYUNLAWFULACTIVITIESRELATINGTOSERIOUS HIGHPROFILEORCOMPLEXCORRUPTION
CASESINCLUDINGBUTNOTLIMITEDTOOFFENCESORCRIMINALORUNLAWFULACTIVITIESARIS
INGFROMTHEFOLLOWINGTHREECOMMISSIONSA 4HE:ONDO#OMMISSIONOF)NQUIRY
INTO STATE CAPTURE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION B THE .UGENT #OMMISSION INTO TAX
ADMINISTRATIONANDGOVERNANCEBYTHE3OUTH!FRICAN2EVENUE3ERVICEANDC THE
-PATI#OMMISSIONOF)NQUIRYINTOALLEGATIONSOFIMPROPRIETYREGARDINGTHE0UBLIC
)NVESTMENT#ORPORATION0ARAGRAPHD OF#ATEGORYTHREEREFERSTO@;A=NYOTHERSERI
OUS HIGHPROFILEORCOMPLEXCASESOFCORRUPTIONREFERREDTOTHE$IRECTORATEBYTHE
;.$00=INTERMSOFS B OF!CTOF
/URCOURTSHAVENOTEDTHATSINCETHEHISTORYOFTHENATIONALPROSECUTING
AUTHORITY @HAS BEEN ONE OF PARALYZING INSTABILITY 3EE #ORRUPTION 7ATCH .0# V
0RESIDENT OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA 3!#2 ## AT ;= 4HE PRO
CLAIMED)NVESTIGATING$IRECTORATEINTHE/FFICEOFTHE.$00ISTOBEWELCOMED)T
STRENGTHENSTHEHANDOFTHE.$00WHOTOOKOFFICEON&EBRUARY

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
$SSRLQWPHQWRIVSHFLDOGLUHFWRUV
3ECTION OF !CT OF MAKES PROVISION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
DIRECTORS
4
HEPOWERTOINSTITUTEANDCONDUCTCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSS OF
!CTOF
4HE ABOVE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE POWER AS CONTEMPLATED IN S AND ALL
OTHERRELEVANTSECTIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONTOA INSTITUTEANDCONDUCTCRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGSONBEHALFOFTHESTATEB CARRYOUTANYNECESSARYFUNCTIONSINCIDEN
TALTOINSTITUTINGANDCONDUCTINGSUCHCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSANDC DISCONTINUE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS VESTS IN THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY AND SHALL FOR ALL PUR
POSES BEEXERCISEDONBEHALFOFTHE2EPUBLIC3EEGENERALLY-OUSSA 3!#2
3#! AT ;= 4HE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT HAS SAID THAT IN TERMS OF S A
OF!CTOF@THEPOWERTOPROSECUTEISVESTEDINTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING
!UTHORITYAPOWEREXERCISEDONBEHALFOFTHEPEOPLEOF3OUTH!FRICA3EE.DLOVU
3!#2## AT;=
4HEAUTHORITYANDHIERARCHYOFPOWERTOINSTITUTECRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
4HE HIERARCHY OF POWERWITHIN THE SINGLE NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITYIS
GOVERNEDBYS TOS C OF!CTOF
!NY$.$00SHALLEXERCISETHEPOWERSREFERREDTOINS SUBJECTTOTHECONTROL
ANDDIRECTIONSOFTHE.$00S OF!CTOF
3UBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAND!CTOF ANY$00SHALL
SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL AND DIRECTIONS OF THE .$00 EXERCISE THE POWERS REFERRED
TOINS INRESPECTOFA THEAREAOFJURISDICTIONFORWHICHHEORSHEHASBEEN
APPOINTEDANDB ANYOFFENCESWHICHHAVENOTBEENEXPRESSLYEXCLUDEDFROMHIS
ORHERJURISDICTION EITHERGENERALLYORINASPECIFICCASE BYTHE.$00S OF
!CTOF
3UBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOF!CTOF ANY$$00SHALL SUBJECTTOTHECON
TROLANDDIRECTIONSOFTHE$00CONCERNED EXERCISETHEPOWERSREFERREDTOINS
INRESPECTOFA THEAREAOFJURISDICTIONFORWHICHHEORSHEHASBEENAPPOINTED
ANDB SUCHOFFENCESINSUCHCOURTSASHEORSHEHASBEENAUTHORISEDINWRITINGBY
THE.$00ORAPERSONDESIGNATEDBYTHE.$00S OF!CTOF
!NYPROSECUTORSHALLBECOMPETENTTOEXERCISEANYOFTHEPOWERSREFERREDTOIN
S TOTHEEXTENTTHATHEORSHEHASBEENAUTHORISEDTHERETOINWRITINGBYTHE
.$00 ORBYAPERSONDESIGNATEDBYTHE.$00S OF!CTOF!WRIT
TEN AUTHORISATION REFERRED TO IN S SHALL SET OUT A THE AREA OF JURISDICTION
B THEOFFENCESANDC THECOURTORCOURTSINRESPECTOFWHICHSUCHPOWERSMAY
BEEXERCISEDS OF!CTOF
4
HENATIONALDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS.$00 ANDTHEDEPUTY
NATIONALDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS$.$00S
$SSRLQWPHQW
4HE0RESIDENTASHEADOFTHENATIONALEXECUTIVEAPPOINTSTHE.$00SOF!CT
OF AS READ WITH S A OF THE #ONSTITUTION )N $EMOCRATIC !LLIANCE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
V 0RESIDENT OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA 3! 3#! THE 0RESIDENTS
APPOINTMENTOFA.$00WASSETASIDEONACCOUNTOFAFAILURETOMAKEAPROPERAS
SESSMENTOFTHECANDIDATE GIVENSANDTHEPROVISIONSOFS B OF!CTOF
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALSDECLARATIONOFINVALIDITYOFTHE0RESIDENTS
APPOINTMENTOFTHE.$00CONCERNEDWASCONFIRMEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
IN $EMOCRATIC !LLIANCE V 0RESIDENT OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA 3!
## )TWASHELDTHATTHEREQUIREMENTINS B OF!CTOF READINITS
PROPERCONSTITUTIONALSETTING WASANOBJECTIVEJURISDICTIONALFACT!NYINTERPRETA
TION THAT THE 0RESIDENT COULD SUBJECTIVELY DETERMINE THE .$00S QUALIFICATIONS
WOULDBEINCONSISTENTWITHS OFTHECONSTITUTIONALGUARANTEEOFPROSECUTO
RIALINDEPENDENCEAT
)N #ORRUPTION 7ATCH 2& .0# V 0RESIDENT OF THE 23! 3!#2 '0
THE(IGH#OURTHELDTHATBECAUSEOFTHE@EVER PRESENTSPECTREOFMANYCRIMINAL
CHARGESAGAINSTHIM FORMER0RESIDENT:UMA@WOULDBECLEARLYCONFLICTEDINHAV
INGTOAPPOINTA.$00AT;= )TWASACCORDINGLYDECLAREDTHATASLONGAS-R
:UMAHELDOFFICE THE$EPUTY 0RESIDENTOFTHE23!WASRESPONSIBLEFORDECISIONS
RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL OF THE .$00 OR AN ACTING
.$00AT;= "YTHETIMETHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTGAVEITSDECISIONINTHE
MATTER -R :UMA WAS NO LONGER THE 0RESIDENT OF THE 23! 4HE #ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTACCORDINGLYORDEREDTHAT-R:UMASSUCCESSORHADTOAPPOINTANEW.$00
WITHINDAYSOFTHEJUDGMENTOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT3EE#ORRUPTION7ATCH
.0# V 0RESIDENT OF THE 23! 3!#2 ## AT ;= AND ;= 0RESIDENT
2AMAPHOSA -R:UMASSUCCESSOR APPOINTEDTHENEW.$00ON$ECEMBER
3HETOOKOFFICEON&EBRUARY
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASHELDTHATTHE0RESIDENTSAPPOINTMENTOFA.$00
ASSUCCESSORTOA.$00WHOWASUNLAWFULLYREMOVEDFROMOFFICEBYTHE0RESIDENT
INEVITABLYMEANSTHATTHESUCCESSORSAPPOINTMENTISINVALID3EE#ORRUPTION7ATCH
ABOVE WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT STATED AT ;= EMPHASIS
ADDED
&ORMER0RESIDENT:UMAAPPOINTED!DVOCATE!BRAHAMSFOLLOWINGHISUNLAWFULREMOVAL
OF -R .XASANA 4HAT REMOVAL WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER !DVOCATE !BRAHAMS BENEFITTED
FROMTHISABUSEOFPOWER)TMATTERSNOTTHATHEMAYHAVEBEENUNAWAREOFTHEABUSE
OFPOWERTHERULEOFLAWDICTATESTHATTHEOFFICEOF.$00BECLEANSEDOFALLTHEILLSTHATHAVE
PLAGUEDITFORTHEPASTFEWYEARS)TWOULDTHEREFORENOTBEJUSTANDEQUITABLETORETAINHIMAS
THISWOULDNOTVINDICATETHERULEOFLAW
4HE0RESIDENTMAY AFTERCONSULTATIONWITHTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEANDTHE.$00
APPOINTNOMORETHANFOURPERSONSAS$.$00SS
7KHTXDOLILFDWLRQVIRUDSSRLQWPHQWDV1'33RU'1'33
4HEPOWEROFTHE0RESIDENTTOAPPOINTTHE.$00ANDA$.$00ISQUALIFIEDBYS
OF!CTOF4HISSECTIONPROVIDESTHATANYPERSONTOBEAPPOINTEDAS.$00
OR$.$00MUSTPOSSESSQUALIFICATIONSTHATWOULDENTITLEHIMORHERTOPRACTISE
INALLCOURTSINTHE2EPUBLICAND FURTHERMORE MUSTBEAFITANDPROPERPERSON
WITHDUEREGARDTOHISORHEREXPERIENCE CONSCIENTIOUSNESSANDINTEGRITY TOBE
ENTRUSTED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE CONCERNEDS A AND B !
.$00 MUSTAPART FROM SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF S ALSO BE A 3OUTH
!FRICANCITIZEN3EES

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
4HEREQUIREMENTTHATTHEAPPOINTEEBEAFITANDPROPERPERSONCANANDMUSTBE
DETERMINEDOBJECTIVELYTHE0RESIDENTSSUBJECTIVEASSESSMENTORPERSONALOPIN
ION IS INSUFFICIENT $EMOCRATIC !LLIANCE V 0RESIDENT OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA
3!## )N'ENERAL#OUNCILOFTHE"AROF3OUTH!FRICAV*IBA
3!#2'0 A$.$00SCONDUCTWASFOUND@WANTINGANDINCONSISTENTWITHTHE
CONDUCTOFALAWYERWHOSHOULDREMAINONAROLLOFADVOCATESAT;= )TWAS
ALSOFOUNDTHATSHEHAD@CEASEDTOBEAFITANDPROPERPERSONTOREMAINONAROLL
OFADVOCATESAT;= 3HEWASACCORDINGLYSTRUCKFROMTHEROLLOFADVOCATESAT
;= !NEXAMPLEOFTHEMISCONDUCTOFTHE$.$00CONCERNEDWASTHATIN
EARLIER LITIGATION HER NON DISCLOSURE OF A MEMORANDUM PERTINENT TO A DECISION
NOTTOPROSECUTEHADBEEN@DELIBERATEANDWASINTENDEDTOMISLEADTHEPRESIDING
JUDGEAT;= )N*IBAV4HE'ENERAL#OUNCILOFTHE"AROF3OUTH!FRICA;=
!LL3!3#! THE(IGH#OURTSORDERWASSETASIDEINAMAJORITYJUDGMENTON
THEBASISTHATTHEALLEGEDMISCONDUCTBYTHE$.$00WASNOTPROVEDONABALANCE
OFPROBABILITIESAT;= !RGUMENTINTHEMATTERWASHEARDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTIN-ARCHANDJUDGMENTISAWAITED)NTHEMEANTIMETHE$.$00CON
CERNEDHASATANYRATEBEENREMOVEDFROMOFFICEBYTHE0RESIDENTONTHEBASISOF
FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSMADEBYANINQUIRYHELDINTERMSOFS OF
!CTOF''OF.OVEMBER 4HE0RESIDENTSREMOVALOFTHE
$.$00MUSTSTILLBECONFIRMEDORREJECTEDBY0ARLIAMENT3EESB ÜD ASSUM
MARISEDINPARABELOW
7HUPRIRIILFHRIWKH1'33DQGD'1'33
4HE.$00SHALLHOLDOFFICEFORANON RENEWABLETERMOFYEARS BUTMUSTVACATE
OFFICEONATTAININGTHEAGEOFS !$.$00MUSTALSOVACATEHISORHER
OFFICEONATTAININGTHEAGEOFBUTISNOTSUBJECTTOTHE YEARPERIODWHICH
APPLIESINRESPECTOFTHE.$00S ASREADWITH
3ECTION HASBEENDECLAREDCONSTITUTIONALLYINVALID3EE#ORRUPTION7ATCH
.0#V0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!#2## AT;=)TWASFOUNDTHATTHIS
SECTION UNDERMINED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE .$00 IN THAT IT PERMITTED THE
0RESIDENTTORETAINTHESERVICESOFAN.$00INCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESFORUPTOTWO
YEARSDESPITETHEFACTTHATTHEAPPOINTMENTOFANEW.$00WASREQUIRED
7KH1'33DQGD'1'33VXVSHQVLRQDQGUHPRYDOIURPRIILFH
4HE INDEPENDENCE OF THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITYAS ALLUDED TO IN PARA
ABOVEISENHANCEDBYSTRICTRULESGOVERNINGSUSPENSIONANDREMOVAL)NORDER
TOMINIMISEANDPREVENTPOSSIBLEEXECUTIVEINTERFERENCEINPROSECUTORIALMATTERS
THE.$00ANDA$.$00MUSTENJOYSTRONGSECURITYOFTENURE4HESAMEAPPLIESTO
A$00SEEPARABELOW )NTERMSOFS OF!CTOFTHE.$00ANDA
$.$00SHALLNOTBESUSPENDEDORREMOVEDFROMOFFICEEXCEPTINACCORDANCEWITH
THEPROVISIONS OF S AND 4HE LATTER SECTIONDEALS WITH REMOVAL
FROMOFFICEATTHEREQUESTOFTHE.$00ORA$.$003ECTION AND DEAL
WITHEXECUTIVEACTION3ECTION A PROVIDESTHATTHE0RESIDENTMAYPROVISION
ALLYSUSPENDTHE.$00ORA$.$00FROMHISORHEROFFICE PENDINGSUCHENQUIRY
INTOHISORHERFITNESSTOHOLDSUCHOFFICEASTHE0RESIDENTDEEMSFITAND SUBJECTTO
THEPROVISIONSOFTHISSUBSECTION MAYTHEREUPONREMOVEHIMORHERFROMOFFICE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
I FORMISCONDUCTII ONACCOUNTOFCONTINUEDILL HEALTHIII ONACCOUNTOFINCA

PACITYTOCARRYOUTHISORHERDUTIESOFOFFICEEFFICIENTLYORIV BECAUSEHEORSHEIS
NOLONGERAFITANDPROPERPERSONTOHOLDTHEOFFICECONCERNED3EEALSOPARA
ABOVE )N &REEDOM 5NDER ,AW 2& .0# V .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS
3!#2'0 AT;=THE0RESIDENTSFAILURETOACTINCIRCUMSTANCESIN
VOLVINGALLEGATIONSOFSERIOUSMISCONDUCTBYA$.$00 CONSTITUTED@ADERELICTION
OFHISCONSTITUTIONALANDSTATUTORYDUTIESINTERMSOFSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
READWITHS A OF;!CTOF=4HEPERIODFROMTHETIMETHE0RESIDENT
SUSPENDSTHE.$00ORA$.$00TOTHETIMESHEORHEDECIDESWHETHERORNOTTO
REMOVETHE.$00OR$.$00MAYNOTEXCEEDSIXMONTHS3EES A! WHICH
WASINSERTEDAFTERS A BYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTIN#ORRUPTION7ATCH.0#
V0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!#2## AT;=4HEPOSSIBILITYOFANINDEFI
NITEPERIODOFSUSPENSIONWASFOUNDUNACCEPTABLEAT;= ANDTHEINSERTIONOF
S A! CONSTITUTEDINTERIMRELIEF
4HEREMOVALOFTHE.$00ORA$.$00 THEREASONTHEREFORANDTHEREPRESEN
TATIONS OF THE .$00 OR $.$00 IF ANY SHALL BE COMMUNICATED BY MESSAGE TO
0ARLIAMENTWITHINDAYSAFTERSUCHREMOVALIF0ARLIAMENTISTHENINSESSIONOR
IF0ARLIAMENTISNOTTHENINSESSION WITHINDAYSAFTERTHECOMMENCEMENTOF
ITS NEXT ENSUING SESSIONS B 0ARLIAMENT SHALL WITHIN DAYS AFTER THE
MESSAGEHASBEENTABLEDIN0ARLIAMENT ORASSOONTHEREAFTERASISREASONABLYPOS
SIBLE PASSARESOLUTIONASTOWHETHERORNOTTHERESTORATIONTOHISORHEROFFICEOF
THE.$00OR$.$00SOREMOVED ISRECOMMENDEDS C 4HE0RESIDENTSHALL
RESTORETHE.$00OR$.$00TOHISORHEROFFICEIF0ARLIAMENTSORESOLVESS
D 4HEEFFECTOFS ISTHATTHE0RESIDENTSREMOVALOFTHE.$00OR$.$00
REMAINSFINALUNLESS0ARLIAMENTDECIDESUPONRESTORATION3EE*IBAV0RESIDENTOFTHE
23!UNREPORTED 7#(#CASENO /CTOBER 4HE.$00ORA
$.$00PROVISIONALLYSUSPENDEDFROMOFFICESHALL FORTHEDURATIONOFSUCHSUSPEN
SION RECEIVEHERORHISFULLSALARY3EES E ASAMENDEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTIN#ORRUPTION7ATCHABOVE AT;=
4HE0RESIDENTSHALLALSOREMOVETHE.$00ORA$.$00FROMOFFICEIFANADDRESS
FROMEACHOFTHERESPECTIVE(OUSESOF0ARLIAMENTINTHESAMESESSIONPRAYINGFOR
SUCHREMOVAL ONANYOFTHEGROUNDSREFERREDTOINS A ISPRESENTEDTOTHE
0RESIDENTS
#ERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF THE .$00 $.$00S AND $00S
ALSOENHANCETHEINDEPENDENCEOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYINTHATTHESALARIES
OF THESE OFFICIALS ARE LINKED TO AND FORM PERCENTAGES OF THE REMUNERATION THAT
JUDGESRECEIVES0RACTICALLYSPEAKING ITMEANSTHATTHEIRINCOMEMAYONLYBE
REDUCEDBYAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT3EEALSOS ASREGARDSTHESALARIESOF$$00S
ANDPROSECUTORS
3RZHUVIXQFWLRQVDQGGXWLHVRIWKH1'33DQGD'1'33
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASDESCRIBEDTHE.$00SPOWERSASEXTENSIVE NOTING
THAT @THEIR PROPER EXERCISE IS CRUCIAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN
OUR COUNTRY ;AND= THE ATTAINMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS IN
TURNVITALTOOURDEMOCRACY$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH
!FRICA 3!## AT;E = 3EEALSO;=

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
4HEPOWERS DUTIESANDFUNCTIONSOFTHE.$00ARESETOUTINS)NTERMSOF
S THE.$00 ASTHEHEADOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY SHALLHAVEAUTHORITY
OVERTHEEXERCISINGOFALLTHEPOWERSANDTHEPERFORMANCEOFALLTHEDUTIESAND
FUNCTIONSCONFERREDORIMPOSEDONORASSIGNEDTOANYMEMBEROFTHEPROSECUT
INGAUTHORITYBYTHE#ONSTITUTION ORANYOTHERLAW3ECTION PROVIDES
THAT INACCORDANCEWITHSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION THE.$00A MUSTDETERMINE
PROSECUTION POLICY AND ISSUE POLICY DIRECTIVES AS CONTEMPLATED IN S SEE FUR
THERPARABELOW B MAYINTERVENEINANYPROSECUTIONPROCESSWHENPOLICY
DIRECTIVESARENOTCOMPLIEDWITHANDC MAYREVIEWADECISIONTOPROSECUTEORNOT
TOPROSECUTE AFTERCONSULTINGTHERELEVANT$00ANDAFTERTAKINGREPRESENTATIONS
WITHINTHEPERIODSPECIFIEDBYTHE.$00 OFTHEACCUSEDPERSON THECOMPLAINANT
ANDANYOTHERPERSONORPARTYWHOMTHE.$00CONSIDERSTOBERELEVANTSEEALSO
S D OFTHE#ONSTITUTION 4HEWORDS@ANYOTHERPERSONINS C INCLUDES
ANOFFICIALINTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY3EE'ENERAL#OUNCILOFTHE"AROF
3OUTH!FRICAV*IBA 3!#2'0 AT;=
)N :UMA V $EMOCRATIC !LLIANCE 3!#2 3#! IT WAS HELD THAT THE
.$00HAD INREVIEWINGHISOWNDECISIONTOPROSECUTEANDINULTIMATELYTERMI
NATINGTHEPROSECUTION INCORRECTLYRELIEDONS D OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAND
S C OF!CTOF4HESETWOSECTIONS ITWASHELDAT;XII = @DEALWITH
THEREVIEWBYA.$00OFADECISIONOFA$00ANDWEREINAPPOSITE3EEALSO.ATIONAL
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV:UMA 3!3#! AT;=
!NY $.$00 MAY EXERCISE OR PERFORM ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS POWERS OR DUTIES
OF THE .$00 WHICH HE OR SHE HAS BEEN AUTHORISED BY THE .$00 TO EXERCISE OR
PERFORMS
7HERETHE.$00ORA$.$00AUTHORISEDTHERETOINWRITINGBYTHE.$00DEEMS
ITINTHEINTERESTOFTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICETHATANOFFENCECOMMITTEDASA
WHOLEORPARTIALLYWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFONE$00BEINVESTIGATEDAND
TRIEDWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFANOTHER$00 HEORSHEMAY SUBJECTTOTHE
PROVISIONS OF S OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT OF IN WRITING DIRECT
THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SUCH OFFENCE BE
CONDUCTEDANDCOMMENCEDWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFSUCHOTHER$00
S
)NTERMSOFS A OF!CTOFTHE.$00MUST INCONSULTATIONWITHTHE
-INISTEROF*USTICEANDAFTERCONSULTATIONWITHTHE$.$00SANDTHE$00S FRAME
A CODE OF CONDUCT WHICH MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BY MEMBERS OF THE PROSECUT
INGAUTHORITY4HISHASBEENDONE4HISCODEISKNOWNAS4HE#ODEOF#ONDUCTFOR
-EMBERSOFTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY)TMAYFROMTIMETOTIMEBEAMENDED
ANDMUSTBEPUBLISHEDINTHE'AZETTEFORGENERALINFORMATIONS B 3EE6AN
DER 7ESTHUIZEN 3!#2 3#! AT ;= 4HIS CODE IS ALSO AVAILABLE FROM
OFFICES OF THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY )N 3HAIK 3!#2 ## AT ;= THE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTDESCRIBEDTHE#ODEASA@PUBLICGOVERNMENTDOCUMENT
4HE5NITED.ATIONS'UIDELINESONTHE2OLEOF0ROSECUTORSAREREFERREDTOINS
F OF!CTOFANDTHE.$00ISREQUIREDTOBRINGTHESEGUIDELINESTOTHE
ATTENTIONOFTHE$00SANDPROSECUTORS3EEGENERALLY#ARMICHELEV-INISTEROF3AFETY
AND3ECURITY 3!## AT;=N(OWEVER THESE'UIDELINESCANNOT
TRUMPTHEPROVISIONSOF!CTOF3EE-AHARAJV-ANDAG#ENTREOF)NVESTIGATIVE
*OURNALISM.0# 3!#23#! AT;=

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE.$00ORAPERSONDESIGNATEDBYHIMORHERINWRITINGMAYAUTHORISEANY
COMPETENTPERSONINTHEEMPLOYOFTHEPUBLICSERVICEORANYLOCALAUTHORITYTO
CONDUCTPROSECUTIONS SUBJECTTOTHECONTROLANDDIRECTIONSOFTHE.$00ORAPER
SON DESIGNATED BY HIM OR HER IN RESPECT OF SUCH STATUTORY OFFENCES INCLUDING
MUNICIPAL LAWS AS THE .$00 IN CONSULTATIONWITHTHE-INISTEROF *USTICE MAY
DETERMINES B 3EEALSOPARABELOW
4HE.$00ORANY$.$00DESIGNATEDBYTHE.$00SHALLHAVETHEPOWERTOINSTI
TUTEANDCONDUCTAPROSECUTIONINANYCOURTINTHE2EPUBLICINPERSONS
3URVHFXWLRQSROLF\DQGLVVXLQJRISROLF\GLUHFWLYHV
)N ACCORDANCE WITH SS A AND B OF THE #ONSTITUTION THE .$00
MUSTWITHTHECONCURRENCEOFTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEANDAFTERCONSULTINGTHE
$00SDETERMINEPROSECUTIONPOLICYS A OF!CTOF4HE.$00MUST
ALSOISSUEPOLICYDIRECTIVESS B 4HEPROSECUTIONPOLICYANDDIRECTIVESMUST
BE OBSERVED IN THE PROSECUTION PROCESSS 4HE .$00 MAY INTERVENE WHERE
THESE ARE NOT OBSERVEDS B 3EE FURTHER PARA BELOW )N $EMOCRATIC
!LLIANCE V !CTING .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2 '0 AT
;=ITWASHELDTHATTHEPROSECUTIONPOLICYDIRECTIVESDATED*UNEWEREALSO
BINDINGONTHE.$003EEALSOGENERALLY&REEDOM5NDER,AWV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF
0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!'.0 AT;= ;=AND;=
$FFRXQWDELOLW\WR3DUOLDPHQW
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYISACCOUNTABLETO0ARLIAMENTS
!REFINEDPROSECUTORIALSYSTEMWOULDSEEKTOENSURETHATTHEREARECHECKSAND
BALANCES ANDTHATSOMEONEWHOHOLDSSUCHIMMENSEPROSECUTORIALPOWERSASTHE
.$00SHOULDBEACCOUNTABLE3ECTION OF!CTOFACCORDINGLYPROVIDES
ASFOLLOWS
A 4HE.$00MUSTSUBMITANNUALLY NOTLATERTHANTHEFIRSTDAYOF*UNE TOTHE
-INISTEROF*USTICEAREPORTREFERREDTOINS G WHICHREPORTMUSTBETA
BLEDIN0ARLIAMENTBYTHE-INISTERWITHINDAYS IF0ARLIAMENTISTHENIN
SESSION ORIF0ARLIAMENTISNOTTHENINSESSION WITHINDAYSAFTERTHECOM
MENCEMENTOFITSNEXTENSUINGSESSION
B 4HE .$00 MAY AT ANY TIME SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE -INISTER OR 0ARLIAMENT
WITHREGARDTOANYMATTERRELATINGTOTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY IFHEORSHE
DEEMSITNECESSARY
0LQLVWHULDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\RYHUWKHSURVHFXWLQJDXWKRULW\
#LOSELYLINKEDTOTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYSACCOUNTABILITYTO0ARLIAMENTASSET
OUTINPARAABOVE ISTHEPROVISIONTHATTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEHASTHEFINAL
RESPONSIBILITYOVERTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYS 3ECTION OF!CTOF
PROVIDESASFOLLOWS
4OENABLETHE-INISTERTOEXERCISEHISORHERFINALRESPONSIBILITYOVERTHEPROS
ECUTINGAUTHORITY ASCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION THE.$00SHALL
ATTHEREQUESTOFTHE-INISTER

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
A FURNISH THE -INISTER WITH INFORMATION OR A REPORT WITH REGARD TO ANY CASE
MATTER OR SUBJECT DEALT WITH BY THE .$00 OR A $00 IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
POWERS THECARRYINGOUTOFTHEIRDUTIESANDTHEPERFORMANCEOFTHEIRFUNC
TIONS
B PROVIDE THE -INISTER WITH REASONS FOR ANY DECISION TAKEN BY A $00 IN THE
EXERCISEOFHISORHERPOWERS THECARRYINGOUTOFHISORHERDUTIESORTHEPER
FORMANCEOFHISORHERFUNCTIONS
C FURNISHTHE-INISTERWITHINFORMATIONWITHREGARDTOTHEPROSECUTIONPOLICY
REFERREDTOINS A
D FURNISH THE -INISTER WITH INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE POLICY DIRECTIVES
REFERREDTOINS B
E SUBMITTHEREPORTSCONTEMPLATEDINSTOTHE-INISTERAND
F ARRANGEMEETINGSBETWEENTHE-INISTERANDMEMBERSOFTHEPROSECUTINGAU
THORITY
)TSHOULDBENOTEDTHATNEITHERSNORANYOTHERSECTIONIN!CTOFPRO
VIDESFORMINISTERIALCONTROLOF ORINTERVENTIONIN THEDECISIONSOFTHE.$00OR
A $00 4HERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MINISTERIAL
CONTROLANDINTERVENTION
)N:UMAV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS;=!LL3!. ITWASHELD
AT;= THATTHERESHOULDBENORELATIONSHIPBETWEENTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING
!UTHORITY AND THE -INISTER@CERTAINLY INSOFAR AS HIS DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE OR
NOTTOPROSECUTE;ARECONCERNED=4HISISANOVERSTATEMENTOFTHETRUEPOSITION
ACCORDINGTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALIN.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
V :UMA 3! 3#! AT ;= !T ;= IT WAS SAID THAT THE #ONSTITUTION
VESTSPROSECUTORIALRESPONSIBILITYINTHE.0! BUTDEMANDSTHATTHE-INISTERMUST
EXERCISE FINAL RESPONSIBILITY 4HE -INISTER MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH DECISIONS TO
PROSECUTEORNOT BUTISENTITLEDTOBEKEPTINFORMEDWHEREPUBLICINTERESTORAN
IMPORTANTASPECTOFLEGALORPROSECUTORIALAUTHORITYISINVOLVEDAT;=
3ECTION OF THE #ONSTITUTION STATES THAT THE @#ABINET MINISTER RESPONSI
BLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE MUST EXERCISE FINAL RESPONSIBILITY OVER THE
PROSECUTINGAUTHORITY"UTGIVENTHEINDEPENDENCEOFTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING
!UTHORITY @THISCLEARLYDOESNOTMEANTHATTHEYAREBEHOLDENTOTHEEXECUTIVE
3EE.KABINDE V *UDICIAL 3ERVICE #OMMISSION 3!3#! AT;=N4HE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASEMPHASISEDTHATTHERULEOFLAWREQUIRESTHATTHECON
STITUTIONALINDEPENDENCEOFTHE.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITYBERESPECTED3EE
#ORRUPTION7ATCH.0#V0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!#2## AT;=
6ARIOUSPROSECUTORIALMODELS ANDTHEEXTENTTOWHICHTHEOFFICIALWHOISATTHE
HEADOFPROSECUTIONSCANBECONTROLLEDBYMINISTERIALINTERFERENCE AREREFERREDTO
IN%XPARTE!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .AMIBIA)NRE4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL2ELATIONSHIPBETWEEN
THE!TTORNEY 'ENERALANDTHE0ROSECUTOR 'ENERAL "#,2.M3
:ULWWHQDXWKRULVDWLRQRI1'33UHTXLUHGIRUSURVHFXWLRQRIFHUWDLQRIIHQFHV
&OR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN SPECIFIED STATUTORY OFFENCES NO PROSECUTION MAY BE IN
STITUTEDWITHOUTTHEWRITTENAUTHORISATIONOFTHE.$003EE FOREXAMPLE S
B AS READ WITH S A OF THE &ILM AND 0UBLICATIONS !CT OF !NOTHER
EXAMPLECANBEFOUNDINS ASREADWITHSSANDOFTHE)MPLEMENTATIONOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT!CTOFCRIMESOF
GENOCIDE CRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITYANDWARCRIMESMAYNOTBEPROSECUTEDINA
3OUTH!FRICANCOURTWITHOUTTHECONSENTOFTHE.$00
&URTHEREXAMPLESWHERETHEWRITTENAUTHORISATIONOFTHE.$00ISREQUIREDFOR
APROSECUTIONCANBEFOUNDINSS A A AND OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW
3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF ASWELLASS
OFTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED#RIME!CTOF!STATUTORYREQUIREMENT
THATAWRITTENAUTHORISATIONWHETHERITBEBYTHE$00OR.$00 ISNECESSARYMUST
BEUNDERSTOODINTHECONTEXTOFTHEFOLLOWINGOBSERVATIONSIN"OOYSENV!CTING
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2+:$ BY'ORVEN*AT
;= EMPHASISADDED @4HEPURPOSEISTOFACILITATEANABILITYTOPROVETHATTHE
REQUISITEEMPOWEREDPERSONHASINFACTMADETHEDECISIONINQUESTION4HEEXIS
TENCEOFWRITINGISAJURISDICTIONALFACTREQUIREDTOBEINPLACEBEFOREAPROSECUTION
CANPROCEED4HISWASSAIDWITHREFERENCETOS OFTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED
#RIME!CTOF
4HEDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS$00S
$
SSRLQWPHQWTXDOLILFDWLRQVWHUPRIDQGUHPRYDOIURPRIILFHDQG
DFFRXQWDELOLW\
4HE0RESIDENT AFTERCONSULTATIONWITHTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEANDTHE.$00 MAY
APPOINTA$00ATTHESEATOFEACH(IGH#OURTOFTHE2EPUBLICS A
1UALIFICATIONSFORAPPOINTMENTASA$00ARETHESAMEASTHOSEFORAPPOINTMENT
OFA.$00S 3EEFURTHERPARAABOVE"UTA$00 LIKEA$.$00 NEEDNOT
BEA3OUTH!FRICANCITIZEN
!$00MUSTVACATEOFFICEATTHEAGEOFS !$00MAY LIKEA$.$00 BE
RE APPOINTEDFORAPERIODWHICHDOESNOTEXCEEDORPERIODSWHICHINTHEAGGRE
GATE DO NOT EXCEED TWO YEARSS AS READ WITH S 3EE ALSO PARA
ABOVE
3USPENSIONANDREMOVALOFA$00MUSTBEDEALTWITHASIFHEORSHEWERETHE
.$00ORA$.$00S ASREADWITHS AND 4HESUS
PENSIONANDREMOVALOFTHE.$00ANDA$.$00AREDISCUSSEDINPARAABOVE
!$00MUSTREPORTTOTHE.$003ECTIONPROVIDESFORTHREESITUATIONS !
$00MUSTANNUALLY NOTLATERTHANTHEFIRSTDAYOF-ARCH SUBMITTOTHE.$00A
REPORTONALLHISORHERACTIVITIESDURINGTHEPREVIOUSYEAR 4HE.$00MAYAT
ANYTIMEREQUESTA$00TOSUBMITAREPORTWITHREGARDTOASPECIFICACTIVITYRELAT
INGTOHISORHERPOWERS DUTIESORFUNCTIONS !$00MAY ATANYTIME SUBMITA
REPORTTOTHE.$00WITHREGARDTOANYMATTERRELATINGTOTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHOR
ITY IFHEORSHEDEEMSITNECESSARY
3RZHUVGXWLHVDQGIXQFWLRQVRID'33DQGD''33
3ECTION OF!CTOFPROVIDESTHAT SUBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFS
ANDANYOTHERRELEVANTSECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION !CTOFORANYOTHER
LAW A$00REFERREDTOINS A HAS INRESPECTOFTHEAREAFORWHICHHEORSHE
HASBEENAPPOINTED THEPOWERTOA INSTITUTEANDCONDUCTCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
ANDCARRYOUTFUNCTIONSINCIDENTALTHERETOASCONTEMPLATEDINS B SUPER
VISE DIRECTANDCO ORDINATETHEWORKANDACTIVITIESOFALL$$00SANDPROSECUTORS

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
INTHE/FFICEOFWHICHHEORSHEISTHEHEADC SUPERVISE DIRECTANDCO ORDINATE

SPECIFICINVESTIGATIONSANDD CARRYOUTALLDUTIESANDPERFORMALLFUNCTIONS AND
EXERCISEALLPOWERSCONFERREDORIMPOSEDONORASSIGNEDTOHIMORHERUNDERANY
LAWWHICHISINACCORDANCEWITHTHEPROVISIONSOF!CTOF
3ECTION D OF!CTOFPROVIDESTHATA$00SHALL SUBJECTTOTHEDIREC
TIONSOFTHE.$00 BERESPONSIBLEFORTHEDAY TO DAYMANAGEMENTOFTHE$$00S
ANDPROSECUTORSUNDERHISORHERCONTROL
7HEREA$00A ISCONSIDERINGTHEINSTITUTIONORCONDUCTINGOFAPROSECUTION
FORANOFFENCEANDB ISOFTHEOPINIONTHATAMATTERCONNECTEDWITHORARISING
OUTOFTHEOFFENCEREQUIRESFURTHERINVESTIGATION THE$00MAYREQUESTTHEPROVIN
CIALCOMMISSIONEROFTHEPOLICESERVICEFORASSISTANCEINTHEINVESTIGATIONOFTHAT
MATTERANDWHERETHE$00SOREQUESTS THEPROVINCIALCOMMISSIONERCONCERNED
SHALL SOFARASISPRACTICABLE COMPLYWITHTHEREQUESTS
4HE POWERS CONFERRED UPON A $00 UNDER S SHALL INCLUDE THE AUTHORITY
TO PROSECUTE IN ANY COURT ANY APPEAL ARISING FROM ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
S
3UBJECTTOS ANDTHECONTROLANDDIRECTIONSOFA$00 A$$00ATTHEOFFICE
OFA$00REFERREDTOINS HASALLTHEPOWERS DUTIESANDFUNCTIONSOFA$00
S A
! POWER DUTY OR FUNCTION WHICH IS EXERCISED CARRIED OUT OR PERFORMED BY A
$$00ISCONSTRUED FORTHEPURPOSESOF!CTOF TOHAVEBEENEXERCISED
CARRIEDOUTORPERFORMEDBYTHE$00CONCERNEDS B
4HEAPPOINTMENTOFA$$00ISGOVERNEDBYSOF!CTOF
0ROSECUTORS
$SSRLQWPHQW
4HEAPPOINTMENTOFPROSECUTORSISGOVERNEDBYSOF!CTOF0ROSECUTORS
SHALLBEAPPOINTEDONTHERECOMMENDATIONOFTHE.$00ORAMEMBEROFTHEPROS
ECUTING AUTHORITY DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE .$00 AND SUBJECT TO THE
LAWSGOVERNINGTHEPUBLICSERVICES 0ROSECUTORSMAYBEAPPOINTEDTOA
THEOFFICEOFTHE.$00B OFFICESOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYATTHESEATOFEACH
DIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTC INVESTIGATINGDIRECTORATESANDD LOWERCOURTSIN
THE2EPUBLIC!PERSONNOTAPPOINTEDASAPROSECUTORMAYNOTACTASSUCHANDIF
HEORSHEDOES THEPROCEEDINGSAREANULLITY3EEGENERALLY"EKKERn"3#
$
/N THE APPOINTMENT AND PAYMENT OF PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS AS PROSECUTORS AS
ENVISAGEDINSOF!CTOF SEEPARAABOVE
!NYMEMBEROFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICEMAYINGENERALORINANYPAR
TICULARINSTANCEBEREQUIREDTOACTASAPROSECUTORINTHELOWERCOURTS3EES
OFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOF4HISPROVISIONISHARDLYEVER
EMPLOYEDINPRACTICE
3RZHUVGXWLHVDQGIXQFWLRQVRISURVHFXWRUV
3ECTIONOF!CTOFDETERMINESTHEPOWERS DUTIESANDFUNCTIONSOFPROS
ECUTORS3ECTION PROVIDESTHATAPROSECUTORSHALLEXERCISETHEPOWERS CARRY
OUTTHEDUTIESANDPERFORMTHEFUNCTIONSCONFERREDORIMPOSEDONORASSIGNEDTO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
HIMORHERA UNDER!CTOFANDANYOTHERLAWOFTHE2EPUBLICANDB BY

THEHEADOFTHEOFFICEORINVESTIGATINGDIRECTORATEWHEREHEORSHEISEMPLOYEDOR
APERSONDESIGNATEDBYSUCHHEADORC IFHEORSHEISEMPLOYEDASAPROSECUTORIN
ALOWERCOURT BYTHE$00INWHOSEAREAOFJURISDICTIONSUCHCOURTISSITUATEDORA
PERSONDESIGNATEDBYSUCH$00
!PROSECUTORCANONLYEXERCISEPOWERSLAWFULLYGIVENANDHASADUTYNOTTOACT
ARBITRARILY2EUTERS'ROUP0,#V6ILJOEN./ 3!#2# FORANIMPOR
TANTQUALIFICATIONASTOWHATHAPPENEDINTHISCASE SEE%DITORIALNOTE)NRE2EUTERS
'ROUPPLCV6ILJOEN../ "#,2
!PROSECUTORMUSTACTWITHOBJECTIVITYANDPROTECTTHEPUBLICINTEREST#ARMICHELE
V-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!## 3EEFURTHERPARABELOW
(EORSHEMUSTALSO@PURPOSEFULLYTAKEALLREASONABLESTEPSTOENSUREMAXIMUM
COMPLIANCEWITHCONSTITUTIONALOBLIGATIONS EVENUNDERDIFFICULTCIRCUMSTANCES
*AIPALV3 3!## AT
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYANDTHEJUDICIARY
#OURTSHAVEONRAREOCCASIONSEXPRESSEDTHEIRDISAPPROVALOFTHEFACTTHATAPROS
ECUTIONWASINSTITUTED& 3!:( "ESTER 3!4
(OWEVER COURTSCANINPRINCIPLENOTINTERFEREWITHABONAFIDEDECISIONOFTHE
PROSECUTINGAUTHORITY)TISIRREGULARTODOSO$UBAYI 3!4K #OURTS
CAN AT MOST IN THE EVENT OF A CONVICTION IMPOSE A LENIENT SENTENCE REFLECTING
THEIROPINIONTHATTHEPROSECUTIONWASUNWARRANTED)FCONVINCEDOFTHETRIVIAL
ITYOFTHECASE THECOURTMAYACQUITTHEACCUSED+GOGONG 3!!
(OWEVER SUCHANACQUITTALISBASEDONTHESUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAWPRINCIPLEDE
MINIMISNONCURATLEXTHELAWISNOTCONCERNEDWITHTRIVIALITIES !NDTHEACQUIT
TALSHOULDTHEREFORENOTBESEENASINTERFERENCEWITHTHEPROSECUTION"UTITIS OF
COURSE ACLEARINDICATIONTHATTHERESHOULDNEVERHAVEBEENAPROSECUTIONINTHE
FIRSTPLACE3NYMAN3!##
/NTHEWHOLE COURTSARERELUCTANTTOCOMMENTONTHEDISCRETIONEXERCISEDBY
THEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY2ICHINGS3!##(OWEVER THEREARESOME
RARECASESWHERECOURTSHAVEFOUNDITNECESSARYTOOBSERVEONTHEBASISOFFACTS
THAT CAME TO THEIR ATTENTION DURING TRIAL OR OTHER PROCEEDINGSTHAT A PERSON
OTHERTHANTHEACCUSEDSHOULDALSOHAVEBEENPROSECUTED3EE8ABA 3!36
+:0 AT ;= )N "LACK 3ASH 4RUST &REEDOM 5NDER ,AW )NTERVENING V -INISTER
OF3OCIAL$EVELOPMENT "#,2## ONEOFTHEORDERSMADEBYTHE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTWASTHATITSJUDGMENTINTHEMATTERBEREFERREDTOTHE.$00
@TO CONSIDER WHETHER -INISTER $LAMINI LIED UNDER OATH AND IF SO WHETHER SHE
SHOULDBEPROSECUTEDFORPERJURY)TSHOULDBENOTEDTHATTHISORDERACKNOWLEDGED
THEINDEPENDENCEOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYINTHATTHEDECISIONTOPROSECUTE
WASLEFTTOTHE.$004HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTSORDERCANNOTBEVIEWEDASJUDI
CIALINTERFERENCEWITHPROSECUTORIALDISCRETION
)T HAS BEEN HELD THAT A COURT CANNOT COMPEL THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY TO
DECIDEWITHINASPECIFIEDPERIODWHETHERITINTENDSPROSECUTINGCERTAINACCUSED
7RONSKYV0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL 3!37!
4HE PROSECUTING AUTHORITYS DISCRETION TO PROSECUTE HOWEVER DOES NOT FALL
BEYONDTHEJURISDICTIONOFACOURTOFLAWANDTHELATTERCANINTERVENEWHERESUCH

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
DISCRETIONISIMPROPERLYEXERCISED(IGHSTEAD%NTERTAINMENT0TY ,TDTA@4HE#LUB
V-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!#
)N.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV:UMA 3!3#! AT;=
IT WAS SAID @! PROSECUTION IS NOT WRONGFUL MERELY BECAUSE IT IS BROUGHT FOR AN
IMPROPERPURPOSE)TWILLONLYBEWRONGFULIF INADDITION REASONABLEANDPROB
ABLEGROUNDSFORPROSECUTINGAREABSENT
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYSDISCRETIONCAN OFCOURSE BEREVIEWEDBYTHECOURTS
ONTHEBASISOFORDINARYGROUNDSOFREVIEW FOREXAMPLE WHEREMALAFIDESCANBE
PROVED ORWHEREITCANBEPROVEDTHATTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYNEVERAPPLIED
ITSMINDTOTHEMATTERORACTEDFROMANULTERIORMOTIVESEEGENERALLY-ITCHELL
V!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .ATAL 3!#2. ,IKEWISE THECOURTSWILLBEABLE
TOINTERFEREWHERETHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYEXCEEDSITSPOWERS#ONTROLBYTHE
COURTSISALSOJUSTIFIEDWHEREA$00DELEGATESAFUNCTIONWHICHHEHIMSELFORSHE
HERSELFSHOULDHAVEPERFORMED*ULIUS 3!# +HOELE 3!
/
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYSDECISIONTODECLINETOPROSECUTECANONCONSTITU
TIONAL GROUNDS BE REVIEWED 3EE $EMOCRATIC !LLIANCE V .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS 3!3#! AT;=n;=#OURTSWILLINTERVENEWHERETHE
DECISIONTOPROSECUTEORNOTISINBREACHOFTHEPRINCIPLEOFEQUALITYBEFORETHE
LAW3EE$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCEV!CTING.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
3!#2'0 AT;=)NTHISCASEITWASALSOCONFIRMEDTHATADECISIONTODIS
CONTINUEAPROSECUTIONISREVIEWABLEONTHEGROUNDSOFLEGALITYANDRATIONALITYAT
;= 3EEALSO:UMAV$EMOCRATIC!LLIANCE 3!#23#!
%XTRAORDINARYPOWERSOFA$00
4HEFUNCTIONOFA$00ISOFCOURSEPROSECUTORIALANDNOTJUDICIAL2AMGOBIN
3!. AT*n$!NYTHINGTHATCONCERNSTHELIBERTYOFAPERSONISIN
PRINCIPLESOMETHINGTOBEDETERMINEDBYTHECOURT
!$00HASINCERTAINLIMITEDCIRCUMSTANCESTHEPOWERTODETAINAPROSPECTIVE
3TATEWITNESSFORAPERIODOFUPTOHOURSWITHOUTAJUDGEHAVINGSOORDERED
S B !CTOF!3TATEWITNESSCANBEDETAINEDFORALONGERPERIODON
THE BASIS OF AN ORDER GIVEN BY A JUDGE IN CHAMBERS IN CONSEQUENCE OF A $00S
APPLICATIONS
#ONTROLOVERLOCALPROSECUTORS
,OCALPUBLICPROSECUTORSAREASARULEPERMITTEDTOEXERCISETHEIROWNDISCRETION
INDECIDINGWHETHERTOPROSECUTE)TISIMPOSSIBLEFORA$00LETALONEA.$00
TOHAVEFULLKNOWLEDGEOFEACHANDEVERYCRIMINALMATTERINHISORHERJURISDIC
TION(OWEVER THEREAREATLEASTTHEFOLLOWINGFORMALANDINFORMALWAYSINWHICH
A $00 CAN DIRECT AND CONTROL THE DECISIONS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS IN HIS OR HER
JURISDICTION
)NPRACTICE$00SISSUEINTERNALCIRCULARSTOTHEIRPROSECUTORS PROVIDINGGUIDE
LINES TO THE LATTER IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETION WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN
CASESORCERTAINTYPESOFCRIMES3EEALSOS OF!CTOF
!$00MAYALSO INANINTERNALCIRCULAR DIRECTHISPROSECUTORSNOTTOPROSE
CUTEINRESPECTOFCERTAINOFFENCESWITHOUTHISPRIORAPPROVAL)THASBEENSUG

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
GESTEDTHATAPROSECUTIONINSTITUTEDCONTRARYTOSUCHANINSTRUCTIONWOULDBE
NULLANDVOID4HEREISSOMEAUTHORITYTOTHECONTRARY-AGISTRATE 2EGIONAL
$IVISION 3!. !TANYRATE ALLPROSECUTIONSMUSTCOMPLYWITH
THEPROSECUTIONPOLICYANDPOLICYDIRECTIVESOFTHE.$00S OF!CT
OF3EEPARAABOVE)NTERMSOFS B THE.$00MAYINTERVENE
INANYPROSECUTIONWHEREPOLICYDIRECTIVESHAVENOTBEENCOMPLIEDWITH)T
WOULDSEEMTHATINSUCHANINSTANCETHE.$00MAYEVENSTOPTHEPROSECU
TION 3EE PARA BELOW )N TERMS OF PARA F IN 0ART OF POLICY DIREC
TIVESISSUEDBYTHE.$00 MAGISTRATESANDJUDGESANDPROSECUTORS MAYNOT
BEPROSECUTED@WITHOUTTHEWRITTENAUTHORISATIONORINSTRUCTIONOFTHE$00
EITHER IN GENERAL TERMS OR IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE OR CATEGORY OF CASES 3EE
4HENGA 3!#2.#+ AT
3OMETIMESSTATUTORYPROVISIONSREQUIRETHATINRESPECTOFCERTAINOFFENCESNO
PROSECUTIONMAYBEINSTITUTEDWITHOUTTHEWRITTENAUTHORITYOFTHE$00WHO
HASJURISDICTION3EE FOREXAMPLE SS A AND C OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW
3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF0ROSECU
TIONSINSTITUTEDWITHOUTSUCHAUTHORITYARENULLANDVOID3EEALSOGENERALLY
$OMINGO 3!#2# ASREGARDSTHEPROVISIONSOFS! B OFTHE
!CT)N-OLEFE 3!#2'.0 AWOMANWASPROSECUTEDFORCONCEAL
MENTOFBIRTH THATIS CONTRAVENTIONOFS OFTHE'ENERAL,AW!MEND
MENT!CTOF)TWASHELDTHATAPROSECUTIONFORTHISOFFENCEHADTOBE
AUTHORISEDINWRITINGBYTHE$00ASREQUIREDBYS OFTHIS!CTANDTHAT
VERBALPERMISSIONTOPROSECUTEWASNOTSUFFICIENTATn
#OMPLAINTSMADETOA$00BYMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLICRELATINGTOSOMEDECI
SION TAKEN BY A LOCAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAY ALSO DRAW THE ATTENTION OF THE
$00TOASPECIFICCASE4HE$00MAYTHENCALLFORTHEPOLICEDOCKETANDRE
QUIRETHELOCALPROSECUTORTOADVANCEREASONSFORTHEDECISIONTAKENBYHIMOR
HER4HE$00MAYTHENCONSIDERTHEMATTERAFRESHANDEXERCISEHISORHEROWN
DISCRETION(EORSHEMAYCONFIRMTHEPROSECUTORSDECISION ORMAYOVERRULE
THELOCALPROSECUTORSWITHDRAWALOFACHARGE ANDDIRECTTHATAPROSECUTION
BEINSTITUTED(EORSHEMAYEVENSTOPAPROSECUTIONWHICHHASALREADYBEGUN
BUTWHICHHASNOTASYETRESULTEDINACONVICTIONSB OF!CTOF3EE
ALSOTHEDISCUSSIONINPARABELOW
0ROSECUTORSSHOULDANDOFTENDO REFERDIFFICULT SENSITIVEORBORDERLINECASES
TOTHE$00CONCERNED SETTINGOUTTHEIRVIEWPOINTSONTHEPARTICULARCASEAND
REQUESTINGTHE$00CONCERNEDTOTAKETHEFINALDECISION
/NLYAPROSECUTORAUTHORISEDTHERETOINWRITINGBYTHE.$00MAYNEGOTIATE
ANDENTERINTOAPLEAANDSENTENCEAGREEMENTASPROVIDEDFORINS!OFTHE
!CT3EES! A OF!CTOF+NIGHT 3!#2'0 AT;= ;=
3EEFURTHERPARAIN#HAPTERBELOW
4HEPROSECUTIONANDTHEPOLICE
4HE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA HAS A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE WHICH IS AN INDEPEN
DENT GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND WHICH IS UNDER THE ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THE
RELEVANTMEMBEROFTHE#ABINET4HESTRUCTUREANDFUNCTIONSOFTHEDEPARTMENT
AREGOVERNEDBYTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE!CTOFANDSSTOOFTHE
#ONSTITUTION3OMEOFTHESTATUTORYFUNCTIONSOFTHEPOLICEARETOINVESTIGATEANY

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
CRIMEORALLEGEDCRIMEANDTOPREVENTCRIME!SFARASPROSECUTIONSARECONCERNED
THEPOLICEDOINPRACTICEEXERCISEADISCRETIONOFTHEIROWNANDOFTENREFRAINFROM
BRINGINGTRIVIALMATTERSANDALLEGATIONS WHICHARENOTADEQUATELYSUPPORTEDBY
EVIDENCE TOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR!LLINVESTIGATIONSCOMPLETED
BYTHEPOLICEFORPURPOSESOFAPROSECUTIONMUSTBESUBMITTEDTOTHEPROSECUT
INGAUTHORITIESASTHEPOLICEDONOTHAVETHEFINALSAYONWHETHERAPROSECUTION
SHOULDBEINSTITUTED4HEFINALDECISIONRESTSWITHTHE$00CONCERNEDORHISOR
HERLOCALPUBLICPROSECUTORS ASTHECASEMAYBE/BVIOUSLY THE.$00MAYALSO
INTERVENE
4HISSEPARATIONBETWEENOFFICIALSWHOINVESTIGATECRIMEANDTHOSEWHODECIDE
TO PROSECUTE AND ACTUALLY DO PROSECUTE CRIME IS AN IMPORTANT ONE )T PROMOTES
OBJECTIVITYANDPROVIDESTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMWITHAPROCESSINTERMSOF
WHICHTHERESULTSOFAPOLICEINVESTIGATIONCANTOSOMEEXTENT BEEVALUATEDINDE
PENDENTLYBEFORETHEGRAVESTEPOFINSTITUTINGAPROSECUTIONISTAKEN
)NPRACTICETHEREISSOMEFORMOFCO OPERATIONBETWEENTHEPOLICEANDPROSECU
TORSINTHEINVESTIGATIONOFACASEANDITSPREPARATIONFORTRIAL)NPARAOFTHE
0ROSECUTION0OLICYISSUEDBYTHE.$00INTERMSOFS A OF!CTOFSEE
PARAABOVE ITISSTATED@7ITHREGARDTOTHEINVESTIGATIONANDPROSECUTIONOF
CRIME THERELATIONSHIPBETWEENPROSECUTORSANDPOLICEOFFICIALSSHOULDBEONEOF
EFFICIENTANDCLOSECO OPERATION WITHMUTUALRESPECTFORTHEDISTINCTFUNCTIONS
ANDOPERATIONALINDEPENDENCEOFEACHPROFESSION
4HEINITIALINVESTIGATIONISCONDUCTEDBYTHEPOLICE4HEYDOSOUPONTHEIROWN
INITIATIVEORASARESULTOFACOMPLAINTRECEIVEDFROMTHEPUBLIC/RTHEYMAYDO
SOINCONSEQUENCEOFINSTRUCTIONSRECEIVEDFROMTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITIES3EE
S C I OF!CTOF4HEPOLICEPREPAREADOCKETFILE DOSSIER FORSUBMIS
SIONTOTHEPUBLICPROSECUTORWHOTAKESTHEDECISIONWHETHERTOPROSECUTEORNOT
4HE PROSECUTOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OR HER DISCRETION TO PROSECUTE EXAMINES
THE WITNESSES STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE DOCKET
TOGETHER WITH SUCH REAL EVIDENCE AS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR EXAMPLE WEAPONS
FINGERPRINTSANDCLOTHING!TTHISSTAGETHEPROSECUTORMAYALSODIRECTANDCONTROL
THEINVESTIGATIONBYGIVINGSPECIFICINSTRUCTIONSTOTHEINVESTIGATINGOFFICER THAT
IS THEPOLICEOFFICIALCHARGEDWITHTHEINVESTIGATIONOFTHECRIME4HEPROSECUTOR
MAY FOR EXAMPLE CALL FOR FURTHER STATEMENTS FROM POTENTIAL 3TATE WITNESSES OR
MAYDIRECTTHATCERTAINSCIENTIFICANALYSESBEDONE"UTTHEPROSECUTORHIMSELFOR
HERSELFDOESNOT INPRINCIPLE ACTIVELYPARTICIPATEINANYINVESTIGATIVEWORK4HE
PROSECUTOR SHOULD AVOID A SITUATION WHERE HE OR SHE BECOMES A POTENTIAL 3TATE
WITNESS ASITISMOSTUNDESIRABLETHATAPROSECUTORINACASESHOULDALSOTESTIFYON
BEHALFOFTHE3TATEINTHESAMECASESEEGENERALLY-AHOBE.,2#OURTS
HAVEDISAPPROVEDOFTHECOMBINATIONINONEPERSONOFINVESTIGATORANDPROSECU
TOR 3EE .AKEDIE /0$ AND .IGRINI 3! # "UT THESE TWO
CASESSHOULDBEREADINTHECONTEXTOFTHEFOLLOWINGVALIDOBSERVATIONSMADEBY
#ULLINAN*IN3OLE "#,2,ES "n'EMPHASISINTHEORIGINAL
4OSAYTHATAPROSECUTORSHOULDNOTBEANINVESTIGATORISOFCOURSEENTIRELYAPPROPRIATE
WHERETHEINVESTIGATIONRENDERSTHEPROSECUTORAPOTENTIALWITNESS)NTHEUSUALCRIMI
NALCASECOMINGBEFORETHECOURTS THE)NVESTIGATING/FFICER ASHEISKNOWN INVARIABLY
ATTENDSCOURTASAWITNESS FOREXAMPLETOPRODUCEAWARNANDCAUTIONSTATEMENTMADE
BEFOREHIMBYTHEACCUSED ORTOPRODUCE SAY AFIREARMOROTHEROBJECTSSURRENDEREDBY
ORFOUNDINTHEPOSSESSIONOFTHEACCUSED ORTOGIVEEVIDENCEOFASEARCHOROFAPOINT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ING OUTBYTHEACCUSED4HESEAREBUTEXAMPLESTHEPOINTISTHATTHEINVESTIGATORHAS
BECOMESOPHYSICALLYEMBROILEDINTHEINVESTIGATIONASTORENDERHIMAPOTENTIALWIT
NESSANDERGOUNFITTOPROSECUTE%XAMPLESCANBEFOUNDINTHECASESOF.AKEDIEABOVE
WHERE THE PROSECUTOR HAD CONDUCTED THE RAID UPON THE ACCUSED WHO WERE FOUND IN
POSSESSIONOFILLEGALBEER ORIN.IGRINIABOVE WHERETHEACCUSEDWASCHARGEDWITHAT
TEMPTEDEXTORTIONINRESPECTOFTHEPROSECUTORHIMSELF)NALLSUCHCASES THEESSENTIAL
OBJECTIONWASNOTTHATTHEPROSECUTORSWEREINVESTIGATORSASSUCH BUTTHATTHEYWERE
BECAUSEOFTHEIRPHYSICALINVOLVEMENT POTENTIALWITNESSES TOTHEEXTENTINDEEDOFTEN
DERINGEXHIBITS!GAIN THOSECASESWERERELATIVELYELEMENTARYANDUNCOMPLICATEDCASES
WHERETHEINVESTIGATIONWASAFARCRYFROMTHATINACOMPLEXCOMMERCIALCASE SUCHAS
THE PRESENT CALLING FOR A SOPHISTICATED INVESTIGATION AND WHERE AS ) HAVE OBSERVED
THEPROFESSIONALSERVICESOFEXPERIENCEDPRACTITIONERSAREREQUIREDINDEEDTHATWOULD
SEEMTOBETHEPRESENTDAYCOMMONPLACEPRACTICE)CANNOTSEETHATEXAMININGBANK
ACCOUNTS IFTHATISTHECASE WHICHTHE#ROWNSEEKSTOPRODUCETHROUGHTHEMEDIUM
OF BANK OFFICIALS SETTLING WITNESSES STATEMENTS AND APPEARING BEFORE AN %XAMINING
-AGISTRATE MUCHLESSREPRESENTINGTHE#ROWNATTWOAPPEALPROCEEDINGS COULDRENDER
THETWOPROSECUTORSINTHISCASEPOTENTIALWITNESSES)NBRIEF )CANNOTSEETHATTHEACTIVI
TIESOFTHEPROSECUTORSCOULDOBJECTIVELYAFFECTTHEIRIMPARTIALITYORTHEFAIRNESSOFTHE
ACCUSEDSTRIAL
)T IS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT THE POLICE
SHOULD INVESTIGATE CASES PROPERLY AND THAT THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD PRESENT THE
STATESCASECOMPETENTLY3EEGENERALLY'ABAATLHOLE 3!#2.#+ AT
3EBOFI 3!#2'* AT;=AND;=4HENEEDFORCO OPERATIONBETWEEN
THEPROSECUTORANDPOLICEISNOTCONFINEDTOTHEINVESTIGATIONANDPROSECUTIONOF
THECASE BUTEXTENDSTOBAILMATTERS3EE,APANEV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!#2
,4 AT;=AND;=(OWEVER ITISALSOTRUETHATPROSECUTORIALINDEPENDENCE
MUSTATALLTIMESBEMAINTAINED
4HEPROSECUTION THEPOLICE THEPUBLICANDTHEREPORTINGOFCRIME

/BVIOUSLY ANYCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMWHICHEMPLOYSASYSTEMOFPUBLICPROS
ECUTIONS MUST TO A LARGE EXTENT DEPEND FOR ITS EFFECTIVENESS ON THE WILLINGNESS
OFMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLICTOREPORTCRIMETOTHEAUTHORITIES!NDYETTHEREISNO
GENERALLEGALDUTYASOPPOSEDTOAPOSSIBLEMORALDUTY ONMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLIC
TOREPORTCRIME!LEGALDUTYTHATIS WHERENON REPORTINGISPUNISHABLE EXISTS
ONLYINCERTAINEXCEPTIONALINSTANCES4HEONLYCOMMON LAWEXAMPLEISTHATA
LEGALDUTYRESTSUPONALLWHOOWEALLEGIANCETOTHESTATETOPROVIDEINFORMATION
ONACTSOFHIGHTREASON4HEREARESCATTEREDSTATUTORYPROVISIONSWHICHALSOIM
POSEADUTYTOREPORTINCERTAINCASES/NESUCHEXAMPLEISTHATANYPERSONWHO
HASREASONTOSUSPECTTHATANOTHERPERSONHASDIEDOFANUNNATURALCAUSEMUST
REPORT THIS TO A POLICEMAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE UNLESS HE OR SHE HAS REASON TO
BELIEVETHATSUCHAREPORTWASMADEORWILLBEMADEBYSOMEONEELSESOFTHE
)NQUESTS !CT OF /THER EXAMPLES ARE /BLIGATION ON CERTAIN PERSONS TO
REPORTCORRUPTTRANSACTIONSS OFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF#ORRUPT
!CTIVITIES!CTOF DUTYTOREPORTCHILDPORNOGRAPHYS A OFTHE&ILM
AND0UBLICATIONS!CTOF DUTYOFCERTAINPERSONSTOREPORTACTIVITIESRE
LATINGTODRUGSSOFTHE$RUGSAND$RUG4RAFFICKING!CTOF 3ECTION
A OFTHE&IREARMS#ONTROL!CTOFALSOPROVIDESTHATANYPERSON
WHOISAWAREOFTHEEXISTENCEOFAFIREARMORAMMUNITIONTHATISNOTINTHELAWFUL
POSSESSIONOFANYPERSONANDFAILSTOREPORTTHELOCATIONOFTHEFIREARMORAM

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
MUNITIONTOAPOLICEOFFICIALWITHOUTDELAY ISGUILTYOFANOFFENCE&URTHERMORE
S OF THE #RIMINAL ,AW 3EXUAL /FFENCES AND 2ELATED -ATTERS !MENDMENT
!CT OF CRIMINALISES THE NON REPORTING OF THE COMMISSIONOFSEXUALOF
FENCESAGAINSTCHILDRENORPERSONSWHOAREMENTALLYDISABLED!NYPERSONWHO
SUSPECTSORKNOWSOROUGHTREASONABLYTOHAVEKNOWN THATACHILDISTHEVICTIM
OFHUMANTRAFFICKINGISREQUIREDTOREPORTITTOAPOLICEOFFICIAL3EES A OFTHE
0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS!CTOF
3ECTIONOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFPROVIDESASFOLLOWS
)F IT COMES TO THE ATTENTION OF ANY COURT OFFICIAL OR PROBATION OFFICER THAT A CHILD HAS
BEENUSEDBYANADULTTOCOMMITACRIMEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOROFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT THATADULTMUSTBEREPORTEDTOTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICEFORTHE
CONSIDERATION OF A PROSECUTION AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION D READ WITH SECTION
C OFTHE#HILDRENS!CT ANDTHEFACTOFTHEADULTSINVOLVEMENTMUSTBETAKEN
INTOACCOUNTWHENDETERMININGTHETREATMENTOFTHECHILDINTHECHILDJUSTICESYSTEM
-EMBERSOFTHEPUBLICMIGHTATTIMES FORFEAROFREPRISALS BEMOSTRELUCTANTTO

REPORTTHEACTIVITIESOFCRIMINALS(OWEVER THECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMMAKESUSE
OFASO CALLED@INFORMERSPRIVILEGETOMEETTHISSITUATION4HISPRIVILEGEISDEALT
WITHINGREATERDETAILINTHECOURSEONTHELAWOFEVIDENCE&ORPRESENTPURPOSES
ITISSUFFICIENTTONOTETHATTHEIDENTITYOFAPRIVATEINDIVIDUALWHOHASSECRETLY
GIVENINFORMATIONTOTHEPOLICECONCERNINGTHECOMMISSIONOFACRIMEMAYASA
RULENOTBEDISCLOSEDINACOURTOFLAWANDTHECONTENTSOFTHEINDIVIDUALSCOM
MUNICATIONENJOYASIMILARPROTECTION6AN.IEKERK 6ANDER-ERWE6AN7YK
0RIVILEGIESINDIE"EWYSREG 4HEPURPOSEOFTHEPRIVILEGEIS@TOENCOURAGE
INFORMATIONASTOTHECOMMISSIONOFCRIMEBYPLACINGTHEINFORMERINACONDI
TION OF SECURITY4RANTER V !TTORNEY 'ENERAL AND THE &IRST #RIMINAL -AGISTRATE OF
*OHANNESBURG43ATSEEALSO3CHWIKKARD6ANDER-ERWE0RINCIPLES
OF%VIDENCEED ATPARAGRAPH4HEINFORMERSPRIVILEGEWASHELDCON
STITUTIONALIN%LSV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2.# !POLICE
OFFICIALSUNLAWFULBREACHOFTHEINFORMERSPRIVILEGEMAYLEADTOACIVILACTIONFOR
DAMAGES3EE3WANEPOELV-INISTERVAN6EILIGHEIDEN3EKURITEIT 3!#24
!FURTHERMETHODAIMEDATENCOURAGINGAMEMBEROFTHEPUBLICTOCOMEFORWARD
ANDREPORTCRIMEANDULTIMATELYTOTESTIFYIFNECESSARYISTHEWITNESSPROTECTION
SYSTEMASCREATEDBYTHE7ITNESS0ROTECTION!CTOF
4HEMEREFACTTHATANINDIVIDUALISUNDERNOGENERALDUTYTOREPORTCRIMEDOES
NOTMEANTHATHEORSHEMAYINALLINSTANCESLAWFULLYREFUSETOCO OPERATEONCE
ITISLIKELYTHATHEORSHECOULDBEAPOTENTIAL3TATEWITNESS!SNOTEDEARLIER THE
LAWGENERALLYTOLERATESTHEINACTIONOFTHEINDIVIDUALINREPORTINGCRIME"UTNO
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN OPERATE EFFECTIVELY IN THE ABSENCE OF COERCIVE MEA
SURESINSECURINGSTATEMENTSFROMPOTENTIAL3TATEWITNESSESONCEACRIMEHASBEEN
REPORTED!NEXAMPLEOFAMEASUREOFTHISNATURECANBEFOUNDINSOFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTASDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTEROFTHISWORK
! POLICE OFFICIAL HAS A GENERAL DUTY TO REPORT CRIME 3EE S OF THE
#ONSTITUTION S OFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOFAND0AKANE
3!#23#!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEPROSECUTIONASDOMINUSLITIS
4HEPROSECUTIONCANBEDESCRIBEDASDOMINUSLITIS@MASTEROFTHECASE 3EE:UMA
3!#27 ATAnB(OWEVER NOEXAGGERATEDIMPORTANCESHOULD
BE GIVEN TO THIS CONCEPT )T MERELY MEANS THAT THE PROSECUTION CAN DO WHAT IS
LEGALLYPERMISSIBLETOSETCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSINMOTION SUCHASDETERMINING
THECHARGESANDTHEDATEANDVENUEOFTHETRIAL3EE3EHOOLE 3!#2
3#! AT;=+HALEMA 3!#2# AT;=AND;=0HIKA 3!#2
'* AT;=!MEASUREOFRESIDUALCONTROLBYTHECOURTSOVERDECISIONSTAKEN
BYTHEPROSECUTIONASDOMINUSLITISREMAINSESSENTIAL&AIRNESSTOTHEACCUSEDISAN
IMPORTANTGUIDELINEINEXERCISINGTHISCONTROL4HEFOLLOWINGEXAMPLESILLUSTRATE
THISPOINT
)N+HOZA 3!4 ITWASHELDTHATTHEPROSECUTION PRECISELYBECAUSEIT
ISDOMINUSLITIS SHOULDFORMULATEANDCONSOLIDATEALLITSCHARGES INRELATIONTOA
PARTICULARSETOFFACTS TOBETRIEDINASINGLECASE)TMAYTHEREFORENOTPROCEEDIN
APIECEMEALFASHIONBYBRINGINGSUCCESSIVEPROSECUTIONSONDIFFERENTCHARGESIN
RELATIONTOONEBROADINCIDENT4HECASEWASSTRUCKOFFTHEROLLTHATIS THEFOUR
ACCUSEDCONCERNEDWERENOTACQUITTEDBUTTHECOURTDECLINEDTOPROCEEDWITHTHE
CASE 4HEPROCEDUREADOPTEDBYTHEPROSECUTIONWASCONSIDEREDUNFAIR
3IMILARLY ALTHOUGHTHEPROSECUTIONCANASDOMINUSLITISDETERMINETHENUMERICAL
ORDERINWHICHSEVERALACCUSEDARENAMEDINTHECHARGEORINDICTMENT THECOURT
MAY INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE RIGHTANDFAIRNESS ORDERTHATTHESEQUENCEINWHICH
THEACCUSEDPRESENTTHEIREVIDENCEBEVARIED3WANEPOEL 3!.# AT
$4HEDEFENCEHASNORIGHTTODETERMINETHESEQUENCEOF3TATEWITNESSESAND
THEPROSECUTIONSHOULDTHEREFORENOTHAVEAFINALRIGHTTODETERMINETHESEQUENCE
OF ACCUSED WHO WISH TO TESTIFY AS DEFENCE WITNESSES !FTER ALL THE ADVERSARIAL
ACCUSATORIAL NATUREOFTHECRIMINALTRIALDEMANDSTHATPARTIESSHOULDASFARAS
POSSIBLEBEGIVENEQUALOPPORTUNITIESINTHEPRESENTATIONOFTHEIRCASES-PETHA
3!# AT!n#
!PRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERINACRIMINALCASEDOESNOTHAVETHEAUTHORITYTOCLOSE
THE3TATESCASEIFTHEPROSECUTORISUNWILLINGTODOSO"UTIFTHEPROSECUTOR AFTER
AN APPLICATION BY HIM OR HER FOR THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE TRIAL HAS RIGHTFULLY
BEENREJECTEDBYTHECOURT REFUSESTOADDUCEEVIDENCEORTOCLOSETHE3TATESCASE
THE JUDICIAL OFFICER WILL CONTINUE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AS IF THE PROSECUTOR HAD
INDEEDCLOSEDTHE3TATESCASE-AGODA 3!# 4HISCASEILLUSTRATES
ONCEAGAIN THATDECISIONSTAKENBYTHEPROSECUTION ASDOMINUSLITIS MAYBEOVER
RULEDBYTHECOURTINTHEINTERESTSOFFAIRNESSTOTHEACCUSED)NTHISINSTANCETHE
ACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAREASONABLYSPEEDYCOMPLETIONOFTHETRIALAGAINSTHIMFORMED
THEBASISUPONWHICHTHECOURTINTERFEREDWITHTHEPROSECUTIONSRIGHTTODECIDE
WHENTOCLOSEITSCASE
4HEDISCRETIONTOPROSECUTE
7KHH[HUFLVHRIDGLVFUHWLRQ
3OUTH!FRICADOESNOT INPRINCIPLE FOLLOWASYSTEMOFCOMPULSORYPROSECUTION
!PROSECUTORHASADUTYTOPROSECUTEIFTHEREISAPRIMAFACIECASEANDIFTHEREIS
NOCOMPELLINGREASONFORAREFUSALTOPROSECUTE)NTHISCONTEXT@PRIMAFACIECASE
WOULDMEANTHEFOLLOWING4HEALLEGATIONS ASSUPPORTEDBYSTATEMENTSANDREAL
ANDDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEAVAILABLETOTHEPROSECUTION AREOFSUCHANATURETHAT
IFPROVEDINACOURTOFLAWBYTHEPROSECUTIONONTHEBASISOFADMISSIBLEEVIDENCE
THECOURTSHOULDCONVICT3OMETIMESITISASKED!RETHEREREASONABLEPROSPECTS
OFSUCCESS4HEPROSECUTION ITHASBEENHELD DOESNOTHAVETOASCERTAINWHETHER

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
THEREISADEFENCE BUTWHETHERTHEREISAREASONABLEANDPROBABLECAUSEFORPROS
ECUTIONSEEGENERALLY"ECKENSTRATERV2OTTCHERAND4HEUNISSEN 3!!
ATAND,UBAXA 3!#23#! ATI4HEPROSECUTIONMUSTATTHE
TRIALBEABLETOFURNISHPROOFBEYONDAREASONABLEDOUBT
/CCASIONALLY THERE MIGHT BE GOOD GROUNDS FOR REFUSING TO PROSECUTE DESPITE
THEFACTTHATAPRIMAFACIECASEEXISTS3UCHGROUNDSMAYBETHETRIVIALITYOFTHE
OFFENCESEEGENERALLY3NYMAN3!##ATTHEADVANCEDAGEORVERY
YOUNGAGEOFANACCUSED3TOKER6ANDER-ERWE3!##WHEREAPLEA
BARGAIN WAS STRUCK BETWEEN THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE.ORTH 7ESTERN
$ENSE #ONCRETE V $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2 # THE ANTI
QUATEDNATUREOFTHEOFFENCESEEGENERALLY3TEENKAMP 3!.# OR
THETRAGICPERSONALCIRCUMSTANCESOFANACCUSED FOREXAMPLE AFATHERWHOHAS
THROUGHHISNEGLIGENTDRIVINGCAUSEDTHEDEATHOFHISYOUNGCHILDRENSEEGEN
ERALLY 2ICHINGS 3!## ! FORMER $00 HAS DESCRIBED THE DISCRETION TO
PROSECUTEAS
AVERYVALUABLESAFEGUARD BECAUSEONEHASTOTAKEINTOACCOUNTWHATTHECONSEQUEN
CESTO;ANACCUSED=MAYBE APARTFROMANYPENALTYWHICHACOURTOFLAWMIGHTINFLICT)F
INOURVIEW THECONSEQUENCESAREOUTOFALLPROPORTIONS;SIC=TOTHEGRAVITYOFTHEOFFENCE
COMMITTED WEAREPERMITTEDTOEXERCISEOURDISCRETIONANDDECLINETOPROSECUTE;9UTAR
3!##AT=
"UTTHEFACTREMAINSTHAT@ADECISIONOFTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYNOTTOPROSECUTE
MUST BE MADE FOR A GOOD REASON PER 3ALDUKER *! IN .ATIONAL 3OCIETY OF THE
0REVENTIONOF#RUELTYTO!NIMALSV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT
3!#23#! AT;=
#OMMON LAW PRINCIPLES AND STATUTORY RULES GOVERNING THE PROSECUTORS DECI
SIONTOPROSECUTECHILDRENAREDEALTWITHINPARASTOBELOW
0ARAGRAPHC OFTHE0ROSECUTION0OLICYISSUEDBYTHE.$00INTERMSOFS A
OF!CTOFSEEPARAABOVE PROVIDESTHATONCEAPROSECUTORISSATISFIED
THATTHEREISSUFFICIENTEVIDENCETOPROVIDEREASONABLEPROSPECTSOFACONVICTION A
PROSECUTIONSHOULDNORMALLYFOLLOW UNLESS@PUBLICINTERESTDEMANDSOTHERWISE
4HERESTOFPARAC STIPULATESASFOLLOWS
4HEREISNORULEINLAWWHICHSTATESTHATALLTHEPROVABLECASESBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTION
OFTHE0ROSECUTING!UTHORITYMUSTBEPROSECUTED/NTHECONTRARY ANYSUCHRULEWOULD
BETOOHARSHANDIMPOSEANIMPOSSIBLEBURDENONTHEPROSECUTORANDONASOCIETYINTER
ESTEDINTHEFAIRADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
7HENCONSIDERINGWHETHERORNOTITWILLBEINTHEPUBLICINTERESTTOPROSECUTE
PROSECUTORSSHOULDCONSIDERALLRELEVANTFACTORS INCLUDING
4HENATUREANDSERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE
4HESERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHEEFFECTOFTHECRIMEONTHE
VICTIM THEMANNERINWHICHITWASCOMMITTED THEMOTIVATIONFORTHEACTAND
THERELATIONSHIPBETWEENTHEACCUSEDANDTHEVICTIM
4HENATUREOFTHEOFFENCE ITSPREVALENCEANDRECURRENCE ANDITSEFFECTONPUBLIC
ORDERANDMORALE
4HE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE OFFENCE ON THE COMMUNITY ITS THREAT TO PEOPLE OR
DAMAGETOPUBLICPROPERTY ANDITSEFFECTONTHEPEACEOFMINDANDSENSEOFSECU
RITYOFTHEPUBLIC
4HE LIKELY OUTCOME IN THE EVENT OF A CONVICTION HAVING REGARD TO SENTENCING
OPTIONSAVAILABLETOTHECOURT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEINTERESTSOFTHEVICTIMANDTHEBROADERCOMMUNITY
4HEATTITUDEOFTHEVICTIMOFTHEOFFENCETOWARDSAPROSECUTIONANDTHEPOTENTIAL
EFFECTS OF DISCONTINUING IT #ARE SHOULD BE TAKEN WHEN CONSIDERING THIS FACTOR
SINCEPUBLICINTERESTMAYDEMANDTHATCERTAINCRIMESSHOULDBEPROSECUTEDRE
GARDLESSOFACOMPLAINANTSWISHNOTTOPROCEED
4HENEEDFORINDIVIDUALANDGENERALDETERRENCE ANDTHENECESSITYOFMAINTAINING
PUBLICCONFIDENCEINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM
0ROSECUTION PRIORITIES AS DETERMINED FROM TIME TO TIME THE LIKELY LENGTH AND
EXPENSEOFATRIALANDWHETHERORNOTAPROSECUTIONWOULDBEDEEMEDCOUNTER
PRODUCTIVE
4HECIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEOFFENDER
4HEPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSOFTHEACCUSED HISORHERCRIMINALHISTORY BACKGROUND
CULPABILITYANDPERSONALCIRCUMSTANCES ASWELLASOTHERMITIGATINGORAGGRAVATING
FACTORS
7HETHERTHEACCUSEDHASADMITTEDGUILT SHOWNREPENTANCE MADERESTITUTIONOR
EXPRESSEDAWILLINGNESSTOCO OPERATEWITHTHEAUTHORITIESINTHEINVESTIGATIONOR
PROSECUTIONOFOTHERS)NTHISREGARDTHEDEGREEOFCULPABILITYOFTHEACCUSEDAND
THEEXTENTTOWHICHRELIABLEEVIDENCEFROMTHESAIDACCUSEDISCONSIDEREDNECES
SARYTOSECUREACONVICTIONAGAINSTOTHERS WILLBECRUCIAL
7HETHERTHEOBJECTIVESOFCRIMINALJUSTICEWOULDBEBETTERSERVEDBYIMPLEMENT
INGNON CRIMINALALTERNATIVESTOPROSECUTION PARTICULARLYINTHECASEOFJUVENILE
OFFENDERSANDLESSSERIOUSMATTERS
7HETHERTHEREHASBEENANUNREASONABLYLONGDELAYBETWEENTHEDATEWHENTHE
CRIMEWASCOMMITTED THEDATEONWHICHTHEPROSECUTIONWASINSTITUTEDANDTHE
TRIALDATE TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHECOMPLEXITYOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHEROLEOFTHE
ACCUSEDINTHEDELAY
4HERELEVANCEOFTHESEFACTORSANDTHEWEIGHTTOBEATTACHEDTOTHEMWILLDEPEND
UPONTHEPARTICULARCIRCUMSTANCESOFEACHCASE
)TISIMPORTANTTHATTHEPROSECUTIONPROCESSISSEENTOBETRANSPARENTANDTHAT
JUSTICEISSEENTOBEDONE
4WO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE GOVERN THE EXERCISE OF THE
DISCRETION TO PROSECUTE &IRST THE POLICE AND PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES SHOULD
NOT KNOWINGLY ALLOW A PATTERN OF CONTRAVENTIONOFACERTAINSTATUTE TO DEVELOP
AND THEN MOST UNEXPECTEDLY ARREST AND PROSECUTE 4HIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN
-AKWASIE 3!4 WHERETHECONVICTIONWASUNFORTUNATELYCONFIRMED
ONAPPEAL3UCHANAPPROACHDOESNOTPROMOTELEGALCERTAINTY OFFENDSTHEPRIN
CIPLEOFLEGALITY ISUNFAIRTOCITIZENSANDUNDERMINESTHEDETERRENTFUNCTIONOF
THECRIMINALLAW6AN2OOYEN!CTA*URIDICA3ECONDLY DISCRETIONARY
PROSECUTIONISNOLICENCEFORDISCRIMINATORYPROSECUTION4HISMEANSTHATINTHE
EXERCISEOFTHEDISCRETIONTOPROSECUTETHEREMUSTBENOSELECTIVEENFORCEMENTOR
NON ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMOUNTING TO UNJUSTIFIABLE DISTINCTIONS
BETWEENPERSONSINSIMILARCIRCUMSTANCES$ISCRIMINATORYPROSECUTIONNOTONLY
CONFLICTS WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES OR IDEALS OF THE
CRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM BUTALSOWITHS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
%VERYPERSONISEQUALBEFORETHELAWANDHASTHERIGHTTOEQUALPROTECTIONANDBENEFIT
OFTHELAW
)N.ATIONAL3OCIETYFORTHE0REVENTIONOF#RUELTYTO!NIMALSV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND
#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#23#! AT;=3ALDUKER*!SAID

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
4HUS ALLDECISIONSBYTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYTOPROSECUTEORNOTTOPROSECUTEMUST
BETAKENIMPARTIALLY WITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICE4HEYMUSTALSOADHERETOPROS
ECUTINGPOLICYANDPOLICYDIRECTIVES)TGOESWITHOUTSAYINGTHATTHEAIMOFPROSECUTING
POLICYANDPOLICYDIRECTIVESMUSTBETOSERVETHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEFORTHEBENEFITOFTHE
PUBLICINGENERAL!NDDECISIONSTOPROSECUTEORNOTTOPROSECUTEMAYBEREVIEWED EITHER
BYTHE.$00UNDERTHE.0!!CTORBYTHECOURTSUNDERTHERULEOFLAW
4HE MERE FACT THAT CERTAIN CONDUCT MIGHT CONSTITUTE A COMMON LAW OFFENCE AS
WELLASASTATUTORYOFFENCEDOESNOTMEANTHATTHEPROSECUTIONISOBLIGEDTOPRO
CEED IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT STATUTORY OFFENCE 3EE GENERALLY -OSTERT
3!#2 3#! AT ;= AND ;= 4HERE IS IN PRINCIPLE NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE
PROSECUTIONMUSTCHARGETHEACCUSEDWITHTHEMORESERIOUSOFFENCE3EEGENERALLY
3EHOOLE 3!#23#! AT;=
4HEREISARULEOFPRACTICEINTERMSOFWHICHANACCUSED ORHISORHERLEGALREP
RESENTATIVEACTINGUPONHISORHERINSTRUCTIONS MAYMAKEWRITTENREPRESENTATIONS
TOA$00ORTHELOCALPUBLICPROSECUTORTODECLINETOPROSECUTE
7
KHGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQZLWKGUDZDORIDFKDUJHDQGVWRSSLQJRIWKH
SURVHFXWLRQ
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYMAYWITHDRAWACHARGEBEFORETHEACCUSEDHASPLEADED
TOSUCHACHARGESA OF!CTOF(OWEVER THEACCUSEDISINTHESECIR
CUMSTANCES NOT ENTITLED TO A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL (E OR SHE MAY BE PROSECUTED
AGAINONTHESAMEORRELATEDCHARGES FOREXAMPLE WHERENEWEVIDENCEISDISCOV
ERED!PROSECUTORMAYWITHDRAWACHARGEWITHOUTTHECONSENTOFHISORHER$00
4HEREASONFORTHISISTHATA$00 IFDISSATISFIEDWITHTHEPROSECUTORSWITHDRAWAL
OFTHECHARGE MAYCHARGETHEACCUSEDAFRESH
"EFOREANACCUSEDPLEADS THEPROSECUTIONCANALSOWITHDRAWASUMMONSAND
ISSUEANOTHER7OLMANV3PRINGS4OWN#OUNCIL40$
!$00MAYATANYTIMEAFTERANACCUSEDHASPLEADED BUTBEFORECONVICTION STOPTHE
PROSECUTIONINRESPECTOFTHATCHARGE)FTHISISDONE THEACCUSEDISENTITLEDTOAN
ACQUITTALSB OF!CTOF4HISMEANSTHATINANYSUBSEQUENTPROSECUTION
INRESPECTOFTHESAMEFACTS THEACCUSEDCANSUCCESSFULLYRELYONAPLEAOFPREVIOUS
ACQUITTALAUTREFOISACQUIT 4HISPLEAISDEALTWITHINGREATERDETAILIN#HAPTER
(OWEVER APUBLICPROSECUTORMAYNOTSTOPAPROSECUTIONWITHOUTTHECONSENT
OFTHE$00ORANYPERSONAUTHORISEDTHERETOBYSUCHA$00SB 6AN7YK
3!# 4HEMEREFACTTHATAPROSECUTORINDICATESTOTHECOURTTHATONTHE
EVIDENCEASPRESENTEDINCOURTHEORSHEISUNABLETOSUPPORTACONVICTIONDOES
NOTAMOUNTTOASTOPPINGOFTHEPROSECUTION"OPAPE 3!# 4HE
PROSECUTORSACCEPTANCEOFANACCUSEDSPLEAISDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTER
0RESCRIPTIONOFTHERIGHTTOPROSECUTE
4HERIGHTTOINSTITUTEAPROSECUTIONFORANYOFFENCESHALL UNLESSSOMEOTHERPE
RIODISEXPRESSLYPROVIDEDBYLAW LAPSEAFTERTHEEXPIRATIONOFAPERIODOFYEARS
FROMTHETIMEWHENTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDSOF!CTOF(OWEVER
INTERMSOFTHESAMESECTIONTHEFOLLOWINGCOMMON LAWCRIMESHAVENOPRESCRIP
TIONPERIODMURDERTREASONCOMMITTEDWHENTHE2EPUBLICISINASTATEOFWAR
ROBBERY IF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WERE PRESENT KIDNAPPING CHILD STEALING
4HEDATEOFCOMMENCEMENTOFSIS!PRILSOF!CTOF0RIOR

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TO THIS DATE THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE COULD NOT HAVE LAPSED IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL
CRIMES7ITHTHEABOLITIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTY ITBECAMENECESSARYTOAMEND
S3EEGENERALLY$E&REITAS 3!#2# 4HECRIMEOFGENOCIDE CRIMES
AGAINSTHUMANITYANDWARCRIMESASCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE)MPLEMENTATION
OFTHE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT!CTOF ALSOHAVE
NOPRESCRIPTIONPERIOD3EESG OF!CTOF4HESAMEAPPLIESTOTORTURE
ASCONTEMPLATEDINS AND OFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4ORTUREOF
0ERSONS!CTOF3EESI OF!CTOF
4HEFOLLOWINGSTATUTORYOFFENCESCREATEDINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL
/FFENCES AND 2ELATED -ATTERS !MENDMENT !CT OF ALSO DO NOT HAVE A
PRESCRIPTIONPERIODRAPEORCOMPELLEDRAPESSAND RESPECTIVELY OF!CTOF
READWITHSF OF!CTOF USINGACHILDORPERSONWHOISMENTALLY
DISABLEDFORPORNOGRAPHICPURPOSESASCONTEMPLATEDINSS AND OF!CT
OF READ WITH SI OF !CT OF AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS FOR
SEXUALPURPOSESBYAPERSONASCONTEMPLATEDINS AND OF!CTOF
READWITHSH! OF!CTOF4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASORDEREDTHAT
SF SHOULDBEREADASTHOUGHTHEWORDS@ANDALLOTHERSEXUALOFFENCESWHETHER
INTERMSOFCOMMONLAWORSTATUTEAPPEARINIT4HISINTERIMREADING INREMEDY
WILLBECOMEFINALSHOULD0ARLIAMENTFAILTOPASSREMEDIALLEGISLATIONBY*UNE
3EE.,V%STATE,ATE&RANKEL 3!#2## AT;=
)NTERMSOFSH OF!CTOFTHEREISNOPRESCRIPTIONPERIODINRESPECT
OFOFFENCESASPROVIDEDFORINSS ANDANDINVOLVEMENTINTHESEOFFENCESAS
PROVIDEDFORINSOFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS
!CTOF
4HEPROSECUTIONANDLEGALETHICS
4HEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYMUST LIKETHECOURTS SEEKTOPROMOTEAFAIRCRIMINAL
JUSTICESYSTEM)THASBEENHELDTHATTHEOFFICEOFTHE.$00@ISCLOSELYRELATEDTO
THEFUNCTIONSOFTHEJUDICIARYBROADLYTOACHIEVEJUSTICEANDISLOCATEDATTHECORE
OF DELIVERING CRIMINAL JUSTICE $EMOCRATIC !LLIANCE V 0RESIDENT OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF
3OUTH!FRICA 3!## AT;=
!PUBLICPROSECUTORMUSTDISPLAYTHEHIGHESTDEGREEOFFAIRNESSTOANACCUSED
4HISDUTYISFOROBVIOUSREASONSMOREPRONOUNCEDINRESPECTOFTHEUNREPRESENTED
ACCUSED-OFOKENG 3!#2/ AT#(OWEVER WHEREANACCUSED
HASTHEBENEFITOFLEGALREPRESENTATION ITISNOTTHEFUNCTIONOFTHEPROSECUTORTO
CALLEVIDENCEWHICHISDETRIMENTALTOTHECASEFORTHE3TATE ORWHICHADVANCES
THECASEFORTHEACCUSED3EE6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN 3!#23#! AT;=
@4HEPROSECUTORISNOTOBLIGEDTOPLAYCHESSAGAINSTHIM ORHERSELF4HEREQUIRE
MENTTHATAPROSECUTORSHOULDACTFAIRLYALSO@DOESNOTMEANTHATHECANNOTAND
SHOULDNOTDILIGENTLYTRYANDOBTAINALLADMISSIBLEEVIDENCEAGAINSTANACCUSED
4SHOTSHOZA 3!#2'.0 AT
)NFORMATIONFAVOURABLETOTHEDEFENCEMUSTBEDISCLOSED6AN2ENSBURG
3! . )F THERE IS A SERIOUS DISCREPANCY BETWEEN A 3TATE WITNESSS ORAL
TESTIMONYINCOURTANDHISEARLIERWRITTENSTATEMENTMADEDURINGTHEINVESTIGA
TION OF THE CASE THE PROSECUTOR MUST DRAW ATTENTION TO THIS FACT AND MAKE THE
WRITTENSTATEMENTOFTHEWITNESSAVAILABLETOTHEDEFENCEFORPURPOSESOFCROSS

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
EXAMINATION+AMTE 3!#2! 4HECOURTMUSTALSOHAVEACCESSTO

SUCHASTATEMENT
!PROSECUTORISOBLIGEDTOBRINGTOATRIALCOURTSATTENTIONCIRCUMSTANCESAND
DEFECTSRENDERINGANACCUSEDSSTATEMENTINADMISSIBLE3EE-ASHENGOANE
3!#2'0 AT;=
@4HE DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION SAID 3TRETCH * IN .DUDULA 3!#2
%#' AT;= @ISTOSEEKJUSTICE NOTTOBLINDLYANDPURPOSELESSLYPLUNDERAFTERA
CONVICTIONATALLCOSTS)N*IJA 3!% AT!ITWASSAIDTHATAPROSECU
TOR@STANDSINASPECIALRELATIONTOTHE#OURT(ISPARAMOUNTDUTYISNOTTOPROCURE
ACONVICTIONBUTTOASSISTTHE#OURTINASCERTAININGTHETRUTH3EEALSO2OZANI
3!#2# ATHnA7ILDRIDGE 3!#2%#' AT;=)N
.TEEO 3!#2.# BnG+GOMO*0SAIDTHATHEEMBRACEDTHEFOLLOWING
COMPENDIOUSPRONOUNCEMENTSBY'UBBAY#*IN3MYTHV5SHEWOKUNZE 3!
:3 AT*n%EMPHASISADDED
!PROSECUTORMUSTDEDICATEHIMSELFTOTHEACHIEVEMENTOFJUSTICESEE2V"ANKS;=
+"AT (EMUSTPURSUETHATAIMIMPARTIALLY(EMUSTCONDUCTTHECASEAGAINST
THEACCUSEDPERSONWITHDUEREGARDTOTHETRADITIONALPRECEPTSOFCANDOURANDABSOLUTE
FAIRNESS3INCEHEREPRESENTSTHE3TATE THECOMMUNITYATLARGEANDTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEIN
GENERAL THETASKOFTHEPROSECUTORISMORECOMPREHENSIVEANDDEMANDINGTHANTHATOFTHEDE
FENDINGPRACTITIONERSEE2V2IEKERT 3!37! AT#n% ,IKE#AESARSWIFE
THEPROSECUTORMUSTBEABOVEANYTRACEOFSUSPICION!SA@MINISTEROFTHETRUTHHEHAS
ASPECIALDUTYTOSEETHATTHETRUTHEMERGESINCOURTSEE2V2IEKERTABOVE AT&n'3
V*IJAAND/THERS 3!% AT*n" (EMUSTPRODUCEALLRELEVANTEVIDENCETO
THECOURTANDENSURE ASBESTHECAN THEVERACITYOFSUCHEVIDENCESEE3V-SANE
3!. AT!3V. 3!! AT% (EMUSTSTATETHEFACTSDISPAS
SIONATELY)FHEKNOWSOFAPOINTINFAVOUROFTHEACCUSED HEMUSTBRINGITOUTSEE6AN
2ENSBURG 3!. AT&n'0HATOV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL %ASTERN#APE
3!#2% ATD )FHEKNOWSOFACREDIBLEWITNESSWHOCANSPEAKOFFACTSWHICHGO
TOSHOWTHEINNOCENCEOFTHEACCUSED HEMUSTHIMSELFCALLTHATWITNESSIFTHEACCUSED
ISUNREPRESENTEDANDIFREPRESENTED TENDERTHEWITNESSTOTHEDEFENCESEE2V&ILANIUS
40$AT3V.ASSAR 3!#2.M ATA )FHISOWNWITNESS
SUBSTANTIALLYDEPARTSFROMHISPROOF;WITNESSSTATEMENT= HEMUST UNLESSTHEREISSPECIAL
ANDCOGENTREASONTOTHECONTRARY DRAWTHEATTENTIONOFTHECOURTTOTHEDISCREPANCY OR
REVEALTHESERIOUSLYCONTRADICTORYPASSAGEINTHESTATEMENTTOTHEDEFENDINGPRACTITIONER
SEE3V(ASSIMAND/THERS 3!. AT"3V-ASINDA 3!
! AT&3V8ABA 3!! AT(n!
)N6AN(UYSTEEN 3!#2# 4RAVERSO$*0ALSOSTRESSEDTHEIMPORTANCE

OFTHEPROSECUTORIALDUTYTHATALLRELEVANTINFORMATIONSHOULD INTHEINTERESTSOF
JUSTICE BEPLACEDBEFORETHECOURT4HISDUTYIS@JUSTIFIEDONTHEGROUNDTHATTHE
PROSECUTIONHASALLTHERESOURCESOFTHE3TATE INCLUDINGFINANCES THEPOLICEAND
VITALINFORMATION ATITSDISPOSAL'UBBAY#*IN3MYTHV5SHEWOKUNZEABOVE AT
"
)N6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN 3!#23#! #LOETE*!SAIDAT;=
) WOULD EMPHASISE HOWEVER THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO
TENDER3TATEWITNESSESTOTHEDEFENCEATTHEENDOFTHE3TATECASE NORDOESTHEPROSECU
TORNECESSARILYDISCHARGETHEDUTYOFDISCLOSUREBYMAKINGAVAILABLETHECONTENTSOFTHE
DOSSIERIFTHEREISEVIDENCEWHICHTHEPROSECUTORKNOWSOROUGHTREASONABLYTOSUSPECT
ISORMAYBEDESTRUCTIVEOFTHE3TATECASE ORWHICHTENDSORMIGHTTENDTOSUPPORTTHE
DEFENCE CASE AND WHICH THE PROSECUTOR KNOWS OR OUGHT REASONABLY TO SUSPECT IS NOT
KNOWNTOTHEDEFENCE ITISTHEPROSECUTORSDUTYTOBRINGTHISEVIDENCESPECIFICALLYTO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ACCUSEDS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES )T WOULD THEREFORE FOR EXAMPLE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
NOT BE NECESSARY FOR A PROSECUTOR TO DRAW ATTENTION TO A SPECIFIC WITNESSS STATEMENT
FAVOURABLETOTHEACCUSEDINTHEDOSSIERMADEAVAILABLETOTHEDEFENCE FORHEWHORUNS
MAYREADBUTTHEPROSECUTORWOULDBEOBLIGEDTOINFORMTHEDEFENCETHATAPARTICULAR
WITNESS WHOHASNOTGIVENASTATEMENT MIGHTTOTHEDEFENCESADVANTAGEBECONSULTED
ANDWHY ANDALSOTOASSIST WHERENECESSARY INMAKINGSUCHAWITNESSAVAILABLEAND
THEPROSECUTORWOULDALSOBEOBLIGEDTOFURNISHTHEDEFENCEWITHADOCUMENTWHICHIS
NOTINTHEDOSSIER WHICHFAVOURSTHEACCUSEDSCASEORWHICHISDESTRUCTIVEOFTHE3TATE
CASE WHICHTHEPROSECUTORBELIEVESOROUGHTREASONABLYTOBELIEVEISNOTINTHEPOSSES
SIONOFTHEDEFENCE"UTTHEPROSECUTORSOBLIGATIONISNOTTOPUTTHEINFORMATIONBEFORE
THECOURT
0ARTOFPARAOFTHE0ROSECUTION0OLICYISSUEDBYTHE.$00INTERMSOFS A OF
!CTOFSEEPARAABOVE PROVIDESASFOLLOWSEMPHASISADDED
0ROSECUTORSMUSTATALLTIMESACTINTHEINTERESTOFTHECOMMUNITYANDNOTNECESSARILY
INACCORDANCEWITHTHEWISHESOFTHECOMMUNITY4HEPROSECUTORSPRIMARYFUNCTIONIS
TOASSISTTHECOURTINARRIVINGATAJUSTVERDICTAND INTHEEVENTOFACONVICTION AFAIR
SENTENCEBASEDUPONTHEEVIDENCEPRESENTED!TTHESAMETIME PROSECUTORSREPRESENT
THECOMMUNITYINCRIMINALTRIALS)NTHISCAPACITY THEYSHOULDENSURETHATTHEINTERESTS
OFVICTIMSANDWITNESSESAREPROMOTED WITHOUTNEGATINGTHEIROBLIGATIONTOACTINABAL
ANCEDANDHONESTMANNER-EMBERSOFTHE0ROSECUTING!UTHORITYMUSTACTIMPARTIALLY
ANDINGOODFAITH4HEYSHOULDNOTALLOWTHEIRJUDGEMENTTOBEINFLUENCEDBYFACTORSSUCH
ASTHEIRPERSONALVIEWSREGARDINGTHENATUREOFTHEOFFENCEORTHERACE ETHNICORNATION
ALORIGIN SEX RELIGIOUSBELIEFS STATUS POLITICALVIEWSORSEXUALORIENTATIONOFTHEVICTIM
WITNESSESORTHEOFFENDER0ROSECUTORSMUSTBECOURTEOUSANDPROFESSIONALWHENDEALING
WITHMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLICOROTHERPEOPLEWORKINGINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM
!PROSECUTORMAYNOTINTERFEREWITHDEFENCEWITNESSES-ASOKA 3!#2
%#0 )TISALSOIRREGULARFORAPROSECUTORTOCONSULTWITHASTATEWITNESSWHOHAS
ALREADYBEENSWORNIN*ACOBS 3!#2#
)N"ROOKS 3!#2.#+ AT;=THECOURTTOOKTHEVIEWTHATTHE@PROS
ECUTIONWASUNDERANETHICALDUTYTOTAKETHEIRCOLLEAGUESFORTHEDEFENCEINTO
THEIRCONFIDENCEANDINFORMTHEMOFTHEALLEGEDTHREATSANDATTEMPTS;BYTHIRD
PARTIES=TOBRIBETHETRIALJUDGEANDACRUCIAL3TATEWITNESS
)NCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESTHEGROSSLYIMPROPERCONDUCTOFTHEPROSECUTORMAY
RESULTINANINTERDICTRESTRAININGHIMORHERFROMPARTICIPATINGINTHEPROSECU
TION3EE3MYTHV5SHEWOKUNZE 3!:3 AND*ESSEV0RATT./
"#,2 : $U 4OIT 3!#2 4 PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE OF AN UNSUC
CESSFULAPPLICATIONFORTHERECUSALOFAPROSECUTOR3EEALSO3OLE "#,2
,ES 0ERFORMINGOFPROSECUTORIALFUNCTIONSCANMAKEITINEVITABLETHATTHE
PROSECUTORWOULDBEPERCEIVEDTOBEBIASED BUTTHISALONECANNOTJUSTIFYREMOVAL
OFTHEPROSECUTOR3EE0ORRITTV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS;=!LL
3!3#! AT;=
4HEPROSECUTIONANDTHEASSISTANCEOFAPRIVATELEGALPRACTITIONER
!PRIVATEPRACTITIONERWHOHASNOAUTHORITYTOPROSECUTEMAYNOTASSISTTHESTATE
PROSECUTOR BY CROSS EXAMINING DEFENCE WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
ORBYADDRESSINGTHECOURTONBEHALFOFTHEPROSECUTION!DAM%FFENDI%$,

.EVERTHELESS ITWOULDSEEMASIFNOIRREGULARITYISCOMMITTEDWHEREAPRIVATE
PRACTITIONERWHOWASGIVENAWATCHINGBRIEFBYANINTERESTEDPARTYRENDERSSOME
OTHERASSISTANCEONANINFORMALBASISTOTHEPROSECUTION SUCHASSUGGESTINGTOTHE

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
PROSECUTORTHATCERTAINQUESTIONSSHOULDBEPUT3ALUSBURY 0((4
"UTINTHEFINALANALYSISTHEPROSECUTIONMUSTBEINFULLCONTROLOFTHEPRESENTA
TIONOFTHECASEFORTHE3TATE
$IVERSIONOFTHECRIMINALTRIAL
4HEREARECERTAINPROCEDURESORMETHODSINTERMSOFWHICHACRIMINALTRIALCANBE
AVOIDEDWHETHERPARTIALLYORASAWHOLE TEMPORARILYORPERMANENTLY4HISCAN
BECALLEDDIVERSIONOFTHECRIMINALPROCESS/NEENCOUNTERSSEVERALSUCHDIVER
SIONSINTHELAWOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE%XAMPLESARETHECONVERSIONOFATRIALINTO
AN ENQUIRY WITH A VIEW TO COMMITTING AN ACCUSED TO A REHABILITATION CENTRE
SANDANENQUIRYINTOMENTALILLNESSSS AND)N&REDERICK
3!#2'* AT;=ITWASNOTEDTHATINTHECASEOFSUBSTANCEABUSETHEPROSECU
TORMAY INRESPECTOFANACCUSEDWHOUSESSUBSTANCESEXCESSIVELYONASPORADIC
ORSUSTAINEDBASIS REQUESTAPROBATIONOFFICERTOINVESTIGATETHEACCUSEDSCIRCUM
STANCESANDFURNISHAPRE TRIALREPORTCONCERNINGTHEDESIRABILITYOROTHERWISEOF
APROSECUTION2EFERENCEWASMADETOS F OFTHE0ROBATION3ERVICES!CT
OF
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFWHICHCAMEINTOOPERATIONON!PRIL
CREATESEXTENSIVEANDDETAILEDDIVERSIONPROCEDURESANDOPTIONSINRESPECTOFCHIL
DREN/NEOFTHEMAINPURPOSESOFDIVERSIONINTHISCONTEXTIS@TODEALWITHA
CHILDOUTSIDETHEFORMALCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMINAPPROPRIATECASESSA OF
!CTOF #HAPTEROFTHIS!CTPROVIDESFORADIVERSIONBYTHEPROSECUTOR
INRESPECTOFMINOROFFENCES3EEPARABELOW3EVERALREQUIREMENTSMUSTBE
METS ANDTHEPROSECUTORSDIVERSIONOPTIONMUSTBEMADEANORDEROFCOURT
S 4HISPROSECUTORIALOPTIONCANONLYBEEXERCISEDBEFORETHEHOLDINGOFAPRE
LIMINARYENQUIRYASENVISAGEDIN#HAPTEROFTHE!CT7HERESUCHANENQUIRY
IS HELD THE MAGISTRATE MAY MAKE CERTAIN ORDERS INCLUDING DIVERSION ORDERS AS
PROVIDEDFORIN#HAPTEROFTHE!CT3EEFURTHERPARABELOW4HISCHAPTER
SETSOUT INTERALIA THEOBJECTIVESOFDIVERSIONS THECONSIDERATIONOFDIVERSION
S THEVARIOUSDIVERSIONOPTIONSS ANDTHEMINIMUMSTANDARDSAPPLICABLE
TODIVERSIONS
'
LYHUVLRQE\SURVHFXWRULQUHVSHFWRIPLQRURIIHQFHV&KDSWHU VVt RI
WKH&KLOG-XVWLFH$FWRI
&ORPURPOSESOFTHEABOVE!CT @DIVERSIONMEANS@DIVERSIONOFAMATTERINVOLVING
A CHILD AWAY FROM THE FORMAL COURT PROCEDURES IN A CRIMINAL MATTER BY MEANS
OFTHEPROCEDURESESTABLISHEDBY#HAPTERAND#HAPTER;OF!CTOF=
3ECTION OF THIS !CT ALSO SETS OUT THE OBJECTIVES OF DIVERSION 3EE #HAPTER
BELOW WHICHDEALSWITHSENTENCING
4HEPROSECUTORMAYINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESINITIATE ANDALSOPLAYANACTIVE
ROLEIN MATTERSOFDIVERSIONASPROVIDEDFORIN!CTOF3ECTIONOFTHIS
!CTPROVIDESFORDIVERSIONBYTHEPROSECUTORBEFOREAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYASPRO
VIDEDFORIN#HAPTER INRESPECTOFOFFENCESREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOFTHE!CT
4HESE OFFENCES ARE RELATIVELY MINOR OFFENCES 3ECTION PROVIDES AS
FOLLOWS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!PROSECUTORMAYDIVERTAMATTERINVOLVINGACHILDWHOISALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMIT
TEDANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEANDMAY FORTHISPURPOSE SELECTANYLEVEL
ONE DIVERSION OPTION SET OUT IN SECTION OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF IF THE
PROSECUTORISSATISFIED
A THAT THE FACTORS REFERRED TO IN SECTION A TO D HAVE BEEN COMPLIED
WITHAND
B INTHECASEOFACHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERDIEAGEOFYEARS
THATCRIMINALCAPACITYISLIKELYTOBEPROVEDINTERMSOFSECTION
4HEDIVERSIONREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION MUSTTAKEPLACE
A IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS ASPROVIDEDFORINSECTION A I BB
B SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION AFTER AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILD IN ACCORDANCE
WITH#HAPTERAND
C BEFOREAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYASPROVIDEDFORIN#HAPTER
)FTHECHILDHASNOTBEENASSESSED THE PROSECUTOR MAY DISPENSE WITH THE ASSESS
MENTIFITISINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDTODOSO0ROVIDEDTHATTHEREASONSFOR
DISPENSINGWITHTHEASSESSMENTMUSTBEENTEREDONTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
BYTHEMAGISTRATEINCHAMBERSREFERREDTOINSECTION
4HEPROSECUTORCANONLYINVOKESIFSATISFIED AMONGSTOTHERTHINGS THATTHE

CHILDACKNOWLEDGESRESPONSIBILITYFORTHEOFFENCES A WITHOUTHAVINGBEEN
UNDULYINFLUENCEDTOACKNOWLEDGESUCHRESPONSIBILITYS B THATTHEREISA
PRIMAFACIECASEAGAINSTTHECHILDS C AND FURTHERMORE THATTHECHILDAND
IFAVAILABLE HISORHERPARENTORAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIAN CONSENTTODIVER
SIONS D 3EES A 3EEALSOPARABELOW WHERESOF!CTOF
ISQUOTEDINFULL
0ARAGRAPH ' OF THE DIRECTIVES OF THE .$00 AS PROVIDED FOR IN S A AND
REFERRED TO IN S A STATES THAT A PROSECUTORS DIVERSION OF MATTERS PRIOR TO
A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE IN FOR EXAMPLE THE FOLLOWING
CIRCUMSTANCES
A 4HEOFFENCEISLISTEDIN3CHEDULE BUTTHEFACTORCIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEOFFENCEAREOF
ASERIOUSNATURE EGTHECONSEQUENCESAREVERYSERIOUS
B 4HECHILDHASAPREVIOUSCONVICTION PREVIOUSDIVERSIONORPENDINGCHARGEINRESPECT
OFASIMILARORMORESERIOUSOFFENCE
C 0ROSECUTORSAREOFTHEVIEWTHATTHECHILD
I HASBEENABANDONEDORORPHANEDANDISWITHOUTANYVISIBLEMEANSOFSUPPORT
II DISPLAYSBEHAVIOURWHICHCANNOTBECONTROLLEDBYTHEPARENTORCARE GIVER
III LIVESORWORKSONTHESTREETSORBEGSFORALIVING
IV ISADDICTEDTOADEPENDENCE PRODUCINGSUBSTANCEANDISWITHOUTANYSUPPORT
TOOBTAINTREATMENTFORSUCHDEPENDENCY
V HASBEENEXPLOITEDORLIVESINCIRCUMSTANCESTHATEXPOSETHECHILDTOEXPLOITA
TION
VI LIVESINORISEXPOSEDTOCIRCUMSTANCESWHICHMAYSERIOUSLYHARMTHATCHILDS
PHYSICAL MENTALORSOCIALWELL BEING
VII MAYBEATRISKIFRETURNEDTOTHECUSTODYOFTHEPARENT GUARDIANORCAREGIVEROF
THECHILDASTHEREISREASONTOBELIEVETHATHEORSHEWILLLIVEINORBEEXPOSEDTO
CIRCUMSTANCESWHICHMAYSERIOUSLYHARMTHEPHYSICAL MENTALORSOCIALWELL
BEINGOFTHECHILD
VIII ISINASTATEOFPHYSICALORMENTALNEGLECT
IX IS BEING MALTREATED ABUSED DELIBERATELY NEGLECTED OR DEGRADED BY A PARENT

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
ACAREGIVER APERSONWHOHASPARENTALRESPONSIBILITIESANDRIGHTSORAFAMILY
MEMBEROFTHECHILDORBYAPERSONUNDERWHOSECONTROLTHECHILDIS
X ISAVICTIMOFCHILDLABOUR
XI ISINACHILD HEADEDHOUSEHOLDOR
XII ISDUETOITSCONDUCTNOTSUITABLEFORDIVERSION
)TISSUBMITTEDTHATTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEOFTHECHILDHASADUTYTOENSURETHAT
PROSECUTORSTAKEPROPERHEEDOFPARA'OFTHEDIRECTIVESOFTHE.$00
)FTHEPROSECUTORTAKESTHEVIEWTHATTHECHILDISACHILDINNEEDOFCAREANDPRO
TECTIONASENVISAGEDBYSOFTHE#HILDRENS!CTOF HEORSHEMUSTNOT
DIVERTTHEMATTERBUTREFERTHEMATTERTOAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYFORCONSIDERATION
OFREFERRINGTHEMATTERTOACHILDRENSCOURTS OF!CTOF
4HE PROSECUTOR MUST IN DECIDING WHETHER TO DIVERT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
CHILDSRECORDOFPREVIOUSDIVERSIONS3EES OF!CTOF
4HEPROSECUTORSDECISIONTORELYONSTODIVERTAMATTERCANONLYRESULTINA
SELECTIONOF@ANYLEVELONEDIVERSIONOPTIONSETOUTINS ORANYCOMBINATION
THEREOF)NTERMSOFS LEVELONEDIVERSIONSINCLUDE
A ANORALORWRITTENAPOLOGYTOASPECIFIEDPERSONORPERSONSORINSTITUTION
B AFORMALCAUTION WITHORWITHOUTCONDITIONS
C PLACEMENTUNDERASUPERVISIONANDGUIDANCEORDER
D PLACEMENTUNDERAREPORTINGORDER
E ACOMPULSORYSCHOOLATTENDANCEORDER
F AFAMILYTIMEORDER
G APEERASSOCIATIONORDER
H AGOODBEHAVIOURORDER
I AN ORDER PROHIBITING THE CHILD FROM VISITING FREQUENTING OR APPEARING AT A
SPECIFIEDPLACE
J REFERRALTOCOUNSELLINGORTHERAPY
K COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE AT A SPECIFIED CENTRE OR PLACE FOR A SPECIFIED VOCA
TIONAL EDUCATIONALORTHERAPEUTICPURPOSE
L SYMBOLICRESTITUTIONTOASPECIFIEDPERSON PERSONS GROUPOFPERSONSORCOM
MUNITY CHARITYORWELFAREORGANISATIONORINSTITUTION
M RESTITUTIONOFASPECIFIEDOBJECTTOASPECIFIEDVICTIMORVICTIMSOFTHEALLEGED
OFFENCEWHERETHEOBJECTCONCERNEDCANBERETURNEDORRESTORED
N COMMUNITY SERVICE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OF AN ORGANISATION OR
INSTITUTION ORASPECIFIEDPERSON PERSONSORGROUPOFPERSONSIDENTIFIEDBY
THEPROBATIONOFFICER
O PROVISIONOFSOMESERVICEORBENEFITBYTHECHILDTOASPECIFIEDVICTIMORVIC
TIMS
P PAYMENTOFCOMPENSATIONTOASPECIFIEDPERSON PERSONS GROUPOFPERSONSOR
COMMUNITY CHARITYORWELFAREORGANISATIONORINSTITUTIONWHERETHECHILDOR
HISORHERFAMILYISABLETOAFFORDTHISAND
Q WHERETHEREISNOIDENTIFIABLEPERSON PERSONSORGROUPOFPERSONSTOWHOM
RESTITUTIONORCOMPENSATIONCANBEMADE PROVISIONOFSOMESERVICEORBEN
EFITORPAYMENTOFCOMPENSATIONTOACOMMUNITY CHARITYORWELFAREORGAN
ISATIONORINSTITUTION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)FTHEPROSECUTORDECIDESNOTTODIVERTAMATTERINTERMSOFS HEORSHEMUST
IMMEDIATELYARRANGEFORTHECHILDTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYASPROVIDED
FORIN#HAPTEROF!CTOF3EES
'
LYHUVLRQE\WKHSURVHFXWLRQLQWHUPVRI&KDSWHU VV RIWKH&KLOG
-XVWLFH$FWRI
4HEABOVECHAPTERSETSOUTTHEOBJECTIVESOFDIVERSIONS ANDPROVIDESFORCON
SIDERATION OF DIVERSION AFTER A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY OR DURING A TRIAL S 4HE
LATTERSECTIONPROVIDESASFOLLOWS
!MATTERMAY AFTERCONSIDERATIONOFALLRELEVANTINFORMATIONPRESENTEDATAPRE
LIMINARY INQUIRY OR DURING A TRIAL INCLUDING WHETHER THE CHILD HAS A RECORD OF
PREVIOUSDIVERSIONS BECONSIDEREDFORDIVERSIONIF
A THECHILDACKNOWLEDGESRESPONSIBILITYFORTHEOFFENCE
B THECHILDHASNOTBEENUNDULYINFLUENCEDTOACKNOWLEDGERESPONSIBILITY
C THEREISAPRIMAFACIECASEAGAINSTTHECHILD
D THECHILDAND IFAVAILABLE HISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARD
IAN CONSENTTODIVERSIONAND
E THEPROSECUTORINDICATESTHATTHEMATTERMAYBEDIVERTEDINACCORDANCEWITH
SUBSECTION ORTHE$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSINDICATESTHATTHEMAT
TERMAYBEDIVERTEDINACCORDANCEWITHSUBSECTION
!PROSECUTORMAY INTHECASEOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE IFTHEMATTER
HASNOTALREADYBEENDIVERTEDINACCORDANCEWITH#HAPTER ORINTHECASEOFAN
OFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE AFTERHEORSHEHAS
A CONSIDEREDTHEVIEWSOFTHEVICTIMORANYPERSONWHOHASADIRECTINTEREST
INTHEAFFAIRSOFTHEVICTIM WHETHERORNOTTHEMATTERSHOULDBEDIVERTED
UNLESSITISNOTREASONABLYPOSSIBLETODOSOAND
B CONSULTED WITH THE POLICE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF THE
MATTER
INDICATETHATTHEMATTERMAYBEDIVERTED
A 4HE $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS HAVING JURISDICTION MAY IN THE
CASE OF AN OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN 3CHEDULE IN WRITING INDICATE THAT THE MAT
TER BE DIVERTED IF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AS DETERMINED BY THE .ATIONAL
$IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS IN DIRECTIVES ISSUED IN TERMS OF SECTION A III
B !DIRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSMAYONLYINDICATETHATAMATTERMAYBEDIVERTED
INTERMSOFPARAGRAPHA AFTERHEORSHEHAS
I AFFORDEDTHEVICTIMORANYPERSONWHOHASADIRECTINTEREST IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE
VICTIM WHEREITISREASONABLETODOSOANOPPORTUNITYTOEXPRESSAVIEWONWHETHER
ORNOTTHEMATTERSHOULDBEDIVERTED ANDIFSO ONTHENATUREANDCONTENTOFTHE
DIVERSIONOPTIONBEINGCONSIDEREDANDTHEPOSSIBILITYOFINCLUDINGINTHEDIVERSION
OPTION ACONDITIONRELATINGTOCOMPENSATIONORTHERENDERINGOFASPECIFICBENEFIT
ORSERVICEANDHASCONSIDEREDTHEVIEWSEXPRESSEDAND
II CONSULTEDWITHTHEPOLICEOFFICIALRESPONSIBLEFORTHEINVESTIGATIONOFTHEMATTER
C )NORDERTOOBTAINTHEWRITTENINDICATIONOFTHE$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSIN
TERMSOFPARAGRAPHA THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEORCHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYPOSTPONETHE
MATTER
D ! $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS MAY NOT DELEGATE HIS OR HER POWER TO DECIDE
WHETHERAMATTERMAYBEDIVERTEDINTERMSOFPARAGRAPHA
4HEWRITTENINDICATIONREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION MUSTBEHANDEDTOTHEPRESID
INGOFFICERATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYORCHILDJUSTICECOURTANDMUSTFORMPARTOF
THERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
)FTHEPROSECUTORORA$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSINDICATESTHATTHEMATTERCAN
BEDIVERTEDINTERMSOFSUBSECTION OR THEPROSECUTORMUSTREQUESTTHEPRESID
INGOFFICERATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYORCHILDJUSTICECOURTTOMAKEANORDERFOR
DIVERSIONINRESPECTOFTHECHILD INACCORDANCEWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFTHISCHAPTER

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
)F THE PRESIDING OFFICER DOES NOT DIVERT THE MATTER AS PROVIDED FOR IN SUBSECTION
HEORSHEMUSTREFERTHEMATTERTOTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTTOBEDEALTWITHIN
ACCORDANCEWITH#HAPTER
)N-+ 3!#2'3* ITWASHELDTHATDIVERSIONINTERMSOFS OF!CT

OFCANTAKEPLACEATANYSTAGEOFTHETRIALnEVENAFTERCONVICTIONATn
3EEALSO'ANI./ 3!#2'3*
3ECTIONIN#HAPTEROF!CTOFSETSOUTTHEVARIOUSDIVERSIONORDERS
AND DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN LEVEL ONE AND LEVEL TWO DIVERSION ORDERS ,EVEL ONE
DIVERSION ORDERS APPLY TO OFFENCES REFERRED TO IN 3CHEDULE WHEREAS LEVEL TWO
DIVERSIONORDERSAPPLYTOALLOTHEROFFENCESIDENTIFIEDIN3CHEDULESAND THAT
IS THEMORESERIOUSOFFENCES3EES OF!CTOF)NTERMSOFS THE
FOLLOWINGFACTORSMUST
BE CONSIDERED WHEN A DIVERSION OPTION IS SELECTED THE CHOICE OF DIVERSION
OPTION WHICH MUST BE AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL IN TERMS OF S S A THE
CULTURAL RELIGIOUSANDLINGUISTICBACKGROUNDOFTHECHILDS B THEEDUCA
TIONALLEVEL COGNITIVEABILITYANDDOMESTICANDENVIRONMENTALCIRCUMSTANCESOF
THECHILDS C THEPROPORTIONALITYOFTHERECOMMENDEDORSELECTEDOPTION
GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CHILD THE NATURE OF THE OFFENCE AND THE INTER
ESTSOFSOCIETYS D AND FURTHER THECHILDSAGEANDDEVELOPMENTALNEEDS
S E
3ECTION PROVIDESTHATINADDITIONTOTHEDIVERSIONOPTIONSSETOUTINS
A PROSECUTOR ACTING IN TERMS OF S MAYWHERE APPROPRIATE AND AFTER CON
SIDERATIONOFALLAVAILABLEINFORMATIONDEVELOPAN@INDIVIDUALDIVERSIONOPTION
WHICHISINLINEWITHTHEDIVERSIONOBJECTIVESSETOUTINSANDTHEMINIMUM
STANDARDSASPROVIDEDFORINS4HELATTERSECTIONPROVIDESASFOLLOWSASREGARDS
MINIMUMSTANDARDSAPPLICABLETODIVERSION
$IVERSIONOPTIONS INKEEPINGWITHTHEOBJECTIVESOFDIVERSIONMUSTBESTRUCTURED
IN A WAY SO AS TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CHILD THE
NATUREOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHEINTERESTSOFSOCIETY AND
A MAY NOT BE EXPLOITATIVE HARMFUL OR HAZARDOUS TO THE CHILDS PHYSICAL OR
MENTALHEALTH
B MUSTBEAPPROPRIATETOTHEAGEANDMATURITYOFTHECHILD
C MAYNOTINTERFEREWITHTHECHILDSSCHOOLING
D MAYNOTBESTRUCTUREDINAMANNERTHATCOMPLETELYEXCLUDESCERTAINCHIL
DRENDUETOALACKOFRESOURCES FINANCIALOROTHERWISEAND
E MUSTBESENSITIVETOTHECIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEVICTIM
$IVERSIONPROGRAMMESMUST WHEREREASONABLYPOSSIBLE
A IMPARTUSEFULSKILLS
B INCLUDE A RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ELEMENT WHICH AIMS AT HEALING RELATIONSHIPS
INCLUDINGTHERELATIONSHIPWITHTHEVICTIM
C INCLUDEANELEMENTWHICHSEEKSTOENSURETHATTHECHILDUNDERSTANDSTHE
IMPACTOFHISORHERBEHAVIOURONOTHERS INCLUDINGTHEVICTIMSOFTHEOF
FENCE ANDMAYINCLUDECOMPENSATIONORRESTITUTION
D BEPRESENTEDINALOCATIONREASONABLYACCESSIBLETOTHECHILD
E BESTRUCTUREDINAWAYTHATTHEYARESUITABLETOBEUSEDINAVARIETYOFCIR
CUMSTANCESANDFORAVARIETYOFOFFENCES
F BESTRUCTUREDINAWAYTHATTHEIREFFECTIVENESSCANBEMEASURED
G BE PROMOTED AND DEVELOPED WITH A VIEW TO EQUAL APPLICATION AND ACCESS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY BEARING IN MIND THE SPECIAL NEEDS AND CIRCUM
STANCESOFCHILDRENINRURALAREASANDVULNERABLEGROUPSAND
H INVOLVEPARENTS APPROPRIATEADULTSORGUARDIANS IFAPPLICABLE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE REST OF THE SECTIONS IN #HAPTER OF !CT OF DEAL WITH THE FOLLOW
INGMATTERS0ROVISIONANDACCREDITATIONOFDIVERSIONPROGRAMMESANDDIVERSION
SERVICE PROVIDERS S MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE WITH DIVERSION ORDERS S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DIVERSION ORDER S LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF DIVERSION
S REGISTEROFCHILDRENINRESPECTOFWHOMADIVERSIONORDERHASBEENMADE
S FAMILYGROUPCONFERENCES ANDVICTIM OFFENDERMEDIATIONS
7
KH&KLOG-XVWLFH$FWRIGLYHUVLRQRIPDWWHUVLQYROYLQJ6FKHGXOH
RIIHQFHVDQGWKHSRZHUVDQGGXWLHVRID'33
3ECTION A OFTHEABOVE!CTPROVIDESTHATINTHEEVENTOFANOFFENCEREFERRED
TOIN3CHEDULETOTHEABOVE!CT A$00WHOHASJURISDICTIONMAYINDICATE IN
WRITING THATTHEMATTERBEDIVERTEDIFEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESEXIST ASDETER
MINEDBYTHE.$00INDIRECTIVESISSUEDUNDERS A III OF!CTOF)N
PARA*OFTHEDIRECTIVESTHE.$00HASSETOUTTHEFOLLOWINGCIRCUMSTANCESTHATA
$00MUSTCONSIDER
A PARTICULARYOUTHFULNESS
B PARTICULARLYLOWDEVELOPMENTALLEVELOFACHILD
C PRESENCEOFPARTICULARHARDSHIP VULNERABILITYORHANDICAPEGWHERETHECHILD
HEADSAHOUSEHOLD
D VICTIMPREFERSDIVERSIONTOTRIALASHESHEDOESNOTWANTTOTESTIFYINCOURT
E COMPELLINGMITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCESSUCHASDIMINISHEDRESPONSIBILITY
F UNDUEINFLUENCEEXERTEDUPONTHECHILDINTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCEEG
CHILDUSEDBYADULTTOCOMMITCRIME#5"!#
G WITNESSESFORTHEPROSECUTIONAREFRAGILEANDORUNWILLINGTOTESTIFYOR
H TOPROCEEDWOULDBEPOTENTIALLYDAMAGINGTOACHILDWITNESSVICTIM
!$00MAYNOTDELEGATEHISORHERPOWERTODECIDEWHETHERAMATTERMUSTBEDI
VERTEDINTERMSOFS A OF!CTOF
!$00CANONLYDIVERTAMATTERINTERMSOFS A WHERETHE$00HASCON
SULTED THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER S B II AND CONSIDERED THE VIEWS OF THE
VICTIMORANYPERSONWITHADIRECTINTERESTINTHEAFFAIRSOFTHEVICTIMASPROVIDED
FORINS B I
$IVERSIONOFOFFENCESREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOF!CTOFMAYONLYTAKE
PLACEUPONTHEWRITTENINDICATIONOFTHE$00CONCERNED3EES A OF!CTOF
4HISPOWERMAYNOTBEDELEGATED3EES D OF!CTOF
&
ULPLQDOFDSDFLW\RIFKLOGUHQWKHGHFLVLRQWRSURVHFXWHFKLOGUHQDQGWKH
SURYLVLRQVRIWKH&KLOG-XVWLFH$FWRI
4HECOMMON LAWRULESPERTAININGTOTHECRIMINALCAPACITYOFCHILDRENWHOHAVE
NOTYETHADTHEIRFOURTEENTHBIRTHDAYATTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHECRIME
HAVEBEENAMENDEDBYSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFWITHEFFECTFROM
!PRIL3EES OF!CTOF
)NTERMSOFTHECOMMONLAWANINFANSACHILDWHOHASNOTYETCOMPLETEDHIS
OR HER SEVENTH YEAR IS DOLI AND CULPAE INCAPAX THAT IS LACKS CRIMINAL CAPACITY
RENDERINGHIMORHERIMMUNEFROMPROSECUTION(OWEVER THEPRESENTRULEISTHAT
ACHILDBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARSDOESNOTHAVECRIMINALCAPACITYANDCANNOTBE

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
PROSECUTEDFORANOFFENCECOMMITTEDBYHIMORHER3EES OF!CTOF
3ECTIONOF!CTOFREGULATESTHEMANNEROFDEALINGWITHSUCHACHILD
OUTSIDETHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM
)NTERMSOFTHECOMMONLAWANIMPUBESACHILDWHOISNOLONGERANINFANSBUT
WHOHASNOTYETTURNED ISREBUTTABLYPRESUMEDTOBEDOLIANDCULPAEINCAPAX
THATIS TOLACKCRIMINALCAPACITYUNLESSPROVEDOTHERWISEBYTHEPROSECUTION4HE
PRESENTPOSITIONISREGULATEDBYS OF!CTOF4HISSECTIONDETERMINES
THATACHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSANDWHOCOM
MITS AN OFFENCE IS PRESUMED TO LACK CRIMINAL CAPACITY UNLESS THE PROSECUTION
PROVESTHATTHECHILDCONCERNEDHASCRIMINALCAPACITYASSETOUTINTERMSOFSOF
!CT)N4.3;=!LL3!7## AT;=N2OGERS*EXPLAINEDTHATACHILD
TURNSWHENHE@HASCOMPLETEDYEARSOFLIFEIEINCLUDINGTHETHYEARITSELF
!TTHATPOINTTHECHILDISAGEDUNTILTHETHYEARISCOMPLETED/NMY
READINGOFTHECASESANDTHEOLDAUTHORITIES THEPRESUMPTIONOFLACKOFCRIMINAL
CAPACITYTERMINATESWHENTHECHILDTURNS4HISISCERTAINLYTHEEFFECTOFS
OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
#RIMINALCAPACITYWILLBEPRESENTIFTHEPROSECUTIONCANPROVEBEYONDAREA
SONABLEDOUBTTHATATTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFANALLEGEDOFFENCETHECHILD
CONCERNEDCOULDAPPRECIATETHEDIFFERENCEBETWEENRIGHTANDWRONGANDCOULD
FURTHERMORE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT APPRECIATION 3EE S OF !CT OF
7HEREAPROSECUTORCONSIDERSITESSENTIALTOHAVETHECRIMINALCAPACITYOFA
CHILDEVALUATEDORASSESSED HEORSHESHOULDREQUESTTHECOURTTOORDERTHATITBE
DONEBYTHECATEGORYOFPERSONSIDENTIFIEDBYTHE-INISTEROF*USTICE3EES OF
!CTOF4HEREISAPROSECUTORIALDIRECTIVEWHICHPROVIDESTHATWHEREITIS
UNLIKELYTHATITWILLBEPROVEDTHATTHECHILDHADTHENECESSARYCRIMINALCAPACITY
PROSECUTORSSHOULDHAVETHECHILDREFERREDTOAPROBATIONOFFICERANDSUCHACHILD
ISTOBEDEALTWITHINTHESAMEMANNERASCHILDRENUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSAS
PROVIDEDFORINSOF!CTOF 3EEALSOS B OF!CTOF
7HERETHEPROSECUTORDECIDESINRESPECTOFACHILDABOVETENBUTBELOWTHAT
CRIMINALCAPACITYISLIKELYTOBEPROVED HEORSHEMAYDIVERTTHEMATTERINTERMS
OF#HAPTEROF!CTOFIFTHECHILDISALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMITTEDANOFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOF!CTOF3EES A I OF!CTOFAS
WELLASPARAABOVE4HEALTERNATIVEISTOREFERTHEMATTERTOAPRELIMINARY
INQUIRYASPROVIDEDFORIN#HAPTEROFTHESAME!CT3EES A II OF!CTOF

'HFLVLRQWRSURVHFXWHDFKLOGZKRLV\HDUVRUROGHUEXWXQGHU
)NTERMSOFS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFAPROSECUTORWHOISREQUIRED
TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PROSECUTE A CHILD IN THE AGE CATEGORY REFERRED TO ABOVE IS
OBLIGEDTOCONSIDERVARIOUSFACTORS4HEEDUCATIONALLEVEL COGNITIVEABILITY DO
MESTICANDENVIRONMENTALCIRCUMSTANCES AGEANDMATURITYOFTHECHILDMUSTBE
CONSIDEREDSEES A 4HEPROSECUTORMUSTALSOTAKEINTOACCOUNTTHENATURE
AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE S B THE IMPACT OF THE ALLEGED OF
FENCE ON ANY VICTIM S C AND THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY S D
2EGARDMUSTALSOBEHADTOAPROBATIONOFFICERSREPORTINTERMSOF#HAPTEROF
!CTOF3EES E ASREADWITHSOFTHE!CT4HEPROSECUTORISALSO
OBLIGEDTOCONSIDERTHEPROSPECTSOFESTABLISHINGCRIMINALCAPACITYINTERMSOFS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
IFTHEMATTERWERETOBEREFERREDTOAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYINTERMSOF#HAPTEROF
!CTOF3EES F 4HEAPPROPRIATENESSOFDIVERSIONS G ASWELLAS
@ANYOTHERRELEVANTFACTORS H MUSTBECONSIDERED4HEOPEN ENDEDNATURE
OFS H MAKESITCLEARTHATCOMMON LAWPRINCIPLESANDGUIDELINESIDENTIFIED
INTHE0ROSECUTION0OLICYSEEPARAABOVE REMAINRELEVANT
:LWKGUDZDORIFDVHVDJDLQVWFKLOGUHQ
)NTERMSOFPARA#OFTHEDIRECTIVESISSUEDBYTHE.$00UNDERS OFTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CTOF PROSECUTORSAREINSTRUCTEDTOTAKECARENOTMERELYTOWITH
DRAWACASEAGAINSTACHILDINCIRCUMSTANCESWHERETHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILD
CALLFORSOMEINTERVENTION4HISDIRECTIVEISCONSISTENTWITHS OFTHE"ILLOF
2IGHTS WHICHPROVIDESASFOLLOWS@!CHILDSBESTINTERESTSAREOFPARAMOUNTIM
PORTANCEINEVERYMATTERCONCERNINGTHECHILD
02)6!4%02/3%#54)/.3
)NTRODUCTION
4HE3OUTH!FRICAN#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREFERSTOTWOFORMSOFPRIVATEPROSECU
TION NAMELYAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONBYANINDIVIDUALONTHEBASISOFACERTIFICATE
NOLLEPROSEQUIS ANDAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONUNDERSTATUTORYRIGHTS 3EE.ATIONAL
3OCIETYFORTHE0REVENTIONOF#RUELTYTO!NIMALSV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL
$EVELOPMENT 3!#2## AT;=
0RIVATEPROSECUTIONUNDERSTATUTORYRIGHT
!NYBODYUPONWHICH ORPERSONUPONWHOM THERIGHTTOPROSECUTEINRESPECTOF
ANYOFFENCEISEXPRESSLYCONFERREDBYLAWMAYINSTITUTEANDCONDUCTAPROSECUTION
INRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCEINANYCOURTCOMPETENTTOTRYTHATOFFENCES OF
!CTOF3OMEMUNICIPALITIESPROSECUTEINTERMSOFTHISSECTION(OWEVER
ABODYWHICH ORAPERSONWHO INTENDSEXERCISINGARIGHTOFPROSECUTIONUNDER
S SHALLEXERCISESUCHRIGHT FIRSTLYANDONLY AFTERCONSULTATIONWITHTHE$00
CONCERNEDAND SECONDLY AFTERTHE$00HASWITHDRAWNHISORHERRIGHTOFPROS
ECUTIONINRESPECTOFANYSPECIFIEDOFFENCEORANYSPECIFIEDCLASSORCATEGORYOF
OFFENCESWITHREFERENCETOWHICHSUCHBODYORPERSONMAYBYLAWEXERCISESUCH
RIGHTOFPROSECUTIONS 3EE HOWEVER PARASANDBELOW
!$00MAY UNDERS WITHDRAWHISORHERRIGHTOFPROSECUTIONONSUCHCON
DITIONSASHEORSHEMAYDEEMFIT INCLUDINGACONDITIONTHATTHEAPPOINTMENTBY
SUCHBODYORPERSONOFAPROSECUTORTOCONDUCTTHEPROSECUTIONINQUESTIONSHALL
BESUBJECTTOTHEAPPROVALOFTHE$00 ANDTHATTHE$00MAYATANYTIMEEXERCISE
WITHREFERENCETOANYSUCHPROSECUTIONANYPOWERWHICHHEORSHEMIGHTHAVE
EXERCISEDIFHEORSHEHADNOTWITHDRAWNHISORHERRIGHTOFPROSECUTIONS
)TISCLEAR THEREFORE THATPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSUNDERSTATUTORYRIGHTREMAINUNDER
THECONTROLOFTHE$00AND.$00,ARGEMUNICIPALITIESOFTENHAVETHENECESSARY
EXPERTISE TO CONDUCT PROSECUTIONS FOR CONTRAVENTIONS OF MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS
)NPRACTICEITISTHEREFORECONVENIENTFORA$00TOALLOWTHESEMUNICIPALITIESTO
PROSECUTETHEIRREGULATORYOFFENCESINTERMSOFS GIVINGTHE$00ANDHISORHER
PUBLICPROSECUTORSMORETIMETOCONCENTRATEONCRIMESOFAMORESERIOUSNATURE

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
!SPROSECUTIONISREPORTEDINTHENAMEOFTHEPARTIES ASIN#LAYMORE#OURT0TY
,TDV$URBAN#ITY#OUNCIL 3!. )NTHISCASEITWASALSOHELDTHATA
PROSECUTIONINTERMSOFSMUSTBEINSTITUTEDANDCONDUCTED ANDALLPROCESSIN
CONNECTIONTHEREWITHISSUED INTHENAMEOFTHEPROSECUTOR4HISISPEREMPTORY
INTERMSOFS4HE.$00MAYALSOINWRITINGAUTHORISEANYLOCALAUTHORITYTO
CONDUCTCERTAINPROSECUTIONS3EES B OF!CTOFASCITEDINPARA
ABOVE
6 HFWLRQ H RIWKH6RFLHWLHVIRUWKH3UHYHQWLRQRI&UXHOW\WR$QLPDOV$FW

RI
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASHELDTHATTHEPHRASE@INSTITUTELEGALPROCEEDINGSIN
S E OFTHEABOVE!CTTHE@.30#!!CT MEANTTHATTHE.ATIONAL3OCIETYFOR
THE0REVENTIONOF#RUELTYTO!NIMALSTHE@.30#! HASTHESTATUTORYPOWERAS
PROVIDEDFORINSOF!CTOFTOINSTITUTEPROSECUTIONSFORANIMAL CRUELTY
OFFENCES3EE.ATIONAL3OCIETYFORTHE0REVENTIONOF#RUELTYTO!NIMALSV-INISTEROF
*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2## )TWASPOINTEDOUT
HOWEVER THATTHERIGHTOFTHE.30#!TOPROSECUTEREMAINEDSUBJECTTOTHESTATES
@FIRST RIGHT TO PROSECUTE AT ;= FN = 4HE .30#! !CT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE
PROVISIONSOFSOF!CTOF3EEALSO$U4OITETAL "
3ECTION I OFTHE,EGAL0RACTICE!CTOF

)N TERMS OF THE ABOVE SECTION THE ,EGAL 0RACTITIONERS &IDELITY &UND "OARD THE
@,0&&" MAY THROUGH ANY PERSON AUTHORISED IN WRITING BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF
THE,0&&" INSTITUTEAPROSECUTIONFORTHEMISAPPROPRIATIONORTHEFTOFPROPERTY
OR MONEY HELD IN TRUST BY THE ,0&&" 4HIS SECTION ALSO STIPULATES THAT @THE LAW
RELATINGTOPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSAPPLIESTOSUCHAPROSECUTIONASIFTHE,0&&"ISA
@PUBLICBODY4HEPROVISIONSOFSOF!CTOFASSETOUTINABOVEARE
THEREFOREAPPLICABLETOAPROSECUTIONINTERMSOFS I OF!CTOF
3ECTIONOFTHE.ATIONAL%NVIRONMENTAL-ANAGEMENT!CTOF
)NTERMSOFS OFTHEABOVE!CTHEREAFTER@.%-! BOTHNATURALPERSONSAND
JURISTICPERSONSMAY@INTHEPUBLICINTERESTOR@INTHEINTERESTOFTHEENVIRONMENT
INSTITUTEPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSUNDER.%-!3EE-UJUZI3!#*AT4HIS
STATUTORYRIGHTISARIGHTASENVISAGEDINSOF!CTOF(OWEVER THESTATE
FORFEITSITS@FIRSTRIGHTTOPROSECUTEIFAFTERDAYSOFHAVINGRECEIVEDTHENOTICEOF
PRIVATEPROSECUTION ITDOESNOTSTATEINWRITINGTHATITINTENDSTOPROSECUTES
C )NTHESECIRCUMSTANCESS BECOMESIRRELEVANTANDTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTION
MUSTPROCEEDONTHEBASISOFSSTOOF!CTOF3EE5ZANI%NVIRONMENTAL
!DVOCACY##V"03OUTHERN!FRICA0TY ,TDUNREPORTED '0CASENO !PRIL
AT;=.ONOLLEPROSEQUICERTIFICATEISREQUIRED
6HFWLRQRIWKH([WHQVLRQRI6HFXULW\RI7HQXUH$FWRI
3ECTION OFTHEABOVE!CT@%34! PROVIDESTHATOCCUPIERSOFPROPERTYPRO
TECTED IN TERMS OF %34! AND WHO COMPLAIN THAT THEY HAVE BEEN EVICTED OTHER
THANINTERMSOFANORDEROFCOURT MAYINSTITUTEAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONAGAINSTTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ALLEGEDOFFENDER3ECTION OF%34!PROVIDESTHATTHEPROVISIONSOF!CTOF
SHALLAPPLYTOSUCHAPROSECUTION4HEREAREEXCEPTIONS!NOLLEPROSEQUICER
TIFICATE FOREXAMPLE ISREPLACEDBYANOTICETOTHESTATEASPROVIDEDFORINS
B OF%34!ANDTOWHICH@THEPUBLICPROSECUTORHASNOT WITHINDAYSOFRECEIPT
OFSUCHNOTICE STATEDINWRITINGTHATHEINTENDSTOPROSECUTETHEALLEGEDOF
FENCE3EES C OF%34!3EEALSOGENERALLY#ROOKESV3IBISI 3!#2
+:0 AT;=
0RIVATEPROSECUTIONBYANINDIVIDUALONACERTIFICATENOLLEPROSEQUI
,QWURGXFWLRQ
4HE ORIGIN AND RATIONALE OF HAVING A SYSTEM IN TERMS OF WHICH AN AGGRIEVED
INDIVIDUAL MAY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES INSTITUTE A PRIVATE PROSECUTION THAT
IS PROCEED IN LIEU OF THE STATE WERE DISCUSSED IN PARA ABOVE 4HE HISTORICAL
BACKGROUNDISDEALTWITHINMOREDETAILBY3MIT*IN"LACKV"ARCLAYS:IMBABWE
.OMINEES0VT ,TD 3!#27 )N.ATIONAL3OCIETYFORTHE0REVENTIONOF
#RUELTYTO!NIMALSV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2
3#! AT;=ITWASPOINTEDOUTTHATINTERMSOFNATIONALLEGISLATION PROVISIONS
REGULATINGPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSHAVEBEENINPLACEFORALMOSTACENTURY
"Y WAY OF SUMMARY IT MAY BE SAID THAT AN INDIVIDUALS STATUTORY POWER TO
INSTITUTEAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONISA@SAFETYVALVE SOTOSPEAK INTHEMACHINERYOF
THELAW)TISALSOTOSOMEEXTENTANINDIRECTMETHODOFCONTROLLINGCORRUPTIONOR
INCOMPETENCEINTHESTATESPROSECUTORIALSERVICES)THASFURTHERMOREBEENSAID
THATA
SYSTEM OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN TERMS OF BOTH SOCIETYS INTEREST IN
INCREASED LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE INDIVIDUALS INTEREST IN VINDICATION OF PERSONAL
GRIEVANCES&ULLPARTICIPATIONBYTHECITIZENASAPRIVATEPROSECUTORISNEEDEDTOCOPE
WITHTHESERIOUSTHREATTOSOCIETYPOSEDBY;THEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYS=IMPROPERACTION
ANDINACTION;#OMMENT 9ALE,AW*OURNALAT=
)THASALSOBEENARGUEDTHATASYSTEMOFPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSDEMONSTRATES@THE
VALUEOFCITIZENVICTIMPARTICIPATIONINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMANDSERVESTO
REINFORCETHEINTEGRITYOFBASICDEMOCRATICVALUES0RIVATE0ROSECUTIONS7ORKING
0APEROFTHE,AW2EFORM#OMMISSIONOF#ANADA 0RIVATEPROSECUTIONSARE
RAREBUTESSENTIAL
! SYSTEM OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION IS NOTANISOLATEDINSTANCEOF CITIZENPARTICI
PATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 0RIVATE PERSONSEVEN THOUGH TOTALLY
DISINTERESTEDINAMATTERMUSTINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESASSISTINANARRESTWHEN
CALLEDUPONTODOSOBYAPOLICEOFFICIALS!NDPRIVATEPERSONSNOTPERSONALLY
INVOLVEDINACASEMAYBECALLEDUPONANDAGREETOSITASASSESSORSINCRIMINALTRI
ALSSEE FOREXAMPLE STEROFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOFASDISCUSSED
IN#HAPTER
! PRIVATE PROSECUTION MUST BE INSTITUTED AND CONDUCTED IN THE NAME OF THE
PRIVATEPROSECUTORS OF!CTOF!LLPROCESSMUSTALSOBEISSUEDIN
THE NAME OF AND AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PRIVATE PROSECUTORS AND4HE
INDICTMENTORSUMMONS ASTHECASEMAYBE MUSTDESCRIBETHEPRIVATEPROSECUTOR
WITHCERTAINTYANDPRECISIONANDMUSTBESIGNEDBYSUCHPROSECUTORORHISORHER

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
LEGALREPRESENTATIVES !PRIVATEPROSECUTIONISREPORTEDINTHENAMESOFTHE
PARTIES FOREXAMPLE 3MITHV*ONES
!PRIVATEPROSECUTORMAYWITHDRAWACHARGE3EE#ROOKESV3IBISI 3!#2
+:0 AT AND4HISMAYBEDONEDESPITETHEFACTTHATSA OFTHE!CT
ONLYCOVERSPUBLICPROSECUTION3EEFURTHERPARAABOVE
! PRIVATE PROSECUTION SHALLEXCEPT AS OTHERWISE STATED IN THE PRESENT CHAP
TERPROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF IT WERE A PROSECUTION AT THE INSTANCE OF
THESTATES 4HISMEANSTHATANACCUSEDENJOYSALLTHOSEPROCEDURALRIGHTS
WHICHWOULDHAVEBEENAVAILABLETOSUCHACCUSEDHADHEORSHEBEENPROSECUTED
ATTHEINSTANCEOFTHESTATE3UCHANACCUSEDENJOYSTHEADDITIONALPRIVILEGETHAT
HEORSHEMAYBEBROUGHTBEFORETHECOURTONLYBYWAYOFSUMMONSINTHECASEOF
ALOWERCOURTORANINDICTMENTINTHECASEOFTHESUPREMECOURTSEETHEPROVISO
INS
!NACCUSEDINAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONISALSOENTITLEDTOTHEFAIRTRIALRIGHTASGUAR
ANTEEDINS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION3EE"OTHMAV%LS 3!#2##
,OCUSSTANDIRIDSULYDWHSURVHFXWRU
)NANYCASEINWHICHA$00HASDECLINEDTOPROSECUTEFORANALLEGEDOFFENCE THE
FOLLOWINGPERSONSMAY SUBJECTTOCERTAINOTHERPROCEDURALREQUIREMENTS EITHER
INPERSONORTHROUGHALEGALREPRESENTATIVEINSTITUTEANDCONDUCTAPROSECUTIONIN
RESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCEINANYCOURTCOMPETENTTOTRYTHATOFFENCE
ANYPRIVATEPERSONWHOPROVESSOMESUBSTANTIALANDPECULIARINTERESTINTHEISSUEOF
THETRIALARISINGOUTOFSOMEINJURYWHICHHEINDIVIDUALLYSUFFEREDINCONSEQUENCE
OFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHESAIDOFFENCES A OR
AHUSBAND IFTHESAIDOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDINRESPECTOFHISWIFES B OR
THE WIFE OR CHILD OR IF THERE IS NO WIFE OR CHILD ANY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF ANY
DECEASEDPERSON IFTHEDEATHOFSUCHPERSONISALLEGEDTOHAVEBEENCAUSEDBYTHE
SAIDOFFENCES C OR
THELEGALGUARDIANORCURATOROFAMINORORLUNATIC IFTHESAIDOFFENCEWASCOMMIT
TEDAGAINSTHISORHERWARDS D
)NTHEABSENCEOFANINJURYCOGNISABLEUNDERS THEREISNOROOMONTHEPARTOF
APRIVATEPROSECUTORFORANYINTERESTSUBSTANTIALANDPECULIAROROTHERWISE INTHE
ISSUEOFTHETRIAL0HILLIPSV"OTHA 3!#23#! 3EEALSO3INGHV-INISTER
OF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2.
3ECTION IS NOT RENDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT IT
PRECLUDES JURISTIC PERSONS AS OPPOSED TO NATURAL PERSONS FROM INSTITUTING PRI
VATE PROSECUTIONS 3EE .ATIONAL 3OCIETY FOR THE 0REVENTION OF #RUELTY TO !NIMALS V
-INISTER OF *USTICE AND #ONSTITUTIONAL $EVELOPMENT 3!#2 3#! 4HE
#ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT HAS SPECIFICALLY REFRAINED FROM DECIDING THIS ISSUE 3EE
.ATIONAL 3OCIETY FOR THE 0REVENTION OF #RUELTY TO !NIMALS V -INISTER OF *USTICE AND
#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2## AT;=Ú;=
4HEQUESTIONWHETHERAPRIVATEPERSONHASINTERMSOFS A @SOMESUBSTANTIAL
ANDPECULIARINTERESTINTHEISSUEOFTHETRIALARISINGOUTOFSOMEINJURYWHICHHE
ORSHEINDIVIDUALLYSUFFEREDINCONSEQUENCEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCE
ISAQUESTIONOFLAWASWELLASFACT!NOBVIOUSEXAMPLEISTHEVICTIMOFANALLEGED
THEFT$ALYV3OLICITOR'ENERAL%$#)N-ULLINSAND-EYERV0EARLMAN
40$ATAND%LLISV6ISSER 3!4 ATITWASHELDTHATTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
RIGHTTOINSTITUTEAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONDOESNOTEXISTWHERETHEREISNORIGHTOF
CIVIL REDRESS (OWEVER IN -AKHANYA V "AILEY ./ 3! 4 AT # IT
WASCORRECTLYHELDTHATWHEREITISCLEARTHATALEGALRIGHTOFAPERSONHASBEEN
INFRINGED BY AN OFFENCE THEN THE QUESTION OF A CIVIL REMEDY ARISING FROM IT IS
NOLONGERARELEVANTCONSIDERATIONANDTHEPROVISIONSOFS A WOULDTHENBE
SATISFIED)TISSUBMITTEDTHATS A SHOULDINPRINCIPLENOTBEINTERPRETEDRESTRIC
TIVELY!FTERALL THEPURPOSEOFAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONISTOREDUCE@THETEMPTATION
TOANAGGRIEVEDPERSONTOTAKETHELAWINTOHISOWNHANDS3OLOMONV-AGISTRATE
0RETORIA 3!4 AT(4HESTATESHOULDNOTHAVEAMONOPOLYOFTHE
RIGHTTOPROSECUTE6AN:YL3MIT3!##AT!TTHESAMETIME HOWEVER
IT IS CLEAR THAT S DOES PLACE IMPORTANT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO INSTITUTE A
PRIVATEPROSECUTION)TFOLLOWSTHATNOTEVERYCASEINWHICHA$00DECLINESTOPROS
ECUTEWILLNECESSARILYGIVERISETOAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONSEEALSOGENERALLY-ORKEL
AND,ABUSCHAGNE3!##AT)N!TTORNEY 'ENERALV6ANDER-ERWEAND
"ORNMAN/0$ATITWASSAIDTHATRESTRICTIONSARENECESSARY
TOPREVENTPRIVATEPERSONSFROMARROGATINGTOTHEMSELVESTHEFUNCTIONOFAPUBLICPROS
ECUTORANDPROSECUTINGINRESPECTOFOFFENCESWHICHDONOTAFFECTTHEMINANYDIFFERENT
DEGREETHANANYOTHERMEMBEROFTHEPUBLICTOCURB INOTHERWORDS THEACTIVITIESOF
THOSEWHOWOULDOTHERWISECONSTITUTETHEMSELVESPUBLICBUSYBODIES
)N3OLOMONV-AGISTRATE 0RETORIAABOVE THECOURTHELDTHATITWASCOMPETENTTO

ENTERTAIN AND GRANT AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER RESTRAINING THE MAGISTRATE AND
THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR FROM CONTINUING WITH AN UNFOUNDED PROSECUTION 4HE
ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE PROSECUTION IS UNFOUNDED RESTS ON THE APPLICANT 6AN
$EVENTERV2EICHENBERGAND!NOTHER 3!#2# ISANEXAMPLEOFACASE
WHERETHE(IGH#OURTINTERDICTEDTHERESPONDENTFROMINSTITUTINGANUNFOUNDED
PROSECUTION
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASHELDTHATTHE(IGH#OURTSINHERENTPOWER
TOPREVENTABUSEOFITSPROCESSBYFRIVOLOUSORVEXATIOUSPROCEEDINGSWHICHIS
USUALLY ASSERTED IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGSALSO APPLIES WHERE THE PROCESS ABUSED IS
THATPROVIDEDFORINTHECONDUCTOFPRIVATEPROSECUTIONS0HILLIPSV"OTHA
3!#23#! (OWEVER INTHISCASEITWASHELDTHATTHEREWASNOABUSEOFPRO
CESS%VENTHOUGHTHECOURTWASSATISFIEDTHATTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTORHADPLAYED
APROTRACTEDGAMEOFCAT AND MOUSEWITHTHEACCUSED ITWASALSOFOUNDTHATTHE
DOMINANTMOTIVEOFTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTORWASTOHAVEJUSTICEDONEBYCONVICTING
AWRONGDOER
! PRIVATE PROSECUTOR HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS OR HER LOCUS STANDI IF IT IS
DISPUTEDSEEGENERALLY,EVYV"ENATAR 3!: !WIDOWHASTHENEC
ESSARYPECULIARINTEREST-WEUHANGAV#ABINETOFTHE)NTERIM'OVERNMENTOF37!
3! 37! AT #OMPANIES AND OTHER LEGAL PERSONS DO NOT FALL
WITHINTHEAMBITOFS A "ARCLAYS:IMBABWE.OMINEES0VT ,TDV"LACK
3!!
)N-ULLINSAND-EYERV0EARLMAN40$AFULLBENCHHELDTHATONLYPER
SONS WHO CAN PROVE THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED ACTUAL DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF THE
COMMISSIONOFTHEALLEGEDOFFENCEAREENTITLEDTOINSTITUTEAPRIVATEPROSECUTION
4HEMEREAPPREHENSIONOFINJURYOROFANINVASIONOFRIGHTSWHICHMAYPOSSIBLY
CAUSEDAMAGEINTHEFUTUREISINSUFFICIENT

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
4WOORMOREPERSONSMAYNOTPROSECUTEINTHESAMECHARGE EXCEPTWHERETWO
ORMOREPERSONSHAVEBEENINJUREDBYTHESAMEOFFENCES 7ILLIAMSV*ANSE
VAN2ENSBURG 3!#
7KHFHUWLILFDWHNOLLEPROSEQUI
.OPRIVATEPROSECUTORWISHINGTOPROCEEDINTERMSOFSCANOBTAINTHEPROCESS
OFANYCOURTFORSUMMONINGANYPERSONTOANSWERANYCHARGEUNLESSSUCHPRIVATE
PROSECUTORPRODUCESASO CALLED@CERTIFICATENOLLEPROSEQUITOTHEOFFICERAUTHORISED
BYLAWTOISSUESUCHPROCESS!CERTIFICATENOLLEPROSEQUIISACERTIFICATESIGNEDBYA
$00INWHICHTHE$00CONFIRMS FIRST THATHEORSHEHASEXAMINEDTHESTATEMENTS
ORAFFIDAVITSONWHICHTHECHARGEISBASEDAND SECONDLY THATHEORSHEDECLINES
TOPROSECUTEATTHEINSTANCEOFTHESTATES A
!$00MUST ATTHEREQUESTOFTHEPERSONINTENDINGTOPROSECUTE GRANTTHECER
TIFICATENOLLEPROSEQUIINEVERYCASEINWHICHHEORSHEHASDECLINEDTOPROSECUTE)T
WOULDSEEMASIFTHE$00ISNOTENTITLEDTOINVESTIGATEWHETHERTHEPERSONREQUEST
INGTHECERTIFICATEHASTHENECESSARYLOCUSSTANDIASENVISAGEDINS A TOD !T
THETRIALTHEACCUSEDCANRAISETHELACKOFLOCUSSTANDIOFTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTOR
!$00MAYREFUSETOISSUEACERTIFICATE NOLLEPROSEQUIWHERETHEAPPLICANTISA
@JURISTICPERSONANDNOTA@PRIVATEPERSONASREQUIREDBYS A 3EEGENERALLY
.ATIONAL 3OCIETY FOR THE 0REVENTION OF #RUELTY TO !NIMALS V -INISTER OF *USTICE AND
#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#23#! AT;=
)N3OLOMONV-AGISTRATE 0RETORIAABOVE ITWASHELDTHATA$00CANNOTBEREQUIRED
TOPARTICULARISEORIDENTIFYTHECHARGESONWHICHHEORSHEDECLINESTOPROSECUTE
)F THE ACCUSED CAN SHOW AT THE TRIAL THAT THE CERTIFICATE NOLLE PROSEQUI DOES NOT
RELATETOTHECHARGESPREFERREDAGAINSTHIMORHERBYTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTOR HEOR
SHEISENTITLEDTOADISCHARGE
!PRIVATEPROSECUTORSFAILURETOLODGEACERTIFICATENOLLEPROSEQUIASREQUIREDBY
S B ISAMATERIALDEFECTBECAUSEITAMOUNTSTONON COMPLIANCEWITHAJURIS
DICTIONALFACT3EE.UNDALALV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS+:.UNREPORTED +:0
CASENO!2 -AY AT;=AND;=
)NTERMSOFS C ACERTIFICATENOLLEPROSEQUISHALLLAPSEUNLESSPROCEEDINGSIN
RESPECTOFTHEOFFENCEINQUESTIONAREINSTITUTEDBYTHEISSUEOFTHEREQUIREDPRO
CESSWITHINTHREEMONTHSOFTHEDATEOFTHECERTIFICATE
6HFXULW\E\SULYDWHSURVHFXWRU
.OPRIVATEPROSECUTORMAYTAKEOUTORISSUEANYPROCESSCOMMENCINGTHEPRIVATE
PROSECUTION UNLESS HE OR SHE DEPOSITS THE SUM OF 2 WITH THE MAGISTRATES
COURT IN WHOSE AREA OF JURISDICTION THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTEDS 4HIS
AMOUNTSERVESASSECURITYTHATTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTORWILLPROSECUTETHECHARGETO
ACONCLUSIONWITHOUTUNDUEDELAYS A 4HEAMOUNTISFORFEITEDTOTHESTATE
INTHEEVENTOFSUCHADELAYS &ORFEITURETOTHESTATEALSOTAKESPLACEWHERE
THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED IS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE PRIVATE PROSECUTORS
FAILURETOAPPEARS ASREADWITHS
4HEMAGISTRATESCOURTINWHOSEAREAOFJURISDICTIONTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED
MAYDETERMINEAFURTHERAMOUNTTOBEDEPOSITEDASSECURITYFORTHECOSTSWHICH
THEACCUSEDMAYINCURINRESPECTOFHISORHERDEFENCETOTHECHARGES B

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEACCUSEDMAY WHENHEORSHEISCALLEDUPONTOPLEADTOTHECHARGE APPLYTO

THETRIALCOURTTOREVIEWTHEAMOUNTWHICHWASDETERMINEDINTERMSOFS B
"ONADEIV-AGISTRATEOF/TJIWARONGO 3!37! S 4HETRIALCOURT
MUSTTHEN BEFORETHEACCUSEDPLEADS REASSESSTHEAMOUNTANDMAYREQUIRETHE
PRIVATEPROSECUTORTODEPOSITANYADDITIONALAMOUNT ASDETERMINEDBYTHECOURT
WITH THE MAGISTRATES COURT WHERE THE INITIAL S B DEPOSIT WAS MADES
A 4HECOURTMAY ASANALTERNATIVETOAFURTHERDEPOSIT DIRECTTHATTHEPRIVATE
PROSECUTORENTERINTOARECOGNISANCE WITHORWITHOUTSURETIES INSUCHADDITIONAL
AMOUNTASTHECOURTMAYDETERMINES B
4HE REFERENCE TO COSTS IN S IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE ACTUAL COSTS WHICH
AN ACCUSED WILL PROBABLY INCUR PERSONALLY IN CONDUCTING HIS OR HER DEFENCE
)DLOXUHRISULYDWHSURVHFXWRUWRDSSHDU
)FTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTORDOESNOTAPPEARONTHEDAYSETDOWNFORTHEAPPEARANCE
OFTHEACCUSEDINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTORFORTHETRIALOFTHEACCUSED THECHARGE
AGAINSTTHEACCUSEDSHALLBEDISMISSEDUNLESSTHECOURTHASREASONTOBELIEVETHAT
THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR WAS PREVENTED FROM BEING PRESENT BY CIRCUMSTANCES BE
YONDHISORHERCONTROL INWHICHEVENTTHECOURTMAYADJOURNTHECASETOALATER
DATES 7HERETHECHARGEISSODISMISSED THEACCUSEDSHALLFORTHWITHBE
DISCHARGED(EORSHEMAYNOTINRESPECTOFTHATCHARGEBEPROSECUTEDPRIVATELY
AGAIN"UTTHE$00ORAPUBLICPROSECUTORWITHTHECONSENTOFTHE$00MAYATTHE
INSTANCEOFTHESTATEPROSECUTETHEACCUSEDINRESPECTOFTHATCHARGES
#OSTSOFASUCCESSFULPRIVATEPROSECUTION
4HEGENERALRULEISTHATTHEPROSECUTORMUSTPAYTHECOSTSANDEXPENSESOFAPRIVATE
PROSECUTIONS "UTTHECOURTMAY HAVINGREGARDTOALLTHECIRCUMSTANCES
OFTHECASE ORDERAPERSONCONVICTEDUPONAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONTOPAYTHECOSTS
ANDEXPENSESOFTHEPROSECUTION INCLUDINGTHECOSTSOFANYAPPEALAGAINSTSUCH
CONVICTIONORANYSENTENCE )TISALSOPOSSIBLEFORTHECOURTTOORDERTHAT
THECOSTSANDEXPENSESOFTHESUCCESSFULPRIVATEPROSECUTION INCLUDINGTHECOSTS
OFANAPPEALARISINGFROMSUCHPROSECUTION MUSTBEPAIDBYTHESTATES !N
ORDEROFTHISNATURESHOULDBEMADEWHERETHECOURTISCONVINCEDTHATTHE$00
SHOULDNOTHAVEDECLINEDTOPROSECUTEATTHEINSTANCEOFTHESTATE4HETAXATION
OFCOSTSISREGULATEDBYS
&RVWVRIDFFXVHGLQDQXQVXFFHVVIXOSULYDWHSURVHFXWLRQ
7HERETHECHARGEAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDISDISMISSEDORTHEACCUSEDISACQUITTEDOR
ADECISIONINFAVOUROFTHEACCUSEDISGIVENONAPPEAL THECOURTDISMISSINGTHE
CHARGEORACQUITTINGTHEACCUSEDORDECIDINGINFAVOUROFTHEACCUSEDONAPPEAL
MAYORDERTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTORTOPAYTOSUCHACCUSEDTHEWHOLEORANYPARTOF
THECOSTSANDEXPENSESINCURREDBYTHEACCUSEDINCONNECTIONWITHTHEPROSECU
TIONORTHEAPPEAL ASTHECASEMAYBES 7HERETHECOURTISOFTHEOPINION
THAT A PRIVATE PROSECUTION WAS UNFOUNDED AND VEXATIOUS IT SHALL AWARD TO THE
ACCUSEDATHISORHERREQUESTSUCHCOSTSANDEXPENSESINCURREDBYHIMORHERAS
ITMAYDEEMFITS !COURTSHOULDBESLOWINCOMINGTOADECISIONMULCT

#(!04%2r4(%02/3%#54)/./&#2)-%
INGINCOSTSUNDERS IFAPROSECUTORHASBONAFIDESOUGHTJUSTICEINAPRIVATE
PROSECUTION"UCHANANV6OOGT./ 3!. 4AXATIONOFCOSTSISALSO
GOVERNEDBYS
,QWHUYHQWLRQE\WKH6WDWHLQDSULYDWHSURVHFXWLRQ
!$00ORALOCALPUBLICPROSECUTORACTINGONTHEINSTRUCTIONSOFTHE$00 MAYIN
RESPECTOFANYPRIVATEPROSECUTIONAPPLYBYMOTIONTOTHECOURTBEFOREWHICHTHE
PRIVATEPROSECUTIONISPENDINGTOSTOPALLFURTHERPROCEEDINGSINTHECASEINORDER
THATAPROSECUTIONFORTHEOFFENCEINQUESTIONMAYBEINSTITUTEDORCONTINUEDAT
THEINSTANCEOFTHESTATE ASTHECASEMAYBES4HECOURTMUSTMAKESUCHAN
ORDERS)NTERVENTIONINTERMSOFSISINTHEDISCRETIONOFTHE$00(OWEVER
WHEREANACCUSEDINAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONPLEADSGUILTYTOTHECHARGE THEPROS
ECUTIONMUSTBECONTINUEDATTHEINSTANCEOFTHESTATES
$SULYDWHSURVHFXWLRQDQGV RIWKH&KLOG-XVWLFH$FWRI

!PRIVATEPROSECUTIONINTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAYINTERMS
OFS OF!CTOFNOTBEINSTITUTEDAGAINSTACHILDINRESPECTOFWHOM
THEMATTERHASBEENDIVERTEDINTERMSOF!CTOF

#(!04%2
4HERIGHTTOLEGALASSISTANCE
'0+EMP
Page
).42/$5#4)/.!.$()34/2)#!,"!#+'2/5.$
%4()#!,,!79%2).'
4(%2)'(44/!33)34!.#%).4(%02% 42)!,34!'%/&4(%
#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
4(%2)'(44/!33)34!.#%$52).'4(%42)!,
'ENERAL
4HEDUTYTOINFORMTHEACCUSEDOFTHERIGHTTOLEGAL
REPRESENTATION
4HEDUTYTOAFFORDTHEACCUSEDANOPPORTUNITYTOOBTAINLEGAL
REPRESENTATION
4HEROLEOFTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEANDOTHERSINPROVIDING
THEACCUSEDWITHASSISTANCE
3/-%).34!.#%37(%2%4(%7)4($2!7!,"9!,%'!,
2%02%3%.4!4)6%-!9"%2%15)2%$
#ONFLICTOF)NTERESTTWOORMOREACCUSEDREPRESENTEDBYONE
LAWYER
#ONTRADICTORYINSTRUCTIONSFROMCLIENT
$UTYOFTHECOURTINCASEOFAWITHDRAWALBYALEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE
$%&%.$).'4(%!$-)44%$,9'5),49
#/-0%4%.4,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)/.
!SUBSTANTIVESTANDARDOFlCOMPETENTLAWYERINGm
#OUNSELMUSTBEELIGIBLETOAPPEARBEFORECOURT
4(%,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)6%m3#/.42/,/&4(%$%&%.#%
#!3%
#OMMON LAWANDCONSTITUTIONALPRINCIPLES
4HEPASSIVEDEFENCERIGHT CONTROLOFTHEDEFENCECASEAND
LEGALETHICS


#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
,EGALREPRESENTATIVEmSDUTYTOGIVEADVICE

4(%!##%33)"),)49/&,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)/.
,EGALASSISTANCEAT3TATEEXPENSE
,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)/./&#(),$2%.
'ENERAL
4HERIGHTTOLEGALASSISTANCEOFCHILDRENINTHEPRE TRIALSTAGE
OFTHECRIMINALPROCESS
'ENERAL
!SSESSMENT
0RELIMINARYINQUIRY
.ATIONALINSTRUCTIONTOTHEPOLICE
%VERYONEWHOISDETAINED INCLUDINGANYSENTENCEDPRISONER HASTHERIGHTr

E TOCHOOSE ANDTOCONSULTWITH ALEGALPRACTITIONER ANDTOBEINFORMEDOFTHISRIGHT
PROMPTLY
F TOHAVEALEGALPRACTITIONERASSIGNEDTOTHEDETAINEDPERSONBYTHESTATEANDATSTATE
EXPENSE IFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULT ANDTOBEINFORMEDOFTHIS
RIGHTPROMPTLY

3EE BELOW
%VERYACCUSEDPERSONHASARIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHTr

I TOCHOOSE ANDBEREPRESENTEDBY ALEGALPRACTITIONER ANDTOBEINFORMEDOFTHIS
RIGHTPROMPTLY
J TOHAVEALEGALPRACTITIONERASSIGNEDTOTHEACCUSEDPERSONBYTHESTATEANDATSTATE
EXPENSE IFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULT ANDTOBEINFORMEDOFTHIS
RIGHTPROMPTLY
3EEAND BELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr2EQUIREMENTSTOBECOMPLIEDWITHBYLEGALREPRESENTATIVES
!LEGALREPRESENTATIVEREPRESENTINGACHILDMUSTr
D ALLOWTHECHILD ASFARASISREASONABLYPOSSIBLE TOGIVEINDEPENDENTINSTRUCTIONSCON
CERNINGTHECASE
E EXPLAINTHECHILDmSRIGHTSANDDUTIESINRELATIONTOANYPROCEEDINGSUNDERTHIS!CTINA
MANNERAPPROPRIATETOTHEAGEANDINTELLECTUALDEVELOPMENTOFTHECHILD
F PROMOTE DIVERSION WHERE APPROPRIATE BUT MAY NOT UNDULY INFLUENCE THE CHILD TO AC
KNOWLEDGERESPONSIBILITY
G ENSURETHATTHEASSESSMENT PRELIMINARYINQUIRY TRIALORANYOTHERPROCEEDINGSINWHICH
THECHILDISINVOLVED ARECONCLUDEDWITHOUTDELAYANDDEALWITHTHEMATTERINAMANNERTO
ENSURETHATTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDAREATALLTIMESOFPARAMOUNTIMPORTANCEAND
H UPHOLDTHEHIGHESTSTANDARDSOFETHICALBEHAVIOURANDPROFESSIONALCONDUCT
D )FAPRESIDINGOFFICERISOFTHEOPINIONTHATALEGALREPRESENTATIVEATANYSTAGEDURING
THECONDUCTOFANYPROCEEDINGSUNDERTHIS!CT ACTEDCONTRARYTOSUBSECTION HEORSHE
MUSTRECORDHISORHERDISPLEASUREBYWAYOFANORDERWHICHINCLUDESANAPPROPRIATEREMEDIAL
ACTIONORSANCTION
E !PRESIDINGOFFICERWHOHASMADEANYORDERREFERREDTOINPARAGRAPH D MUSTIMMEDIATELY
DIRECTTHECLERKORTHEREGISTRAROFTHECOURTTONOTIFYr
I THERELEVANTLAWSOCIETYREFERREDTOINSECTIONOFTHE!TTORNEYS!CT !CTOF

II INTHECASEWHERETHELEGALREPRESENTATIVECONCERNEDHASBEENEMPLOYEDBY,EGAL!ID
3OUTH!FRICA THE"OARDOF$IRECTORSOF,EGAL!ID3OUTH!FRICAOR
III INTHECASEOFANADVOCATE THECONTROLLINGBODYOFWHICHTHEADVOCATEISAMEMBER OF
THEORDER
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr,EGALREPRESENTATIONATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
.OTHINGINTHIS!CTPRECLUDESACHILDFROMBEINGREPRESENTEDBYALEGALREPRESENTATIVEATA
PRELIMINARYINQUIRY
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr#HILDTOBEPROVIDEDWITHLEGALREPRESENTATIONAT3TATEEXPENSEINCERTAININ
STANCES
7HEREACHILDAPPEARSBEFOREACHILDJUSTICECOURTINTERMSOF#HAPTERANDISNOTREP
RESENTEDBYALEGALREPRESENTATIVEOFHISORHEROWNCHOICE ATHISORHEROWNEXPENSETHE
PRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTREFERTHECHILDTO,EGAL!ID3OUTH!FRICAFORTHEMATTERTOBEEVALUATED
BYTHE"OARDASPROVIDEDFORINSECTION E OFTHE,EGAL!ID3OUTH!FRICA!CT
.O PLEA MAY BE TAKEN UNTIL A CHILD REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION HAS BEEN GRANTED A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OR A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN
APPOINTED
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr#HILDMAYNOTWAIVELEGALREPRESENTATIONINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES
.OCHILDAPPEARINGBEFOREACHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYWAIVEHISORHERRIGHTTOLEGALREPRE
SENTATION
)FACHILDREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION DOESNOTWISHTOHAVEALEGALREPRESENTATIVEORDE
CLINESTOGIVEINSTRUCTIONSTOANAPPOINTEDLEGALREPRESENTATIVE THECOURTMUSTENTERTHISON
THERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSANDALEGALREPRESENTATIVEMUST SUBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOF
THE,EGAL!ID-ANUALREFERREDTOINSECTION OFTHE,EGAL!ID3OUTH!FRICA!CT BE
APPOINTEDBY,EGAL!ID3OUTH!FRICATOASSISTTHECOURTINTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNER
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
).42/$5#4)/.!.$()34/2)#!,"!#+'2/5.$
/NE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHTS OF A PERSON SUSPECTED OF THE COMMISSION OF
AN OFFENCE WHETHER HE OR SHE HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED WITH THE OFFENCE OR
NOT IS TO BE ASSISTED BY COUNSEL ATTORNEY OR ADVOCATE AND FRIENDS 4HIS RIGHT
OFCOMMON LAWORIGIN ISOFEXCEPTIONALIMPORTANCESINCETHEEFFECTIVEEXERCISE
OF OTHER RIGHTS AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF VARIOUS REMEDIES SUCH AS THE INTERDICT
HABEASCORPUS CIVILACTIONFORDAMAGES ANDBAILMAYDEPENDONIT4HISRIGHTMAY
QUITECORRECTLYBETERMED@ANACCUSEDSMOSTPERVASIVERIGHT4HERIGHTTOLEGAL
REPRESENTATIONISALSO@CENTRALTOTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALn&LYNN-ELBOURNE
5NIVERSITY,AW2EVIEW
6ROMAN 4RACTAAT DE &ORO #OMPETENTI CONTENDS THAT THE RIGHT TO
COUNSELORIGINATESINTHELAWOFNATUREAND'OD)TMAYNOTBEDENIEDANYONE
SAYS6ROMANNOTEVENIRRATIONALANIMALS(ECONTINUES@9ES NOTEVENMAYITBE
DENIED THEDEVIL IFHEWERETOAPPEARBEFORETHEJUDGMENTTHRONEOURTRANSLA
TION CF7ESSELS 3!# "LOOMS 3!#
4HE RIGHT TO BE ASSISTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL AND THE ASSOCIATED RIGHT TO LEGAL AID
ARE PROTECTED IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS !RTICLE
D OF THE )NTERNATIONAL #OVENANT ON #IVIL AND 0OLITICAL 2IGHTS )##02
PROVIDES FOR THE RIGHT OF ACCUSED PERSONS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN COURT
TOGETHER WITH A RIGHT OF CHOICE AS TO LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND @TO HAVE LEGAL ASSIS
TANCEASSIGNEDxINANYCASEWHERETHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICESOREQUIREANDWITHOUT
PAYMENTxIN ANY SUCH CASE IF HE DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT MEANS TO PAY FOR IT
7HILEINTERNATIONALINSTRUMENTSLIKETHE)##02GIVESAGENEROUSMEANINGTOTHE
NOTIONOFACCESSTOJUSTICEVIATHETWINRIGHTSOFACCESSTOALAWYEROFCHOICEAND
LEGALAID OTHERINSTRUMENTS NOTABLYTHE!FRICAN#HARTERON(UMANAND0EOPLES
2IGHTS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE !RTICLE OF THE !FRICAN #HARTER PROVIDES FOR
THE RIGHT TO DEFENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO BE DEFENDED BY A
LAWYEROFCHOICE BUTTHEREISNOMENTIONOFLEGALAID"YCOMPARISON ARTICLEOF
THE!MERICAN#ONVENTIONON(UMAN2IGHTS CONTAINSANINDECISIVEWEAK
REFERENCETOLEGALAIDANDDEFERSTODOMESTICLAW THUSPROVIDINGTHATTHEREISAN
@INALIENABLERIGHTTOBEASSISTEDBYCOUNSELPROVIDEDBYTHESTATE PAIDORNOTAS
THEDOMESTICLAWPROVIDES IFTHEACCUSEDDOESNOTDEFENDHIMSELFPERSONALLY!
STRONGERLINKBETWEENTHERIGHTTOAPPOINTLEGALCOUNSELANDTHERIGHTTOOBTAIN
LEGALAIDATSTATEEXPENSECANBEFOUNDINTHE%UROPEAN#ONVENTIONON(UMAN
2IGHTS !RTICLE C PROVIDESFORTHEFOLLOWINGBASICRIGHTOFADEFENDANT
INACRIMINALCASE@4ODEFENDHIMSELFINPERSONORTHROUGHLEGALASSISTANCEOFHIS
OWNCHOOSINGOR IFHEHASNOTSUFFICIENTMEANSTOPAYFORLEGALASSISTANCE TOBE
GIVENITFREEWHENTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICESOREQUIRE4HECOUPLINGOFTHERIGHTTO
LEGALCOUNSELOFCHOICEWITHTHERIGHTTOLEGALAIDASANELEMENTOFACCESSTOJUSTICE
RECEIVEDINTERNATIONALRECOGNITIONINPARAOFTHE5NITED.ATIONS0RINCIPLESAND
'UIDELINESON!CCESSTO,EGAL!IDIN#RIMINAL*USTICE3YSTEMS )TPROVIDES
2ECOGNIZINGTHATLEGALAIDISANESSENTIALELEMENTOFAFUNCTIONINGCRIMINALJUSTICESYS
TEM THAT IS BASED ON THE RULE OF LAW A FOUNDATION FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF OTHER RIGHTS
INCLUDINGTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL ANDANIMPORTANTSAFEGUARDTHATENSURESFUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS AND PUBLIC TRUST IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS ;S=TATES SHOULD GUARANTEE THE
RIGHTTOLEGALAIDINTHEIRNATIONALLEGALSYSTEMSATTHEHIGHESTPOSSIBLELEVEL INCLUDING
WHEREAPPLICABLE INTHECONSTITUTION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
5NDERTHEINFLUENCEOFHUMANRIGHTSJURISPRUDENCETHEREHASBEENAGRADUALEXPANSION
OFTHERIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION4HISRIGHTISNOWGENERALLYEXTENDEDTOINCLUDETHE
PRE TRIAL PHASES OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS &OR INSTANCE IN $AYANAN V 4URKEY THE
%UROPEAN#OURTOF(UMAN2IGHTSHELDAT;= THAT ANACCUSEDPERSONISENTITLED AS
SOONASHEORSHEISTAKENINTOCUSTODY TOBEASSISTEDBYALAWYER ANDNOTONLYWHILE
BEINGQUESTIONEDx)NDEED THEFAIRNESSOFPROCEEDINGSREQUIRESTHATANACCUSEDBEABLE
TOOBTAINTHEWHOLERANGEOFSERVICESSPECIFICALLYASSOCIATEDWITHLEGALASSISTANCE)NTHIS
REGARD COUNSELHASTOBEABLETOSECUREWITHOUTRESTRICTIONTHEFUNDAMENTALASPECTSOF
THATPERSONSDEFENCEDISCUSSIONOFTHECASE ORGANIZATIONOFTHEDEFENCE COLLECTIONOF
EVIDENCEFAVOURABLETOTHEACCUSED PREPARATIONFORQUESTIONING SUPPORTOFANACCUSED
INDISTRESSANDCHECKINGOFCONDITIONSOFDETENTION
)N3OUTH!FRICA ANACCUSEDCOULDNOTALWAYSASOFRIGHTDEMANDTHATHEORSHE
BEDEFENDEDBYANATTORNEYORADVOCATEITWASONLYINTHATAPROCLAMATION
WASISSUEDPROVIDINGTHATAPERSONACCUSEDOFASERIOUSOFFENCEHADTHERIGHT IFHE
ORSHESOWISHED TOEMPLOYALEGALPRACTITIONERTODEFENDHIMORHERCF7ESSELS
ABOVE AT'n(
)NAGENERALRIGHTTOCOUNSELWASACCEPTED WITHOUTREFERENCETOANYAUTHOR
ITY BYTHE!PPELLATE$IVISIONASTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALWASTHENCALLED IN
$ABNERV3!2AILWAYSAND(ARBOURS!$4HECOURTSTATED
4HATAPERSONWHOISCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEBEFOREANYCOURTINJUDICIALPROCEEDINGS
INTHISCOUNTRYISENTITLEDTOAPPEARBY;SIC=ALEGALADVISER ISAPROPOSITIONWHICHNO
ONEWILLDISPUTE
4ODAY THIS RIGHT IS ENTRENCHED IN SԜ AND OF THE #ONSTITUTION AS SET OUT
ABOVE&URTHERMORE SԜ AND! n# OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
OFCONFIRMSTHISFUNDAMENTALPROCEDURALRIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION WHILE
SԜ PROVIDES FOR SOME QUALIFIED FORM OF ASSISTANCE THAT MAY BE RENDERED BY
THIRDPARTIESOTHERTHANLEGALLYQUALIFIEDCOUNSEL
4HERIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONISNOTCONFINEDTOTHEACCUSEDBUTISEXTENDED
TOWITNESSESINAPPROPRIATECASES
4HEEFFECTOFSԜ C AND G OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONISTHATANARRESTEDPERSON
ASWELLASANACCUSED MUSTBEPROVIDEDWITHLEGALREPRESENTATIONATTHEEXPENSE
OFTHESTATEIFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULT@3UBSTANTIALINJUSTICEIS
NOTDEFINED BUTIN,OMBARD 3!4 THECOURTSTATEDTHAT ATTHELEAST
ITMEANSTHATANACCUSEDWHOISCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEINRESPECTOFWHICHHEOR
SHEMAYBESENTENCEDTOIMPRISONMENTIFCONVICTED ANDWHOCANNOTAFFORDLEGAL
REPRESENTATION SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT STATE EXPENSE !LSO
COMPARE-GCINAV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE ,ENASIA 3!#27 !NACCUSED
MUST HOWEVER ACCEPTTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEAPPOINTEDBYTHESTATEANDHASNO
CHOICEASTOTHELATTERSIDENTITY6ERMAAS$U0LESSIS 3!##
/NLEGALREPRESENTATIONGENERALLY SEEn!CTA*URIDICA@&OKUS
3!#*n3TEYTLER4HE5NDEFENDED!CCUSED
%4()#!,,!79%2).'
,EGAL ETHICS IS AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT THAT WARRANTS PROPER ATTENTION 4HE TOPIC
OFLEGALETHICSISNOTOFTENFOUNDASASTAND ALONEMODULEORDISCIPLINEAT3OUTH
!FRICANLAWSCHOOLSBUTSHOULDNEVERTHELESSBEVIEWEDASANINTEGRALPARTOFTHE

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
ETHOSOFTHEORETICALANDPRACTICALLEGALTRAINING,EGALETHICSISEXAMINEDASPART
OFTHEADMISSIONEXAMINATIONSOFTHELEGALPROFESSIONIN3OUTH!FRICA
)NBROADTERMS LEGALETHICS OR @ACODEOFLEGALETHICS CANBEDEFINEDAS@THAT
SYSTEM OF RULES WHICH BY MUTUAL CONSENT IS OBSERVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSIONASTHESTANDARDBYWHICHTODETERMINETHEPROPRIETYOFTHEIRCONDUCT
ANDRELATIONSHIPTOWARDTHEIRCLIENTS THECOURTSANDOTHERMEMBERSOFTHEPRO
FESSION2OBBINS!4REATISE#OVERING3UCCINCTLYTHE%NTIRE2ANGEOF4RIAL4ACTICSAND
,EGAL%THICSED
,AWYERS HAVE MULTIPLE ETHICAL DUTIES AND FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE HIGH STAN
DARDS EXPECTED OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS A FAILURE TO SERVE THE BEST
INTERESTSOFTHECLIENTSCONCERNED-C,AGGAN 3!#2%#' AT;=$U
4OITETAL#OMMENTARYONTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT n
!NIMPORTANTMANIFESTATIONOFETHICALLAWYERINGISLAWYERSDUTYTOREPRESENT
THEINTERESTSOFTHEIRCLIENTSTOTHEBESTOFTHEIRABILITY @EVENIFTHEYPRIVATELYCON
SIDER THE CASE TO BE A HOPELESS ONE.EGONDENI ;= :!3#! UNREPORTED
3#!CASENO 3EPTEMBERAT;=
)N -Y /WN ,IBERATOR FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE $IKGANG -OSENEKE
REFLECTSONTHEIMPORTANCEOFETHICALLAWYERING-ANYOFTHEELEMENTSOFETHICAL
REPRESENTATIONAREENCAPSULATEDINTHESTATEMENT AT
)QUICKLYLEARNEDTHATETHICALCONDUCTWASCENTRALTOTHESUCCESSOFMYTASKASCOUNSEL
!JUDGEMUSTALWAYSTRUSTWHATCOUNSELCONVEYSINCOURT)TOOKSERIOUSLYTHECARDINAL
RULETHAT)SHOULDNEVERKNOWINGLYCONVEYANUNTRUTHTOACOURT-YDUTYWASTOCONVEY
MYCLIENTSVERSIONOFEVENTSTOTHEBESTOFMYABILITY"UTONCE)CAMETOKNOWTHATMY
CLIENTSVERSIONWASFALSE )WOULDNOTPERPETUATEORREPEATTHELIETOCOURT7HILE)WAS
NOTREQUIREDTOJUDGEMYCLIENTSTRUTHFULNESS )NEVERKNOWINGLYBECAMEACONDUITOF
ANACCUSEDPERSONSLIES)WOULDNEVERHELPMYCLIENTFABRICATEAVERSIONORCONVEYTO
COURTWHAT)KNEWTOBEFALSE!TTHATPOINTMYDUTYWASTOWITHDRAWFROMREPRESENTING
AMENDACIOUSCLIENTWITHOUTPRONOUNCINGHIMORHERALIARFROMTHEROOFTOPS4HISWAS
BECAUSETHECOMMUNICATIONBETWEENACLIENTANDALAWYERISPRIVILEGEDANDMAYNOTBE
DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE CLIENTS PERMISSION )N ADDITION SHOULD A WITHDRAWING COUNSEL
SPREADTHEERSTWHILECLIENTSUNTRUTHFULNESS THEDISCLOSUREISLIKELYTOIMPERILTHEFAIR
NESSOFTHEPENDINGCOURTHEARING
&OR MORE ON THIS TOPIC SEE 2OBERTSON +RUUSE 3OUTH !FRICAN *OURNAL ON
(UMAN2IGHTS 3EEFURTHER $AVIDV2EGIONAL#OURT-AGISTRATE 3!#2
%#" AT ;= .EL 3!#2 '* AT ;= -OHAN V $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS +WAZULU .ATAL 3!#2+:$ AT;= ;=
4
(%2)'(44/!33)34!.#%).4(%02% 42)!,34!'%/&4(%#2)-).!,
02/#%$52%
!POWERFULSTATEMENTOFTHEIMPORTANCEOFOUTSIDERSHAVINGACCESSTOPERSONSWHO
AREHELDINCUSTODYISCONTAINEDIN,I+UI9UV3UPERINTENDENTOF,ABOURERS43
AT
) THINK ITISQUITECLEARTHATTHEONLYWAYOFPREVENTINGAPERSONBEINGILLEGALLYDONE
AWAYWITHANDILLEGALLYTREATEDISTOUPHOLDTOTHEFULLESTEXTENTTHERIGHTOFEVERYPERSON
TOHAVEANYOFHISFRIENDSCOMEANDSEEHIMWHOCHOOSETODOSO)AMNOTNOWDEAL
INGWITHSOLICITORS )AMTHINKINGOFTHEORDINARYQUESTIONOFFRIENDS)THINKTOPREVENT
THEACCESSOFFRIENDSTOANYPERSONISAMOSTSERIOUSINFRINGEMENTOFTHELIBERTYOFANY
SUBJECT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HECOURTCONTINUEDBYSTATINGTHATITISEVENMORESERIOUSTOWITHHOLDACCESSTO
ANATTORNEY3EEALSO7IDES@!NARRESTEDPERSONSRIGHTOFACCESSTOHISLAWYERA
NECESSARYRESTATEMENTOFTHELAW3!,*
)N-ABASO 3!! ITWASALREADYSUGGESTEDTHATTHELEGISLATURESHOULD
PROVIDEFORLEGISLATIONINTERMSOFWHICHANARRESTEDPERSONSHOULDBEINFORMEDOF
HISORHERRIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONUPONARREST4HISHASNOWBEENEMBODIED
INSԜ! OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
4HERIGHTOFADETAINEDPERSONTOCHOOSEANDCONSULTWITHALEGALPRACTITIONER
ANDTOBEPROMPTLYINFORMEDOFTHISRIGHT ISNOWENTRENCHEDINSԜ B OFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONANDSԜ OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT!PERSONWHOHASBEEN
ARRESTEDISINDETENTIONFROMTHEMOMENTOFHISARRESTANDTHEREFOREIMMEDIATELY
QUALIFIESFORTHISRIGHT&URTHERMORE THEACCUSEDMAYEXERCISETHISRIGHTATANY
STAGE DURING HIS DETENTION WHETHER BEFORE DURING OR AFTER THE TRIALCF -ELANI
3!#2%
4HEARRESTEDPERSONMUSTBEINFORMEDOFTHISRIGHTSԜ! INSUCHAMANNER
THATITCANREASONABLYBESUPPOSEDTHATHEORSHEUNDERSTOODTHERIGHTANDTHE
IMPORTANCETHEREOF-ELANI 3!#2%
4HERIGHTOFADETAINEDPERSONTOBEINFORMEDOFTHISRIGHTREQUIRESTHESTATE
TO INFORM HIM OF THE RIGHT NOT ONLY AT THE TIME OF HIS OR HER ARREST BUT ALSO AT
EVERYFURTHERSTAGEOFTHEINVESTIGATIONINTOTHEALLEGEDOFFENCEWHEREHISORHER
CO OPERATIONISSOUGHT SUCHASWHENHEORSHEISBEINGQUESTIONED ASTATEMENT
IS TAKEN FROM HIM OR HER HE OR SHE MAKES A CONFESSION OR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE
PARTINANIDENTIFICATIONPARADE-ARX 3!#27 -HLAKAZA
3!#2# -ATHEBULA 3!#27 AND!GNEW 3!#2#
(OWEVER SEE.GWENYA 3!#27 WHERETHEOPPOSITEWASHELD3EE
ALSO(LALIKAYA 3!#23% AND:WAYI 3!3##K WHEREIT
WASHELDTHATIFANIDENTIFICATIONPARADEBYMEANSOFPHOTOGRAPHSISHELDINTHE
ABSENCEOFTHESUSPECTSLEGALPRACTITIONER EVIDENCECONCERNINGTHEIDENTIFICATION
PARADEWILLSTILLBEADMISSIBLE)N-PHALAAND!NOTHER 3!#27 THE
ACCUSEDWERENOTINFORMEDBEFOREMAKINGCONFESSIONSTHATANATTORNEYHADBEEN
APPOINTED FOR THEM AND HAD REQUESTED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT MAKE STATEMENTS
BEFORECONSULTINGWITHHIM4HEWAIVERBYTHEACCUSEDOFTHEIRRIGHTTOLEGALREP
RESENTATIONWASACCORDINGLYHELDTOHAVEBEENUNINFORMEDANDTHEREFOREINVALID
)N/RRIE 3!#2# THEQUESTIONBEFORETHECOURTWASWHETHERSUS
PECTS WHENQUESTIONEDBYTHEPOLICE CANALSOINVOKETHERIGHTSCONFERREDBYSԜ
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HECOURTIN/RRIEGAVEAPURPOSIVEINTERPRETATIONOFSԜAND
FOUNDTHATTHEPRE TRIALRIGHTSASPROTECTEDBYSԜ APPLYALSOTOSUSPECTS3TRICTLY
SPEAKING THEDUTYOFTHEPOLICETOINFORMINDIVIDUALSOFTHEIRRIGHTTOLEGALREP
RESENTATIONAPPLIESONLYFROMTHEMOMENTOFARRESTSEESԜ! OFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT 4HECOURTIN/RRIEASSESSEDTHEFAIRNESSOFTHECRIMINALPROCESSIN
AHOLISTICWAY4HECOURTSTATEDASFOLLOWS AT;=
3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONDEALSWITHTHERIGHTSOFARRESTED DETAINEDANDACCUSED
PERSONSANDITISHERE INMYVIEW THATTHERIGHTSOFASUSPECTMUSTBEFOUND.OPRO
VISIONISMADEFORASUSPECTTOBESPECIFICALLYINFORMEDOFTHISSTATUS BUTITSTANDSTO
REASONTHATAPERSONMUSTBEINFORMEDTHATHEORSHEISASUSPECT ORATLEASTBEAWARE
THEREOF INORDERTHATHEORSHECANPROPERLYCONSIDERANDEXERCISEHISORHERRIGHTSBEFORE
INTERACTINGWITHTHEPOLICE

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
4HE RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY DURING
CONSULTATIONWITHTHELEGALPRACTITIONER)NTHEABSENCEOFSTATUTORYAMENDMENTS
A DETAINEE THEREFORE HAS THE RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS LEGAL ADVISER WITHOUT THE
CONVERSATIONBEINGOVERHEARD-OKOENAV#OMMISSIONEROF0RISONS 3!
7
4(%2)'(44/!33)34!.#%$52).'4(%42)!,
'ENERAL
4HERIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONINCRIMINALTRIALSISNOWRECOGNISEDINMOSTLEGAL
SYSTEMS ESPECIALLY THOSE SYSTEMS INFORMED BY THE INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL
HUMANRIGHTSFRAMEWORKSREFERREDTOUNDER ABOVE4HISFUNDAMENTALRIGHTOF
ANACCUSEDISINHERENTINTHEPRINCIPLETHATANACCUSEDMUSTHAVEAFAIRTRIAL
$AVIDS$LADLA 3!. +HANYILE 3!. :UMA 3!
## 4HISRIGHTISNOWENTRENCHEDINSԜ OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
4HEDUTYTOINFORMTHEACCUSEDOFTHERIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION
!RIGHTISOFNOUSETOAPERSONWHOISNOTAWAREOFIT4HE#ONSTITUTIONACCORDING
LYPROVIDESINSԜ B THATTHEACCUSEDPERSONMUSTBEPROMPTLYINFORMEDOFTHE
RIGHTTOCHOOSEANDBEREPRESENTEDBYALEGALPRACTITIONEROFHISORHERCHOICESEE
ALSOSԜ OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT !JUDICIALOFFICERTHEREFOREHASADUTY
TOINFORMANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDTHATHEORSHEHASARIGHTTOBELEGALLYREPRE
SENTED!JUDICIALOFFICERMUSTEXPLAINTHISRIGHTANDPOINTOUTTOTHEACCUSEDTHAT
HEORSHEHASARIGHTTOBEASSISTEDBYALEGALREPRESENTATIVEWITHWHOMHEORSHE
CANCOMMUNICATEINHISORHEROWNLANGUAGEOR INTHEEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES
WHERETHISNOTFEASIBLE THROUGHANINTERPRETER0IENAAR 3!#2.#
!FAILUREONTHEPARTOFAJUDICIALOFFICERTOINFORMANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSED
OFHISORHERLEGALRIGHTS INCLUDINGTHERIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONDEPENDING
ONTHEFACTSINAPARTICULARCASE CANLEADTOACOMPLETEFAILUREOFJUSTICE2ADEBE
3!4 -ABASO 3!! ATCFINPARTICULARTHEMINORITY
JUDGMENTOF-ILNE*!THEFAILURETOINFORMTHEACCUSEDABOUTHISORHERRIGHTTO
LEGALREPRESENTATIONAUTOMATICALLYINVALIDATESTHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGS $
3!#2# -OOS 3!#27 4HEREIS HOWEVER NOPREJUDICE
ANDHENCENOFAILUREOFJUSTICE WHERETHEACCUSEDWOULDINANYEVENTHAVEBEEN
CONVICTED NOTWITHSTANDINGAFAILUREOFAJUDICIALOFFICERTOINFORMHIMOFHISOR
HERRIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION(LANTLALAV$YANTYI 3!#23#!
7HENACOURTEXPLAINSTOANUNDEFENDEDACCUSEDHISORHERRIGHTTOLEGALREP
RESENTATIONANDTHEACCUSED FACINGASERIOUSCHARGE ELECTSTOAPPEARINPERSON
THECOURTSHOULDASKTHEACCUSEDWHYHEORSHEWANTSTOAPPEARINPERSONANDIF
ITAPPEARSTHATTHEACCUSEDISUNDERSOMEMISUNDERSTANDING THATHASTOBEPUT
RIGHT.KONDO 3!#27 -ANALE 3!#2.#
)THASLONGBEENREALISEDTHATONLYTOINFORMTHEACCUSEDABOUTHISORHERRIGHT
TOLEGALREPRESENTATIONWOULDBEWORTHLESSIFHEORSHEISINANYEVENTTOOPOOR
TOAFFORDIT)TWASTHEREFOREDECIDEDBYSOMECOURTSTHATTHEACCUSEDSHOULDFUR
THERMOREBEINFORMEDOFHISORHERRIGHTTOLEGALAIDSEETHEMAJORITYDECISION
IN$AVIDSABOVE ANDCFALSO-THWANA 3!. 4HE#ONSTITUTIONNOW
REQUIRESTHATANACCUSEDBEINFORMEDPROMPTLYTHATHEORSHEHASARIGHTTOHAVEA

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
LEGALREPRESENTATIVEASSIGNEDTOHIMORHERATSTATEEXPENSEIFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICE
WOULD OTHERWISE RESULTSԜ G 3EE ALSO SԜ! OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE
!CT
)N(LANTLALALAV$YANTYI./ ABOVE ITWASHELDTHATTHEFACTTHAT@NOADMINISTRA
TIVEMACHINERYRENDERINGAFREELEGALSERVICEISAVAILABLEINAPARTICULARPARTOFTHE
COUNTRYISUNTENABLE ANDCANNOTBEPROFFEREDASANEXCUSEFORDENYINGASECTION
OF THE 3OUTH !FRICAN SOCIETY MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE IN A PARTICULAR
AREA RIGHTSENJOYEDBYTHERESTOFTHECOUNTRY
4HEDUTYTOAFFORDTHEACCUSEDANOPPORTUNITYTOOBTAINLEGAL
REPRESENTATION
4HECOURTMUSTALWAYSCAREFULLYCONSIDERANAPPLICATIONBYANACCUSEDFORAPOST
PONEMENTINORDERTOENABLEHIMTOOBTAINLEGALREPRESENTATION!REFUSALTOGRANT
SUCHAPOSTPONEMENTMAYINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESAMOUNTTOANIRREGULARITY
3EHERI 3!! 6AN7YK 3!!
7HERE AN ACCUSEDS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE WITHDRAWS FROM THE CASE THE COURT
SHOULD ASK THE ACCUSED WHETHER HE OR SHE WISHES TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
INSTRUCTANOTHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVEANDORWHETHERHEORSHEISREADYTOUNDERTAKE
HISORHEROWNDEFENCEFAILURETODOSOISIRREGULARANDINVALIDATESTHEPROCEED
INGS+HOALI 3!#2/ 4HEABSENCEOFDULYINSTRUCTEDCOUNSELMAY
WELLBEDUETOTHEINDIFFERENCEOFTHELATTERANDREFUSALTOGRANTAPOSTPONEMENT
WILLPREJUDICETHEACCUSED3HABANGU 3!! 'WEBU 3!
7 7HERE HOWEVER ANACCUSEDHADAMPLEOPPORTUNITYTOOBTAINLEGALREPRE
SENTATION AND FAILED TO ARRANGE THIS SUCH ACCUSED CANNOT SUBSEQUENTLY ATTACK
THEPROCEEDINGSUNLESSHEORSHECANFURNISHANACCEPTABLEEXPLANATIONFORTHIS
FAILURE3ECOND 0((2! ANDCF.ONGILA 3!% )FATHIGHER
INSTANCEAREFUSALTOGRANTAPOSTPONEMENTFORTHEPURPOSEOFENABLINGTHEACCUSED
TOOBTAINCOUNSELISHELDTOHAVEBEENIRREGULAR THEIRREGULARITYISOFTHEKINDTHAT
PERSEMUSTHAVEPREJUDICEDTHEACCUSEDAND ACCORDINGLY THECONVICTIONWILLBE
SETASIDEBYTHECOURTOFHIGHERINSTANCEWITHOUTFURTHERADOCF.QULA 3!
% #FALSO.EL 3!.# (OWEVER AREQUESTFORAPOSTPONEMENT
OFTHETRIALINORDERTOENABLETHEACCUSEDTOOBTAINWORKTOPAYFORTHESERVICES
OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS CHOICE IS BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ACCEPTABILITY
3WANEPOEL 3!#2/
)FANACCUSEDPERSONTERMINATESTHEMANDATEOFHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVE
THECOURTOUGHTTOINQUIREINTOTHEREASONSFORTHETERMINATIONAND IFITAPPEARS
THATITISDUETOSOMEOROTHERMISUNDERSTANDING THISHASTOBEPUTRIGHT-ANALE
3!#2.# 4HESAMEAPPLIESTOANACCUSEDFACINGASERIOUSCHARGE
ANDELECTINGTOAPPEARINPERSON.KONDO 3!#27
4
HEROLEOFTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEANDOTHERSINPROVIDINGTHE
ACCUSEDWITHASSISTANCE
!PARTFROMASSISTANCEBYATRAINEDLEGALREPRESENTATIVE ANACCUSEDUNDERTHEAGEOF
YEARSMAYBEASSISTEDBYHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN
INTERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREADWITHSSG B
ANDOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF 3UCHASSISTANCEISNOTSYNONYMOUS

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
WITH LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND THE PARENT APPROPRIATE ADULT OR GUARDIAN HAS NO
GREATERRIGHTTHANALEGALREPRESENTATIVETODECIDEHOWACASESHOULDBECONDUCT
ED!SSEL 3! # #F , 3! # WITH REGARD TO THE
NATUREOFASSISTANCEBYAGUARDIAN
4HE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT @ANY ACCUSED WHO IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT REQUIRES THE ASSISTANCE OF ANOTHER PERSON AT CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS MAY WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT BE SO ASSISTED ATSUCH PRO
CEEDINGSS )THASHAPPENEDTHATAMAGISTRATEHASAUTHORISEDANARTICLED
CLERKCANDIDATEATTORNEY TOASSISTANACCUSEDINTERMSOFTHISSECTION !SSISTANCE
INTERMSOFSCANNOTBEFOISTEDONANACCUSEDEITHERBYACOURTSORDERTHATHE
ORSHEHASTOBEREPRESENTED ORBYAPPOINTMENTOFAREPRESENTATIVEFORSUCHAPUR
POSEIFHEORSHEDOESNOTSEEKIT,ABOVE
!COURTWILLNOTALLOWTHESAMEADVOCATETODEFENDTWOACCUSEDWITHINTERESTS
WHICHCONFLICTINMATERIALRESPECTS-OSELI 3!/ *ACOBS
3!% (OLLENBACH 3!.#
4HEREMAYBECIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHITMAYEVENBEPROPERFORTHEREPRESENTA
TIVEOFTHE3TATETODIRECTTHEATTENTIONOFHISORHEROPPONENTOROFTHEPRESIDING
OFFICIALTOTHEQUESTIONWHETHERCOUNSELFORTHEDEFENCESHOULDNOTWITHDRAWFROM
THECASEBECAUSEOFTHECONFLICTOFINTERESTBETWEENHISORHERCLIENTS.AIDOO
3!!
'ENERALLYANACCUSEDISBOUNDBYWHATISDONEBYHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVE
INTHEEXECUTIONOFHISORHERMANDATEDURINGTHECOURSEOFTHETRIAL-URUVEN
3!.
4HE EFFECT OF THE ENTRENCHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN THE
#ONSTITUTION IS THAT A DETAINED OR ACCUSED PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE OR
COMPETENTLEGALREPRESENTATIONSEEEG(ALGRYN 3!#23#! AT
"EYERSV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ESTERN#APE 3!#2# ,EGAL
!ID"OARD%XPARTE V0RETORIUS;=*/,3#! $U4OIT;=*/,
4 -OFOKENG 3!#27 AND#HABEDI 3!#27 #FALSO
.TULI 3!7 AND-VELASE 3!#27
3/-%).34!.#%37(%2%7)4($2!7!,"9!,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)6%
-!9"%2%15)2%$
#ONFLICTOFINTEREST4WOORMOREACCUSEDREPRESENTEDBYONELAWYER
)THAPPENSFROMTIMETOTIMETHATMULTIPLEACCUSEDPERSONSAREREPRESENTEDBY
THESAMELAWYER4HISDOESNOTCONSTITUTEANETHICALPROBLEMINITSELF(OWEVER
SHOULDACONFLICTOFINTERESTSARISEBETWEENTWOORMOREOFTHEACCUSEDWHOARE
REPRESENTED BY THE SAME LAWYER THE ETHICAL STANDARD IS CLEAR THE LAWYER MUST
WITHDRAWFROMTHECASEANDMUSTTERMINATEHISORHERSERVICESINRESPECTOFALL
THEACCUSEDINVOLVED$U4OITETAL#OMMENTARYn4HECOURTIN$INTWE
3!"' EXPLAINEDTHERATIONALEOFTHECOMPLETEWITHDRAWALFROMTHECASE
ASFOLLOWS AT"n$
;)FTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVE=CONTINUESTOREPRESENTONEOFTHEACCUSED HEWILLBEOBLIGED
TOCROSS EXAMINETHEOTHERASWELLAS POSSIBLY OTHERWITNESSES ASHAPPENEDINTHEPRES
ENTCASE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
(EORSHECANNOTDOTHISPROPERLYWITHOUTMAKINGUSEOFINFORMATIONGAINED
FROMHISORHERFORMERCLIENT THEOTHERACCUSED4OMAKEUSEOFSUCHINFORMATION
WOULDAMOUNTTOAFLAGRANTBREACHOFTHECONFIDENTIALATTORNEY CLIENTRELATIONSHIP
WHICHTHELAWJEALOUSLYPROTECTS/NTHEOTHERHAND THELAWYERMAYFINDTHAT
INATTEMPTINGNOTTOPREJUDICEHISORHERFORMERCLIENT HEORSHELIMITSHISORHER
CROSS EXAMINATIONTOTHEPREJUDICEOFTHEACCUSEDWHOMHEORSHEISCONTINUING
TOREPRESENT
)TISPRUDENTFORAPRESIDINGOFFICERTOMAKEENQUIRIESBEFORETHECOMMENCEMENT
OFATRIALINWHICHASINGLELAWYERAPPEARSFORMULTIPLEACCUSEDPERSONS INORDER
THATANYPOSSIBLECONFLICTOFINTERESTSBETWEENANYOFTHELAWYERSCLIENTSMAYBE
DISCLOSED AND CONSIDERED.GCULU ;= :!3#! UNREPORTED 3#! CASE NO
.OVEMBER AT;=
#ONTRADICTORYINSTRUCTIONSFROMCLIENT
7HEREACLIENTMISLEADSHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVE ORWHEREACLIENTMAKES
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO TAKE PROPER INSTRUCTIONS SUCH A
LEGALREPRESENTATIVEWILLBEPRUDENTTOWITHDRAWFROMTHECASE3EE$U4OITETAL
#OMMENTARYn"!LEGALREPRESENTATIVEWHOCONCLUDESTHATHEORSHESHOULD
WITHDRAWFROMTHECASEONETHICALGROUNDSSHOULDRATHERNOTINFORMTHECOURTOF
THEREASONFORTHEREQUESTTOWITHDRAW BECAUSETHATCOULDAMOUNTTOIMPROPER
CONDUCTONTHEPARTOFTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVE'ROENEWALDV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE
,ADYSMITH 3!#2. ATD
$UTYOFTHECOURTINCASEOFAWITHDRAWALBYALEGALREPRESENTATIVE
7HEREALEGALREPRESENTATIVEWITHDRAWSFROMACASE THEPRESIDINGOFFICERSHOULD
ENQUIREFROMTHEACCUSEDWHETHERHEORSHEWOULDLIKETOINSTRUCTANOTHERLEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE)FTHEACCUSEDELECTSTOFORGOTHEOPPORTUNITYTOINSTRUCTANOTHER
LEGALREPRESENTATIVE THEPRESIDINGOFFICERSHOULDASKWHETHERTHEACCUSEDCANCON
DUCTHISORHEROWNDEFENCE$U4OITETAL#OMMENTARYn"4HEPOSITIONOF
THEINDIGENTACCUSED ORANACCUSEDWHOPOTENTIALLYQUALIFIESFORLEGALASSISTANCE
AT STATE EXPENSE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CONTEXT AS WELL+OK
3!#2.# AT;=
$%&%.$).'4(%!$-)44%$,9'5),49
%VERYLAWSTUDENTANDEVERYPRACTISINGLAWYERCANEXPECT SOONERORLATER THEFOL
LOWINGQUESTIONFROMAFAMILYMEMBER AFRIEND ORAMEMBEROFTHEPUBLIC@7ILL
YOUDEFENDAGUILTYPERSON4HECORRECTANSWERIS OFCOURSE THATITISNOTFORTHE
LAWYERTODECIDEWHETHERHISORHERCLIENTISGUILTYORNOT)TISTHERESPONSIBILITY
OFTHECOURTTODETERMINEGUILT BASEDONTHEEVIDENCEPRESENTEDINCOURT(AVING
SAIDTHAT ANETHICALDILEMMAISPRESENTEDINTHESITUATIONWHEREACLIENTMAKESA
CONFESSIONTOHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVEEITHERBEFOREORDURINGTHECRIMINAL
TRIAL 0ARAGRAPH OF THE 5NIFORM 2ULES OF 0ROFESSIONAL %THICS OF THE 'ENERAL
#OUNCILOFTHE"AROF3OUTH!FRICAPROVIDESFORTHECORRECTETHICALPOSITION4HE
LEGALREPRESENTATIVEMUSTEXPLAINTOHISORHERCLIENTTHATHEORSHEWILLCONTINUE
WITHTHECASE BUTSUBJECTTOTHEFOLLOWINGUNDERSTANDING

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
 &IRST COUNSELMAYNOTASSERTINTHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSSOMETHINGWHICHHE
ORSHEKNOWSTOBEFALSE
 3ECOND COUNSELMAYAPPROPRIATELYARGUETHATTHEEVIDENCEOFFEREDBYTHEPROS
ECUTIONISINSUFFICIENTTOSUPPORTACONVICTIONANDMAYTAKEADVANTAGEOFANY
LEGALMATTERWHICHMIGHTRELIEVETHEACCUSEDOFCRIMINALLIABILITYREMEMBER
THEONUSRESTSONTHE3TATETOPROVEBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTTHEGUILTOFTHE
ACCUSED
 4HIRD COUNSELMAYNOTSETUPANAFFIRMATIVECASEWHICHHEORSHEKNOWSIS
INCONSISTENTWITHTHECONFESSION
 &OURTH IFTHECLIENT HAVINGBEENSOINFORMED DESIRESCOUNSELTOAPPEARON
THISBASIS COUNSELSHOULDCONTINUETOHOLDTHEBRIEFANDACTINACCORDANCE
WITHTHEABOVE MENTIONEDPRINCIPLES
 &IFTH IFTHECLIENTDESIRESCOUNSELTOGIVEUPTHEBRIEF COUNSELMUSTDOSO
#/-0%4%.4,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)/.
!SUBSTANTIVESTANDARDOFlCOMPETENTLAWYERINGm
4HERIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION ASAMANIFESTATIONOFFAIRTRIALRIGHTS WOULDBE
MEANINGLESSIFITDIDNOTPROTECTTHERIGHTTOCOMPETENTLEGALREPRESENTATION!N
ANALYSISOFTHECONSTITUTIONALISEDRIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONISMORETHANJUSTA
MECHANICALINVESTIGATIONINTOTHECONTENTOFAMANDATEITINVOLVESTHESUBSTAN
TIVEQUALITYOFTHELEGALSERVICESRENDERED)N4ANDWA 3!#23#! THE
RIGHTWASARTICULATEDASFOLLOWS AT;=
)NCOMPETENT LAWYERING CAN WRECK A TRIAL THUS VIOLATING THE ACCUSEDS FAIR TRIAL RIGHT
4HERIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONTHEREFOREMEANSARIGHTTOCOMPETENTREPRESENTATIONn
REPRESENTATIONOFAQUALITYANDNATURETHATENSURESTHATTHETRIALISINDEEDFAIR7HEN
ANACCUSEDTHEREFORECOMPLAINSABOUTTHEQUALITYOFLEGALREPRESENTATION THEFOCUSIS
NOLONGER ASBEFORETHE#ONSTITUTION ONLYONTHENATUREOFTHEMANDATETHEACCUSED
CONFERREDONHISLEGALREPRESENTATIVE ORONLYONWHETHERANIRREGULARITYOCCURREDTHAT
VITIATEDTHEPROCEEDINGS THEINQUIRYISINTOTHEQUALITYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONAFFORDED
,EGALPROBLEMSAREBYTHEIRNATUREQUITEOFTENNOTVERYCLEAR CUT ANDTHECORRECT

OR MOST APPROPRIATE LEGAL ADVICE NOT ALWAYS SELF EVIDENT 4HE ABOVE MENTIONED
STANDARD DOES NOT IMPLY THAT WHEN A COURT DISAGREES WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF
COUNSEL THAT IN ITSELF WOULD CONSTITUTE INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE "UT IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT COMPETENT LAWYERING IMPLIES A HIGH
STANDARDANDADUTYALWAYSTOACTINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECLIENT7HETHERA
DEFENCEINACRIMINALCASEWASSOINCOMPETENTTHATITMADETHETRIALUNFAIRIS@A
FACTUALQUESTIONTHATDOESNOTDEPENDUPONTHEDEGREEOFEXPOSTFACTODISSATISFAC
TIONOFTHELITIGANT(ALGRYN 3!#23#! ATH)NDEED CONVICTED
PERSONSAREOFTENDISSATISFIEDWITHTHEOUTCOMEOFTHEIRCASES BUTTHEASSESSMENT
OFWHETHERTHELEGALREPRESENTATIONWASCOMPETENTORNOTINVOLVESANOBJECTIVE
TEST NOTTHESUBJECTIVEMISGIVINGSOFTHEDISAPPOINTEDORDISSATISFIEDCLIENT,OUW
3!! AT$n%
)TISOFCOURSENOTPOSSIBLETOCOMPILEANEXHAUSTIVELISTOFALLPOTENTIALINSTANCES
OF INCOMPETENCE !S NOTED ABOVE IT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED
OBJECTIVELY AND WITH DUE REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN QUESTION
!NOBVIOUSPOTENTIALGROUNDTOFINDTHATALEGALREPRESENTATIVEDIDNOTPROVIDE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
EFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IS A LACK OF BASIC LEGAL KNOWLEDGE 7HILE IT IS NOT
EXPECTEDTHATEVERYPRACTITIONERSHOULDBEANEXPERTINALLAREASOFTHELAW ITCAN
CERTAINLYBEEXPECTEDTHATAPRACTITIONERWHOREPRESENTSANINDIVIDUALINACRIMI
NALMATTERSHOULDBEAWAREOFTHEBASICLEGALFRAMEWORKSANDPRINCIPLESAPPLICABLE
TOTHESITUATIONATHAND)N.EGONDENI;=:!3#!UNREPORTED 3#!CASE
NO 3EPTEMBER THE COURT HELD THAT A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
@APPARENTLACKOFAWARENESSABOUTTHEMINIMUMSENTENCINGPROVISIONSISINDIC
ATIVEOFTHEFACTTHATTHEAPPELLANTDIDNOTHAVETHEQUALITYOFLEGALREPRESENTATION
THATONECOULDREASONABLYEXPECT ESPECIALLYINSOGRAVELYSERIOUSACASE AT;=
4HERIGHTTOCOMPETENTLAWYERINGISNOTLIMITEDTOTHETRIALITSELFBUTEXTENDS
TOPRE TRIALLEGALREPRESENTATIONASWELL)N3ALOMAN 3!#27## THE
COURTCONSIDEREDTHECOMPETENCEOFTHELEGALREPRESENTATIONDURINGPRE TRIALQUES
TIONINGOFANACCUSEDBYTHEPOLICE4HEACCUSEDSATTORNEYWASPRESENTDURINGTHE
QUESTIONING2EGARDINGTHECOMPETENCEOFTHEATTORNEYDURINGTHEQUESTIONING
THECOURTOBSERVEDASFOLLOWS AT;=
4HISEVIDENCE READASAWHOLE SUPPORTSFIRSTAPPELLANTSCASETHAT BYHISFAILURETOINTER
VENEINTHEINTERESTSOFHISCLIENT ;HISATTORNEYS=CONDUCTFELLWELLSHORTOFTHATWHICH
COULDREASONABLYBECONSIDEREDTOBEEFFECTIVEASSISTANCETOACLIENTWITHINTHECONTEXT
FACEDBYFIRSTAPPELLANT;4HEATTORNEY=MADEABSOLUTELYNOEFFORTTOPROTECTHISCLIENTS
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS(EFAILEDTOINTERVENEWHENTHESTATEMENTWHICHWASMADEBYHIS
CLIENTTOTHEPOLICEDEVIATEDSIGNIFICANTLYFROMTHATWHICHHADBEENTHEPRODUCTOFTHE
CONSULTATIONBETWEENHIMSELFANDHISCLIENT)NHISOWNWORDS HEWASSURPRISEDAND
SHOCKEDATTHECONTENTSOFFIRSTAPPELLANTSSTATEMENTTO;THEPOLICE=(EMADENOATTEMPT
TOINTERVENEINORDERTOPROCUREANOPPORTUNITYTOCONSULTWITHHISCLIENT PURSUANTTO
THEALTEREDSTATEMENTWHICHWASBEINGMADETO;THEPOLICE=INORDER ATTHEVERYLEAST TO
WARNHISCLIENTOFTHEIMPLICATIONSOFTHECONTENTOFHISNEWSTATEMENT
4HE DECISION IN 3ALOMAN ILLUSTRATES THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF THE PRE TRIAL AND
TRIALPROCESSES#OMPETENTLAWYERINGMUSTOCCURTHROUGHOUTTHEWHOLEPROCESS
4HE CONDUCT OF THE ATTORNEY IN 3ALOMAN ULTIMATELY AFFECTED THE FAIRNESS OF THE
TRIALITSELF
4HERIGHTTOEFFECTIVELEGALREPRESENTATIONALSOEXTENDSTOTHEPOST TRIALPHASE
OFTHECRIMINALPROCESS NAMELYAPPEALANDREVIEW.TULI 3!#27
ATFnG
#OUNSELMUSTBEELIGIBLETOAPPEARBEFORECOURT
,AWYERSMUSTNOTONLYPROVIDEEFFECTIVELEGALREPRESENTATIONBUTSHOULDALSOBE
ELIGIBLETOAPPEARBEFORECOURT)FAPERSONREPRESENTINGSOMEONETURNSOUTTOBE
INELIGIBLETOPERFORMTHEROLEOFDEFENCECOUNSEL SUCHCONDUCTMAYVERYWELLBE
REGARDED AS AN IRREGULARITY THAT VITIATES THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 4HE COURT IN
-BUYISA 3!#2'* *$2'* DECLINEDTOFOLLOWTHEPRAG
MATICANDRATHERLENIENTAPPROACHTAKENIN#HUKWU 3!#2'.0 )N
#HUKWUTHECOURTWASWILLINGTOEXCUSETHECONDUCTOFALAWYERWHOINITIALLYAP
PEAREDINTHEMATTERASACANDIDATEATTORNEYWITHRIGHTSOFAUDIENCE4HERIGHTSOF
AUDIENCELAPSEDBEFORETHECONCLUSIONOFTHETRIAL4HECOURTIN#HUKWUCASTIGATED
THE LAWYER WHO APPEARED WITHOUT RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE BUT WAS NOT WILLING TO SET
ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS 4HE COURT BELIEVED THAT THE IRREGULARITY IN QUESTION DID
NOTAFFECTTHEFAIRNESSOFTHETRIALASAWHOLEANDCONCLUDEDTHATTHEPROCEEDINGS
HAD BEEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUSTICE 4HE COURT IN -BUYISA DISAGREED AND HELD

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
THATTHERECANNOTBE@ANYMIDDLEGROUNDANDTHEREFORETHERECANBENOSPACETO
INTRUDEPRAGMATICCONSIDERATIONSAT;= 4HECOURTNOTED AT;=
4HE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM OF LITIGATION TO WHICH WE ADHERE IS PREMISED ON A PROFESSION
OF LICENSCED LEGAL PRACTITIONERS WHOSE ROLE IS TO ASSIST THE COURTS IN PERFORMING THEIR
ADJUDICATIVEFUNCTION4HELICENSINGOFTHESEINDEPENDENTPROFESSIONALINTERMEDIARIESIS
NOTAMEREFORMALITY2ATHER THEINSISTENCEONTHEMATERIALITYOFREPRESENTATIVESBEING
LICENSED IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE VERY SYSTEM ITSELF 4HE RELIANCE OF THE COURTS UPON
PERSONSWHOHAVEBEENACCORDEDARIGHTOFAUDIENCEISHEAVY NOTONLYFORTHEIRSKILLSIN
COURTCRAFT BUTBECAUSETHEYAREBOUNDBYANETHICALCODETHATADDRESSESTHECONSIDER
ABLEZONEOFTHEUNSEEN WHICHISANIMPORTANTDIMENSIONOFTHEROLEASREPRESENTATIVE
OFPERSONSWHOCOMEBEFORETHECOURTS
)T MAY BE TEMPTING TO FOLLOW THE MORE OUTCOME BASED OR RESULTS ORIENTATED
APPROACHTAKENIN#HUKWU(OWEVER ITISSUBMITTEDTHATTHESTRICTAPPROACHIN
-BUYISA SERVES AN IMPORTANT FUNCTION NAMELY THE PRESERVATION OF PROFESSIONAL
ANDACCOUNTABLELAWYERING4HEPUBLICINTEREST THEFUNCTIONINGOFTHECRIMINAL
JUSTICESYSTEM ANDTHEFAIRNESSOFTHEPROCESSARENOTJEOPARDISEDBYSUCHASTRICT
APPROACH4HEAPPROPRIATEREMEDYISTOSETASIDETHEPROCEEDINGSINWHICHTHEIN
ELIGIBLELAWYERAPPEAREDHOWEVER THE3TATECANTHENDECIDEWHETHERTOINSTITUTE
FRESHPROCEEDINGS3UCHPROCEEDINGSMUSTTAKEPLACEBEFOREADIFFERENTPRESIDING
OFFICER-BUYISAAT;=
4(%,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)6%m3#/.42/,/&4(%$%&%.#%#!3%
#OMMONLAWANDCONSTITUTIONALPRINCIPLES
&ORTHEDURATIONOFALEGALREPRESENTATIVESMANDATE HEORSHEISINCOMPLETECON
TROL OF THE DEFENCE CASE$U 4OIT ET AL #OMMENTARY n "OTHA 3!#2
%#0 $E"EER 3!#2'0 AT;=/KAH 3!#2## AT
;=4HISCOMMON LAWPRINCIPLEMUSTBEAPPLIEDWITHDUEREGARDTOTHECONSTITU
TIONALRIGHTTOCOMPETENTLEGALREPRESENTATIONCFALSOABOVE4HECOMMON LAW
PRINCIPLETHATTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEISIN@COMPLETECONTROLOFTHEDEFENCECASE
IS THUS QUALIFIED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE CLIENT 4HE QUALITY OF THE
LEGALREPRESENTATIONMUSTBECONSIDEREDTODETERMINETHEPARAMETERSOFTHELEGAL
REPRESENTATIVESCONTROLOVERTHEDEFENCECASE)TMUSTBESTRESSED HOWEVER THAT
THELEGALREPRESENTATIVESCONTROLOVERTHEPRESENTATIONOFTHEDEFENCECASESHOULD
NOTWITHOUTGOODREASONBEINTERFEREDWITH3TRATEGICDECISIONSLIKETHECALLINGOF
WITNESSES CROSS EXAMINATIONOFSTATEWITNESSESANDSOFORTHARETYPICALLYMATTERS
BESTDEALTWITHBYTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEANDNOTBYTHECLIENT
4HEPASSIVEDEFENCERIGHT CONTROLOFTHEDEFENCECASEANDLEGALETHICS

!NACCUSEDPERSONHASAPASSIVEDEFENCERIGHTANDISUNDERNOOBLIGATIONTOASSIST
THEPROSECUTIONINITSCASE$U4OITETAL#OMMENTARYn#OUPLEDWITHTHE
PASSIVE DEFENCE RIGHT IS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES COMMON LAW RIGHT TO CONTROL
THE DEFENCE CASE 4HE PASSIVE DEFENCE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED AND THE LEGAL REPRE
SENTATIVES CONTROL OF THE DEFENCE CASE DO NOT ABSOLVE THE DEFENCE LAWYER FROM
THEGENERALETHICALDUTYWHICHBINDSEVERYDEFENCECOUNSEL,EGALREPRESENTATIVES
SHOULDTHEREFOREAVOIDSTRATEGIESTHATAREONLYDESIGNED FORINSTANCE TOCAUSEUN
NECESSARY QUESTIONING THUS CAUSING AN EXCESSIVELY LONG RECORD OR UNNECESSARY

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TECHNICALOBJECTIONSTHATDONOTASSISTTOCLARIFYMATTERS-OTLHABAKWE
3!.# AT%n&)NDEED CONTROLOFTHEDEFENCECASEDOESNOTABSOLVEALEGAL
REPRESENTATIVEOFHISORHERETHICALDUTYTOWARDSTHECOURTANDTHEPROCESS
,EGALREPRESENTATIVEmSDUTYTOGIVEADVICE
4HELEGALREPRESENTATIVEOFTHEACCUSEDCONTROLSTHEPRESENTATIONOFTHEDEFENCE
CASE4HISINCLUDESADVICETOTHEACCUSEDONWHETHERTHEACCUSEDSHOULDTESTIFY
INHISORHEROWNDEFENCE4HISCANBEAVERYCONSEQUENTIALMATTERANDLEGALREP
RESENTATIVESSHOULDACTWITHDUECAREANDCONSIDERATIONFORTHEBESTINTERESTSOF
THEIRCLIENTS7HEREATRIALRESULTSINACONVICTION ITDOESNOTMEANTHATTHELEGAL
REPRESENTATIVESADVICEWASWRONG4HETESTISALWAYS$IDTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVE
CONDUCTTHECASEINACCORDANCEWITHTHESTANDARDSOFHISORHERPROFESSION AND
WITH DUE REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 3EE IN GENERAL 4ANDWA
3!#23#! $ANIELS 3!#23#! $U4OITETAL#OMMENTARY
nn
4(%!##%33)"),)49/&,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)/.
,EGALASSISTANCEAT3TATEEXPENSE
4HERIGHTTOCOUNSEL WHICHISPROVIDEDFORINSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
ANDPROTECTEDUNDERTHE#ONSTITUTION ISPARTOFABROADERREQUIREMENTOFPROCE
DURALEQUALITYFORALLCITIZENS RICHANDPOOR7HILETHERICHHAVEALWAYSENJOYED
THEIRRIGHTTOPURCHASETHEIROWNDEFENCESERVICESANDHAVEALWAYSENJOYEDEFFEC
TIVEREMEDIES THEPLIGHTOFTHEINDIGENTACCUSEDWHOISTOOPOORTOAFFORDLEGAL
SERVICES HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN RECOGNISED IN THE PRACTICE OF APPOINTING PRO $EO
COUNSELFORACCUSEDINCERTAINSERIOUSCASESASTEPFORWARDINMAKINGLEGALSER
VICESACCESSIBLETOTHEPOOR!LTHOUGHTHEPRACTICEOFAPPOINTINGPRO$EOCOUNSEL
FOR THE INDIGENT HAS DEEP AND COMMENDABLE HISTORICAL ROOTS IN 3OUTH !FRICA IT
MUSTBENOTEDTHATTHISPRACTICEWASINADEQUATEINTERMSOFTHEPROVISIONOFLEGAL
AIDTOTHEPOORIN3OUTH!FRICA4HESITUATIONWASCOMPOUNDEDBY3OUTH!FRICAS
SOCIO POLITICALCOMPLEXITIES&ORHISTORICALANDCRITICALPERSPECTIVESONLEGALAIDFOR
THEINDIGENTIN3OUTH!FRICA SEE!BRAMOWITZ3!,*"ERAT'EORGIA
*OURNAL OF )NTERNATIONAL #OMPARATIVE ,AW /N THE PRO $EO SYSTEM PRIOR TO
SEETHEEXPOSITIONIN-AKHANDELA 3!#27 CnF
)NORDERTOADDRESSTHEISSUEOFLEGALAIDTOTHEINDIGENTINAMORESYSTEMATICWAY
THE,EGAL!ID!CTOFWASADOPTEDTOPROVIDEFORA,EGAL!ID"OARDWHICH
HADASITSAIMSTHEGRANTINGORMAKINGAVAILABLEOFLEGALAIDTONEEDYPERSONS4HE
BOARDHADTHECAPACITY INTERALIA TOPROCURETHESERVICESOFLEGALPRACTITIONERSAND
TOSTIPULATETHECONDITIONSUNDERWHICHLEGALAIDWASTOBEGIVEN
)N2UDMAN-THWANA 3!#2! ITWASSTATEDTHATAWORTHYIDEALTO
BEPURSUEDINANYCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMISTHEPRINCIPLETHATEACHPERSONWHOIS
ACCUSEDOFASERIOUSCRIMEANDISNOTABLETOAFFORDLEGALREPRESENTATIONSHOULDBE
PROVIDEDWITHLEGALREPRESENTATIONATSTATESEXPENSEINORDERTOAVOIDANUNFAIR
TRIAL
4HE POST DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL DISPENSATION REQUIRED IMPORTANT
REFORMSINTHEAREAOFLEGALAID3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMUST
THEREFOREBEREADWITHTHE,EGAL!ID3OUTH!FRICA!CTOF@THE,!3!!CT

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
WHICHWASENACTEDANDBUILDSONTHETRADITIONOFLEGALAIDIN3OUTH!FRICA BUT
WITHDUEREGARDTOTHECONSTITUTIONALANDDEMOCRATICNORMSTHATSHOULDUNDERPIN
ANYLEGALAIDDISPENSATION)TENTEREDINTOFORCEON-ARCHANDREPEALSTHE
,EGAL!ID!CTOF4HE,!3!!CTCONTAINSIMPORTANTTRANSITIONALPROVISIONS
INORDERTOPROVIDEFORTHECONTINUATIONOFLEGALAIDTHATWASPROVIDEDUNDERTHE
PREVIOUS!CTOF4HE,!3!!CTAIMSTOENSUREACCESSTOJUSTICEANDTHEREALI
SATION OF THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AS ENVISAGED )N THE
#ONSTITUTION !N ENTITY CALLED ,EGAL !ID 3OUTH !FRICA @,!3! WITH A BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ISESTABLISHED)TFURTHERPROVIDESFORTHECREATIONOFVARIOUSCOMMITTEES
BYTHEBOARDOFDIRECTORSANDOTHERORGANISATIONALANDINSTITUTIONALMATTERS
&ORPRESENTPURPOSES WEWILLFOCUSONTHEFOLLOWINGASPECTS4HE!CTPROVIDES
FORTHEPROVISIONOFLEGALAIDBYDIRECTIONOFTHECOURTSINCRIMINALMATTERS AND
FORTHEMAKINGOFREGULATIONSTHATARENECESSARYFORTHEPROPERANDORDERLYFUNC
TIONINGOFLEGALAIDIN3OUTH!FRICA)NTHISREGARDONECANNOTETHECOMPILATION
OFTHE,EGAL!ID-ANUALTHATISALSOPROVIDEDFORINTHE!CT
3ECTION OF THE !CT WHICH SHOULD BE READ WITH S ! OF THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE !CT IS OF IMPORTANCE FOR PRESENT PURPOSES 3ECTION A PROVIDES
FORLEGALAIDBYDIRECTIONOFCRIMINALCOURTS!COURTINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSMAY
ONLYDIRECTTHATAPERSONBEPROVIDEDWITHLEGALREPRESENTATIONATSTATEEXPENSE IF
THECOURTHASCONSIDEREDTHEFOLLOWING
THEPERSONALCIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEACCUSEDPERSONS A I
THENATUREANDGRAVITYOFTHECHARGEONWHICHTHEPERSONISTOBETRIEDOROF
WHICHHEORSHEHASBEENCONVICTED ASTHECASEMAYBES A II
WHETHER ANY OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT STATE EXPENSE IS AVAILABLE OR HAS
BEENPROVIDEDS A III AND
ANYOTHERFACTORWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURTSHOULDBETAKENINTOAC
COUNTS A IV
3ECTION B PROVIDESTHAT FURTHERTOTHEABOVEFACTORS THECOURTMUST SUB
JECTTOS REFERTHEMATTER TOGETHERWITHANYREPORTTHECOURTMAYCONSIDER
NECESSARY FORTHEATTENTIONOF,!3! FOREVALUATIONANDREPORTBY,!3! WHICH
MUST MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER THE PERSON CONCERNED QUALIFIES FOR
LEGALREPRESENTATION!COURTMAYONLYREFERAMATTERINTERMSOFS B IFTHE
PERSONCONCERNED
HASAPPLIEDTO,!3!FORLEGALREPRESENTATIONATSTATEEXPENSES A I
HASBEENREFUSEDLEGALREPRESENTATIONATSTATEEXPENSEBY,!3!S A II
AND
HAS EXHAUSTED HIS OR HER INTERNAL RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN THE STRUCTURES OF
,!3!AGAINSTTHEREFUSALS A III
HASAPPLIEDFORLEGALREPRESENTATIONANDHASNOTRECEIVEDANYRESPONSETOTHE
APPLICATIONWITHINAREASONABLETIMES B OR
HASBEENREFUSEDLEGALREPRESENTATIONATSTATEEXPENSEBY,!3!ANDTHECOURT
BELIEVESTHEREARECIRCUMSTANCESTHATNEEDTOBEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOF
,!3!BYTHECOURTINAREPORTS C
!NYDECISIONBY,!3!RELATINGTOTHELEGALPRACTITIONERASSIGNEDTOANYPERSON THE
FEETOBEPAIDBY,!3!TOAPRACTITIONER THENUMBEROFLEGALPRACTITIONERSTOBE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ASSIGNEDTOAPERSONORGROUPOFPERSONS ORTHECONTRIBUTIONIFANY TOBEPAIDTO

,!3!BYTHEPERSONSINQUESTION ASWELLASHOW ANDWHEN THEFEEISTOBEPAID IS
SUBJECTTOREVIEWBYTHE(IGH#OURTATTHEINSTANCEOFTHEPERSONAFFECTEDTHEREBY
S A
!LTHOUGHLEGALAIDIS INPRINCIPLE AVAILABLETOALLACCUSEDPERSONSWHOWOULD
NORMALLYQUALIFYFORLEGALAIDINTERMSOFTHE!CT ITISIMPORTANTTONOTETHATNO
ACCUSED PERSON MAY RECEIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT STATE EXPENSE IF THAT PERSON
HASAPPLIEDFORTHERELEASEOFANAMOUNTFORREASONABLELEGALEXPENSESINTERMS
OFS B OFTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED#RIME!CTOF@0/#! AND
WHERETHECOURTHASTURNEDDOWNTHEAPPLICATIONDUETOALACKOFFULLDISCLOSURE
ASREQUIREDINTERMSOFS B OF0/#!
,%'!,2%02%3%.4!4)/./&#(),$2%.
'ENERAL
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFCAMEINTOOPERATIONON!PRIL4HIS!CT
CREATED A NEW AND COMPLETELY SEPARATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR A CHILD SUS
PECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE
!CHILD LIKEANYADULT HASARIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONASPROVIDEDFORINS
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HEDISCUSSIONABOVEISTHEREFOREEQUALLYAPPLICABLETOCHIL
DREN)NTHISPART THEPRINCIPLESTHATHAVEBEENSPECIFICALLYDESIGNEDTOCATERFOR
THESPECIALNEEDSOFCHILDRENWHOAREINCONFLICTWITHTHELAWWILLBEHIGHLIGHTED
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTCONTAINSPROVISIONSREGULATINGACCESSBYCHILDRENINCON
FLICTWITHTHELAWTOLEGALREPRESENTATIONDURINGEVERYSTAGEOFTHECRIMINALPROCESS
4HE!CTLAYSDOWNGUIDINGPRINCIPLESTHATMUSTBECONSIDEREDINTHEAPPLICATION
OF THE !CT /NE OF THESE PRINCIPLES IS THAT THE PARENTS APPROPRIATE ADULTS AND
GUARDIANSSHOULDBEABLETOASSISTCHILDRENINPROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFTHE!CTAND
WHEREVERPOSSIBLE PARTICIPATEINDECISIONSAFFECTINGTHECHILDRENSG
)NTERMSOFS OFTHIS!CT ALEGALREPRESENTATIVEREPRESENTINGACHILDMUST
A ALLOWTHECHILD ASFARASISREASONABLYPOSSIBLE TOGIVEINDEPENDENTINSTRUC
TIONSCONCERNINGTHECASE
B EXPLAINTHECHILDSRIGHTSANDDUTIESINRELATIONTOANYPROCEEDINGSUNDERTHE
!CTINAMANNERAPPROPRIATETOTHEAGEANDINTELLECTUALDEVELOPMENTOFTHE
CHILD
C PROMOTE DIVERSION WHERE APPROPRIATE BUT MAY NOT UNDULY INFLUENCE THE
CHILDTOACKNOWLEDGERESPONSIBILITY
D ENSURETHATTHEASSESSMENT PRELIMINARYINQUIRY TRIALORANYOTHERPROCEED
INGSINWHICHTHECHILDISINVOLVEDARECONCLUDEDWITHOUTDELAYANDDEALWITH
THEMATTERINAMANNERTOENSURETHATTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDAREALWAYS
ACCORDEDPARAMOUNTIMPORTANCEAND
E UPHOLDTHEHIGHESTSTANDARDSOFETHICALBEHAVIOURANDPROFESSIONALCONDUCT
3ECTION OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTPROVIDESTHATACHILDWHOAPPEARSBEFOREA
CHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYNOTBEREQUIREDTOPLEADUNLESSHEORSHEHASBEENGRANTED
AREASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTOOBTAINCOUNSEL ORCOUNSELHASBEENAPPOINTEDTOAS
SISTTHECHILD3EE ALSO +ARELSETAL#HILD/FFENDERSIN3OUTH!FRICAN#RIMINAL*USTICE


#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
4HERIGHTTOLEGALASSISTANCEOFCHILDRENINTHEPRE TRIALSTAGEOFTHE

CRIMINALPROCESS
*HQHUDO
7HENEVERCHILDRENCOMEINTOCONFLICTWITHTHELAW THE#HILD*USTICE!CTMAKES
PROVISION FOR SPECIAL MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN
RECEIVEDUERECOGNITIONINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM$URINGTHEPRE TRIALSTAGE
OFTHECRIMINALPROCESSTHE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFORCHILDRENTOBEARRESTEDAND
DETAINEDINCERTAINLIMITEDCIRCUMSTANCESONLY)RRESPECTIVEOFWHETHERACHILDIS
ARRESTEDANDDETAINEDORNOT THE!CTREQUIRESTHATACHILDBEASSESSEDBYAPROBA
TIONOFFICERANDTHATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYBEHELDINCOURTTODETERMINEWHETHER
THEMATTERSHOULDBEDIVERTEDORWHETHERTHECHILDSHOULDBECHARGEDINACHILD
JUSTICECOURTWITHTHEOFFENCEALLEGEDLYCOMMITTEDBYHIM3EE ALSO +ARELSETAL
#HILD/FFENDERSIN3OUTH!FRICAN#RIMINAL*USTICE
$VVHVVPHQW
"EFORETHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY APROBATIONOFFICERMUSTASSESSTHECHILDS
UNLESS DISPENSED WITH BY THE PROSECUTOR OR INQUIRY MAGISTRATESS AND
OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
4HEPURPOSEOFANASSESSMENTISTO
A ESTABLISHWHETHERACHILDMAYBEINNEEDOFCAREANDPROTECTIONINORDERTO
REFERTHECHILDTOACHILDRENSCOURTINTERMSOFSSOR
B ESTIMATETHEAGEOFTHECHILDIFTHEAGEISUNCERTAIN
C GATHERINFORMATIONRELATINGTOANYPREVIOUSCONVICTION PREVIOUSDIVERSIONOR
PENDINGCHARGEINRESPECTOFTHECHILD
D FORMULATE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE RELEASE OR DETENTION AND PLACE
MENTOFTHECHILD
E WHEREAPPROPRIATE ESTABLISHTHEPROSPECTSFORDIVERSIONOFTHEMATTER
F INTHECASEOFACHILDUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSORACHILDREFERREDTOINS B
ACHILDBETWEENTHEAGESOFANDWHOISUNLIKELYTOHAVECRIMINALCAPAC
ITY ESTABLISHWHATMEASURESNEEDTOBETAKENINTERMSOFSEGREFERRALTOA
CHILDRENSCOURT COUNSELLING THERAPY ETC
G INTHECASEOFACHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS
EXPRESSAVIEWONWHETHEREXPERTEVIDENCEREFERREDTOINS ONTHECHILDS
CRIMINALCAPACITYORLACKTHEREOF WOULDBEREQUIRED
H DETERMINEWHETHERTHECHILDHASBEENUSEDBYANADULTTOCOMMITTHECRIME
INQUESTIONAND
I PROVIDEANYOTHERRELEVANTINFORMATIONREGARDINGTHECHILDWHICHTHEPROBA
TIONOFFICERMAYCONSIDERTOBEINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDORWHICHMAY
FURTHERANYOBJECTIVEWHICHTHIS!CTINTENDSTOACHIEVES
4HEPROBATIONOFFICERMUSTEXPLAINTHEPURPOSEOFTHEASSESSMENTTOTHECHILD
INFORM THE CHILD OF HIS OR HER RIGHTS IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER EXPLAIN TO THE
CHILD THE IMMEDIATE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED AND ENQUIRE FROM THE CHILD
WHETHERORNOTHEORSHEINTENDSACKNOWLEDGINGRESPONSIBILITYFORTHEOFFENCEIN
QUESTIONS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE PROBATION OFFICER MAY PERMIT ANY PERSON WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES THE
LEGALREPRESENTATIVEOFTHECHILD WHOSEPRESENCEISNECESSARYORDESIRABLEFORTHE
ASSESSMENTTOATTENDTHEASSESSMENTS C 4HEPROBATIONOFFICERMAY ATANY
STAGE DURING THE ASSESSMENT CONSULT EVEN PRIVATELYS WITH ANY PERSON
WHOMAYPROVIDEINFORMATIONNECESSARYFORTHEASSESSMENTS !NYINFOR
MATIONPROVIDEDDURINGANASSESSMENTISCONFIDENTIALANDMAYONLYBEUTILISED
FORAPURPOSEAUTHORISEDBYTHE!CTS A 3UCHINFORMATIONISINADMISSIBLE
ASEVIDENCEDURINGANYBAILAPPLICATION PLEA TRIALORSENTENCINGPROCEEDINGSIN
WHICHTHECHILDAPPEARSS B
3UHOLPLQDU\LQTXLU\
! PRELIMINARY INQUIRY IN RESPECT OF A CHILD IS AN INFORMAL PRE TRIAL PROCEDURE
WHICHISINQUISITORIALINNATUREANDMAYBEHELDINACOURTORANYOTHERSUITABLE
PLACES OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT)NTERMSOFSOFTHE!CT NOTHINGINTHE
!CTPREVENTSACHILDFROMBEINGREPRESENTEDBYALEGALREPRESENTATIVEATAPRELIMI
NARYINQUIRY
4HEOBJECTIVESOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYARETO
A CONSIDERTHEASSESSMENTREPORTOFTHEPROBATIONOFFICER WITHPARTICULARREFER
ENCETO
I THEAGEESTIMATIONOFTHECHILD IFTHEAGEISUNCERTAIN
II THEVIEWOFTHEPROBATIONOFFICERREGARDINGTHECRIMINALCAPACITYOFTHE
CHILDIFTHECHILDISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSANDA
DECISIONWHETHERANEVALUATIONOFTHECRIMINALCAPACITYOFTHECHILDBYA
SUITABLYQUALIFIEDPERSONREFERREDTOINS ISNECESSARYAND
III WHETHERAFURTHERANDMOREDETAILEDASSESSMENTOFTHECHILDISNEEDEDAS
REFERREDTOINS G
B ESTABLISHWHETHERTHEMATTERCANBEDIVERTEDBEFOREPLEA
C IDENTIFYASUITABLEDIVERSIONOPTION WHEREAPPLICABLE
D ESTABLISHWHETHERTHEMATTERSHOULDBEREFERREDINTERMSOFSTOACHILDRENS
COURTREFERREDTOINSOFTHE#HILDRENS!CT
E ENSURETHATALLAVAILABLEINFORMATIONRELEVANTTOTHECHILD HISORHERCIRCUM
STANCESANDTHEOFFENCEARECONSIDEREDINORDERTOMAKEADECISIONONDIVER
SIONANDPLACEMENTOFTHECHILD
F ENSURETHATTHEVIEWSOFALLPERSONSPRESENTARECONSIDEREDBEFOREADECISIONIS
TAKEN
G ENCOURAGETHEPARTICIPATIONOFTHECHILDANDHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATE
ADULTORAGUARDIANINDECISIONSCONCERNINGTHECHILDAND
H DETERMINETHERELEASEORPLACEMENTOFACHILD PENDING
I THECONCLUSIONOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
II THEAPPEARANCEOFTHECHILDINACHILDJUSTICECOURTOR
III THEREFERRALOFTHEMATTERTOACHILDRENSCOURT WHEREAPPLICABLES
1DWLRQDOLQVWUXFWLRQWRWKHSROLFH
!SREQUIREDBYS A OFTHE!CT THE.ATIONAL#OMMISSIONEROF0OLICEISSUEDA
.ATIONAL)NSTRUCTIONINTERMSOFSOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOF
REGULATINGARANGEOFISSUES0ARAGRAPHSnOFTHE.ATIONAL)NSTRUCTION

#(!04%2r4(%2)'(44/,%'!,!33)34!.#%
SOISSUEDIN'OVERNMENT'AZETTEOF3EPTEMBER PROVIDEFORACHILDIN
CONFLICTWITHTHELAWTOBEASSISTEDBYHISORHERPARENT GUARDIANORANAPPROPRI
ATEADULTANDTOCONSULTWITHORHAVEHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVEPRESENTWHILE
MAKINGANADMISSION ACONFESSION APOINTING OUTORAPPEARINGASASUSPECTON
ANIDENTITYPARADE
4HESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE INTERNAL DIRECTIVES THAT ARE BINDING ON POLICE OFFICIALS
ANDWHICH IFNOTCOMPLIEDWITH MAYRESULTININTERNALDISCIPLINARYACTIONTAKEN
AGAINSTTHERESPONSIBLEPOLICEOFFICIAL

#(!04%2
4HEACCUSEDHISORHER
PRESENCEASAPARTY
'0+EMP
3DJH
).4%2.!4)/.!, #/-0!2!4)6%!.$#/.34)454)/.!,
"!#+'2/5.$
%8#%04)/.34/4(%25,%
4RIALINABSENCEOFACCUSEDONACCOUNTOFHISMISBEHAVIOUR
!BSENCEOFACCUSEDWHERETHEREISMORETHANONEACCUSED
%VIDENCEBYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISIONORSIMILAR
ELECTRONICMEDIA
0OSTPONEMENTOFCERTAINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHROUGH
AUDIOVISUALLINK
0AYMENTOFFINEWITHOUTAPPEARANCEINCOURTADMISSIONOF
GUILT rS
#/-0/5.$).'/&-)./2/&&%.#%3rS
3ECTIONr!CCESSTOCOURTS
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOHAVEANYDISPUTETHATCANBERESOLVEDBYTHEAPPLICATIONOFLAW
DECIDEDINAFAIRPUBLICHEARINGBYACOURTOR WHEREAPPROPRIATE ANOTHERINDEPENDENT
ANDIMPARTIALTRIBUNALORFORUM
F TOAPUBLICTRIALBEFOREANORDINARYCOURT

H TOBEPRESENTWHENBEINGTRIED
L TOADDUCEANDCHALLENGEEVIDENCE


#(!04%2r4(%!##53%$()3/2(%202%3%.#%!3!0!249
3ECTION r7RITTENNOTICETOAPPEARATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
4HEPROVISIONSOFSECTION F OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTRELATINGTOANADMIS
SIONOFGUILTANDPAYMENTOFAFINEDONOTAPPLYTOAWRITTENNOTICEINTERMSOFTHIS!CT

).4%2.!4)/.!, #/-0!2!4)6%!.$#/.34)454)/.!,"!#+'2/5.$
!PUBLICTRIAL INTHEPRESENCEOFTHEACCUSED ISTHEGENERALNORMINCRIMINALPRO
CEDURE4HISISTHECASEINMOSTLEGALSYSTEMS ANDTHISNORMISALSOPROTECTEDIN
SEVERALINTERNATIONALANDREGIONALHUMANRIGHTSINSTRUMENTS!RTICLE D OF
THE)NTERNATIONAL#OVENANTON#IVILAND0OLITICAL2IGHTS WHICHWASSIGNED
BY3OUTH!FRICA PROVIDESFORTHERIGHTOFEVERYACCUSEDPERSON@;TO=BETRIEDINHIS
PRESENCE ANDTODEFENDHIMSELFINPERSONORTHROUGHLEGALASSISTANCEOFHISOWN
CHOOSING/THERINTERNATIONALANDREGIONALHUMANRIGHTSINSTRUMENTSTHATPRO
VIDEFORSOMEOROTHERVARIATIONOFTHERIGHTOFTHEACCUSEDTOBETRIEDINHISOR
HERPRESENCEARETHE%UROPEAN#ONVENTIONFORTHE0ROTECTIONOF(UMAN2IGHTS
AND&REEDOMS THE!RAB#HARTERON(UMAN2IGHTS ANDTHE!FRICAN
#HARTER ON (UMAN AND 0EOPLES 2IGHTS 3EE FURTHER !MBOS 0OSCHADEL
5TRECHT,AW2EVIEW 4HESTATUTESOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT
AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS SUCH AS THE )NTERNATIONAL #RIMINAL
4RIBUNALFORTHE&ORMER9UGOSLAVIAANDTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL4RIBUNALFOR
2WANDADONOTEXPLICITLYPROVIDEFORTRIALSINTHEABSENCEOFTHEACCUSED0OELS
.ETHERLANDS1UARTERLYOF(UMAN2IGHTS
4HEPRINCIPLETHATANACCUSEDSHOULDBEPRESENTFORHISORHERTRIALISTHUSWELL
ESTABLISHEDINMOSTJURISDICTIONS4HEREAREEXCEPTIONSTOTHISGENERALRULE ASWE
WILLALSOSEEWITHRESPECTTOTHEPOSITIONIN3OUTH!FRICA BELOW4HEREAREALSOA
GROWINGNUMBEROFSTATESTHATACCEPTTHENOTIONOFINABSENTIATRIALSFORCERTAIN
CRIMESUNDERINTERNATIONALLAWFORINSTANCEWARCRIMES CRIMESAGAINSTHUMAN
ITYANDGENOCIDE BUTEVENTHEN TRIALSINTHEABSENCEOFTHEACCUSEDMUSTBETHE
EXCEPTIONANDNOTGENERALPRACTICE0OELS4HEINTERNATIONALPROTECTIONOFTHE
ACCUSEDSRIGHTTOBETRIEDINHISORHERPRESENCESUPPORTSTHEARGUMENTTHATTRIALS
INABSENTIASHOULDALWAYSBEEXCEPTIONAL EVENINTHECONTEXTOFTHEMOSTSERIOUS
CRIMESUNDERINTERNATIONALLAW)FSTATESFINDITNECESSARYTOTRYANINDIVIDUALIN
HIS OR HER ABSENCE IT IS SUGGESTED BY 0OELS AT THAT THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES
SHOULDBEAPPLIEDTOSAFEGUARDTHEFAIRTRIALRIGHTSOFTHEACCUSED
 7HERE AN ACCUSED IS TRIED IN ABSENTIA FOR WHATEVER REASON THE INDIVIDUAL
SHOULD BE NOTIFIED OF THE INITIATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD BE
GIVENAREASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTOAPPEARINPERSON
 3TATES THAT WISH TO EXERCISE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN ABSENTIA SHOULD ALSO BE
COMMITTED TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS IN CRIMINAL PROCE
DURE ANDINRELATEDMATTERSSUCHASEXTRADITIONANDINTERNATIONALCO OPERA
TIONINCRIMINALMATTERS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
 %VEN IN CASES OF IN ABSENTIA TRIALS IT MUST BE GUARANTEED THAT CHARGES ARE
BROUGHT BY A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THAT IS INDEPENDENT FROM POLITICAL GOVERN
MENTALOROTHEREXTRA LEGALINFLUENCE
 4HESTATEWHERETHEACCUSEDPERSONRESIDESSHOULDBEGIVENTHEOPPORTUNITY
TODEALWITHTHEMATTERSANDTOPROVIDELEGALASSISTANCEANDADVICEIFNECES
SARY
)N3OUTH!FRICA THEGENERALRULEAGAINSTTRIALSINABSENTIAWASWRITTENINTOSS
AND C ANDE OFTHE#ONSTITUTION SAFEGUARDINGACCESSTOCOURTANDINCLUD
INGASPARTOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL THERIGHTTOAPUBLICTRIALBEFOREANORDINARY
COURTOFLAW4HEPRINCIPLEISALSOCONTAINEDINS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTANDISSCRUPULOUSLYUPHELDBYTHESUPERIORCOURTS3EEALSO3HINGAV4HE3TATE
AND3OCIETYOF!DVOCATES 0IETERMARITZBURG"ARINTERVENINGAS!MICUS#URIAE
3!#2##
4HEFOLLOWINGAREEXAMPLESOFTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHISPRINCIPLE
)N3EEDAT 3!. THEACCUSEDWASCONVICTEDOFANOFFENCEINTERMS
OFTHE)NSOLVENCY!CT"EFORESENTENCINGTHEACCUSED THEMAGISTRATECALLEDACER
TAIN#ASANEXPERTWITNESSREGARDINGCERTAINBOOK KEEPINGMATTERS4HISSTEPTHE
MAGISTRATETOOKASARESULTOFADISCUSSIONWHICHHEHADHADWITHTHEPROSECU
TORINTHEABSENCEOFTHEACCUSEDANDHISLEGALREPRESENTATIVE4HISPROCEDURE IT
WASHELDUPONAPPEAL AMOUNTEDTOASERIOUSIRREGULARITYOFFENDINGAGAINSTTHE
AFOREMENTIONEDBASICPRINCIPLE4HECOURTOFAPPEALDISREGARDED#SEVIDENCEALTO
GETHERFORPURPOSESOFIMPOSINGAPROPERSENTENCE
)N2ADEBE 3!/ THEMAGISTRATEALTEREDTHESUSPENSIONORDERONTHE
ACCUSEDSDRIVERSLICENCEINHISABSENCE/NREVIEWITWASHELDTHATTHEMAGISTRATE
ACTEDIRREGULARLY
)N 2OUSSEAU 3! 4 A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER TESTIFIED IN COURT 4HE
MAGISTRATE THEREAFTER CONSULTED ANOTHER MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND OBTAINED AN
OPINIONFROMHIMCONCERNINGTHETESTIMONYOFTHEMEDICALPRACTITIONER.EITHER
THEACCUSEDNORHISLEGALREPRESENTATIVEWASPRESENTDURINGTHISCONSULTATION4HIS
PROCEDURE ITWASHELD AMOUNTEDTOASERIOUSIRREGULARITYANDTHEACCUSEDSCON
VICTIONANDSENTENCEWERESETASIDE
)N-ADLALA;=*/,4K ANAPPLICATIONFORTHECANCELLATIONOFTHEBAIL
OFTHEACCUSEDWASCONSIDEREDINOPENCOURTBUTINTHEABSENCEOFTHEACCUSEDAND
HISLEGALREPRESENTATIVE4HECOURTHELDTHATTHISWASASERIOUSIRREGULARITYANDSET
ASIDETHECANCELLATIONOFTHEBAIL
.OTE THAT THE ABOVE BASIC PRINCIPLE MEANS MORE THAN THAT AN ACCUSED MUST
MERELYKNOWWHATTHESTATEWITNESSESHAVESAIDITREQUIRESTHATTHERESHOULDBEA
CONFRONTATIONTHEACCUSEDMUSTSEETHEMASTHEYTESTIFYAGAINSTHIMSOTHATHEOR
SHECANOBSERVETHEIRDEMEANOUR ANDTHEYMUSTGIVETHEIREVIDENCEINHISORHER
PRESENCE4HEDENIALOFTHISFUNDAMENTALRIGHTOFANACCUSEDINITSELFAMOUNTS
TOAFAILUREOFJUSTICETHATWILLLEADTOTHESETTINGASIDEOFTHEACCUSEDSCONVIC
TIONONAPPEALORREVIEWS I OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAND-OTLATLA 3!
4 )N"ASSON 3!#24 THECOURTHELD HOWEVER THATEVIDENCE
FROMTWOWITNESSESCOULDBEOBTAINEDINTHE53!BYMEANSOFACOMMISSIONIN
TERMS OF S OF THE )NTERNATIONAL #O OPERATION IN #RIMINAL -ATTERS !CT OF
DESPITETHEFACTTHATTHEACCUSEDWOULDBEUNABLETOBEPRESENTWHENTHE
WITNESSESTESTIFIED!CCORDINGTOTHECOURT THEDEFENCETEAMWOULDBEABLE @WITH

#(!04%2r4(%!##53%$()3/2(%202%3%.#%!3!0!249
THEAIDOFCELLPHONES TELEFAXES COMPUTERSANDTHELIKE TOCONTACTTHEACCUSED

IN 3OUTH !FRICA DURING THE HEARING 4HE COURT DID ADD THOUGH THAT IF IT WOULD
APPEARTHAT DUETOTHEACCUSEDSABSENCE CERTAINRELEVANTTHINGSWERENOTTAKEN
UPBYTHEDEFENCE THISWILLHAVETOBETAKENINTOACCOUNTWHENTHEEVIDENCETHUS
OBTAINEDWASEVENTUALLYEVALUATED
4HEREARE HOWEVER SEVERALEXCEPTIONSTOTHISRULE&IRST INTHECASEOFCERTAIN
TRIVIALOFFENCES ASO CALLEDADMISSIONOFGUILTFINECANBEPAIDWHICHWILLRESULT
INTHEACCUSEDBEINGCONVICTEDINHISORHERABSENCE3ECONDLY THEACCUSEDCAN BY
HISORHERBEHAVIOURDURINGTHETRIAL MAKEITIMPOSSIBLEFORTHECOURTTOCARRYON
WITHTHETRIALINHISORHERPRESENCE4HIRDLY CIRCUMSTANCESMAYMAKEITNECESSARY
FORAWITNESSORACCUSEDTOTESTIFYBYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISIONORSIMI
LARELECTRONICMEDIA&OURTHLY CIRCUMSTANCESMAYMAKEITNECESSARYFORATRIALIN
WHICHTHEREISMORETHANONEACCUSEDTOCONTINUEINTHEABSENCEOFONEORMORE
CO ACCUSED4HESECASESWILLNOWBEDEALTWITHINDETAIL
%8#%04)/.34/4(%25,%
4RIALINABSENCEOFACCUSEDONACCOUNTOFHISORHERMISBEHAVIOUR
)F THE ACCUSED CONDUCTS HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO RENDER THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN HIS OR HER PRESENCE IMPRACTICABLE THE COURT
MAYORDERHIMTOBEREMOVEDANDMAYDIRECTTHATTHETRIALPROCEEDINHISORHER
ABSENCES OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT4HECOURTWILL HOWEVER MAKE
USEOFITSPOWERSUNDERTHISSECTIONONLYASALASTRESORTANDONLYIFITCANNOTAVOID
DOING SO 4HE COURT WOULD PREFER TO POSTPONE THE MATTER OR GRANT A TEMPORARY
ADJOURNMENTANDTHENCONTINUEWITHTHECASEATALATERSTAGEINTHEPRESENCEOF
THEACCUSED)FTHECOURTDOESMAKEUSEOFITSPOWERSINTERMSOFS ITOUGHT
FIRSTTOWARNTHEACCUSEDANDTONOTEITSWARNING%VENAFTERTHEACCUSEDHASBEEN
REMOVED ITISADVISABLETOGIVEHIMAFURTHEROPPORTUNITYANDHAVEHIMBROUGHT
BEFORETHECOURTAFTERTHELEADINGOFEVIDENCEHASBEENCOMPLETEDANDTOASKHIM
WHETHER HE WISHES TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCECF -POFU 3! 2 0AULINE
40$-OKOA 3!/ AND(IEMSTRA
!BSENCEOFACCUSEDWHERETHEREISMORETHANONEACCUSED
)FTWOORMOREACCUSEDAPPEARJOINTLYATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS THECOURTMAY AT
ANYTIMEAFTERTHECOMMENCEMENTOFTHEPROCEEDINGS UPONAPPLICATIONBYTHE
ACCUSEDORHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVE AUTHORISETHEABSENCEOFANACCUSEDON
THEFOLLOWINGGROUNDS
A THATTHEPHYSICALCONDITIONOFTHEACCUSEDISSUCHTHATHEORSHEISUNABLETO
ATTENDORTHATITISUNDESIRABLETHATHEORSHESHOULDATTENDTHETRIALOR
B THATCIRCUMSTANCESINCONNECTIONWITHTHEILLNESSORDEATHOFAMEMBEROFTHE
ACCUSEDSFAMILYHAVEARISENWHICHMAKEHISORHERABSENCEFROMTHEPROCEED
INGSNECESSARYS A
&URTHERMORE IFANACCUSEDISABSENTFROMTHEPROCEEDINGS WHETHERASARESULTOF
HISREMOVALINTERMSOFS ORWITHORWITHOUTLEAVEOFTHECOURT THECOURT
MAYDIRECTTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSBEPROCEEDEDWITHINTHEABSENCEOFTHEACCUSED
CONCERNED4HECOURTWILLMAKESUCHANORDERONLYIFINITSOPINIONTHETRIALCAN

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
NOTBEPOSTPONEDWITHOUTUNDUEPREJUDICE EMBARRASSMENTORINCONVENIENCETO
THEPROSECUTIONORANYCO ACCUSEDORANYWITNESSS
4HECOURTMAYALSO INLIEUOFDIRECTINGTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSCONTINUEINTHE
ABSENCEOFTHEACCUSED UPONTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHEPROSECUTIONDIRECTTHATTHE
PROCEEDINGSINRESPECTOFTHEABSENTACCUSEDBESEPARATEDFROMTHEPROCEEDINGS
INRESPECTOFTHEACCUSEDWHOAREPRESENT7HENSUCHACCUSEDISAGAININATTEN
DANCE THEPROCEEDINGSAGAINSTHIMSHALLCONTINUEFROMTHESTAGEATWHICHHEOR
SHEBECAMEABSENTANDTHECOURTSHALLNOTBEREQUIREDTOBEDIFFERENTLYCONSTI
TUTEDS
)FTHEPROCEEDINGSCONTINUEINTHEABSENCEOFTHEACCUSEDHEORSHEMAY IFHEOR
SHELATERAGAINATTENDSTHEPROCEEDINGSANDHASNOTBEENLEGALLYREPRESENTEDDUR
INGHISORHERABSENCE EXAMINEAWITNESSWHOTESTIFIEDDURINGHISORHERABSENCE
ANDINSPECTTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS3EEALSOTHEPROVISIONSOFS AND
4HEPROCEEDINGSINRESPECTOFTHEABSENTACCUSEDMAYBECONCLUDEDONLYAFTER
HIS OR HER REAPPEARANCE AND AFTER HE OR SHE HAS BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF
LEADINGEVIDENCEANDCLOSINGHISORHERCASE
%
VIDENCEBYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISIONORSIMILARELECTRONIC
MEDIA
!COURTMAYONITSOWNINITIATIVE ORONAPPLICATIONBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR THE
ACCUSEDORAWITNESS ORDERTHATAWITNESSORANACCUSED IFTHEWITNESSORACCUSED
CONSENTS THERETO GIVE EVIDENCE BY MEANS OF CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION OR SIMILAR
ELECTRONICMEDIAS
3UCH AN ORDER MAY ONLY BE MADE IF FACILITIES FOR IT ARE READILY AVAILABLE OR
OBTAINABLEANDIFITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTTHATTODOSOWOULD
A PREVENTUNREASONABLEDELAY
B SAVECOSTS
C BECONVENIENT
D BEINTHEINTERESTOFTHESECURITYOFTHESTATEOROFPUBLICSAFETYORINTHEINTER
ESTSOFJUSTICEORTHEPUBLICOR
E PREVENTTHELIKELIHOODTHATPREJUDICEORHARMMIGHTRESULTTOANYPERSONIFHE
ORSHETESTIFIESORISPRESENTATSUCHPROCEEDINGSS
4HECOURTMAY INORDERTOENSUREAFAIRANDJUSTTRIAL MAKETHEGIVINGOFEVIDENCE
IN THIS MANNER SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS IT MAY DEEM NECESSARY 0ROVIDED
THAT THE PROSECUTOR AND THE ACCUSED HAVE THE RIGHT BY MEANS OF THAT PROCE
DURE TOQUESTIONAWITNESSANDTOOBSERVETHEREACTIONOFTHATWITNESSS
4ESTIMONYTHROUGHANINTERMEDIARYS! ALSOALLOWSTHEPROSECUTORANDAC
CUSEDTOQUESTIONAWITNESSANDTOOBSERVETHEREACTIONOFTHATWITNESSNORMALLY
BYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISION
4HECOURTSHOULDPROVIDEREASONSFORREFUSALTOALLOWACHILDCOMPLAINANTBELOW
THEAGEOFTOGIVEEVIDENCEBYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISIONORSIMILARELEC
TRONICMEDIAS
&OR FURTHER PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ONE CAN TAKE NOTE OF CERTAIN DIRECTIVES BY THE
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS ISSUEDINTERMSOFS A ANDC OFTHE
#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF
4HESEDIRECTIVESPROVIDEASFOLLOWS

#(!04%2r4(%!##53%$()3/2(%202%3%.#%!3!0!249
4HE USE OF CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION OR SIMILAR ELECTRONIC MEDIA IN COURT IS NOT
LIMITEDTOCHILDCOMPLAINANTSORWITNESSES BUTISAVAILABLETOASSISTANYTRAUMA
TISED COMPLAINANT OR WITNESS TO GIVE EVIDENCE REGARDLESS OF HIS OR HER AGE 4HE
PROSECUTORSHOULDCONSIDERTHISMEASUREINALLSEXUALOFFENCESCASES ANDSHOULD
ASARULEBRINGSUCHAPPLICATIONWHERETHECOMPLAINANTSORWITNESSESAREUNDERTHE
BIOLOGICALORMENTALAGEOFYEARS
4HE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN BRINGING AN APPLICATION IN
TERMSOFSINCLUDE BUTARENOTLIMITEDTO
A WHERE THE WITNESS IS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
ACCUSEDDUETOFEAROFTHEACCUSED
B WHERETHENATUREOFTHEOFFENCEINVOLVEDVIOLENCE
C WHERETHECOMPLAINANTISACQUAINTEDWITHORRELATEDTOTHEACCUSED
D WHERETHECOURTROOMENVIRONMENTINTIMIDATESTHEWITNESS
E WHERETHEWITNESSMAYBEINTIMIDATEDASAWITNESSBYTHEACCUSEDANDOR
MEMBERSOFTHEPUBLIC
F WHERETHEWITNESSMAYBEPARTOFAWITNESSPROTECTIONPROGRAMMEINTERMS
OFTHE7ITNESS0ROTECTION!CTOF
G WHERETHEIMPACTOFTHEOFFENCEISSOSEVEREONTHEWITNESSTHATHEORSHEIS
UNABLETOTESTIFYINOPENCOURT
H WHERETHEQUALITYOFTHEWITNESSSTESTIMONYWOULDBECOMPROMISEDSHOULD
HEORSHETESTIFYINTHEPRESENCEOFTHEACCUSEDAND
I WHERETHEMENTALAGEOFTHEWITNESSREQUIRESIT
)F AN APPLICATION FOR A CHILD COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF YEARS IS REFUSED
ANDTHECOURTFAILSTOPROVIDETHEREASONSASREQUIREDINTERMSOFS OFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT THEPROSECUTORSHOULDREMINDTHECOURTTODOSO
4HEVIEWSOFTHEWITNESSESSHOULDBETAKENINTOACCOUNTANDGIVENDUEWEIGHT
!PPLICATIONSNEEDNOTBEMADEWHEREAWITNESSDOESNOTWISHFORTHEMEASURETO
BEAPPLIEDANDWHERETHISWILLNOTBEINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
)FTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHEMEASUREWILLCAUSEUNNECESSARYDELAY FORINSTANCE DUETO
UNAVAILABILITYOFINTERMEDIARIESOR##46EQUIPMENT CAREFULCONSIDERATIONSHOULD
BEGIVENTOPROCEEDINGWITHOUTSUCHPROTECTIVEMEASURE
4IMEOUS APPLICATION SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST AND
WHERENECESSARY ANDEXPERTTESTIMONYSHOULDBEADDUCEDONTHEPOTENTIALTRAUMA
FORACOMPLAINANTWITNESS SHOULDACLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISIONNOTBEUSEDANDTHE
COMPLAINANTWITNESSBEFORCEDTOFACETHEACCUSEDPERSON
)FREQUIRED##46EQUIPMENTISNOTAVAILABLEORNOTINWORKINGORDER THEPROSECU
TORMUSTTAKEIMMEDIATESTEPSTOREPORTTHESITUATIONTOTHERELEVANT$EPARTMENT
OF *USTICE COURT MANAGER )F IT CANNOT BE RESOLVED AT COURT LEVEL IT SHOULD BE RE
PORTEDTOTHERELEVANTREGIONALOFFICEOFTHEDEPARTMENTANDTHE$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS
0OSTPONEMENTOFCERTAINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHROUGHAUDIOVISUAL
LINK
3ECTIONS!TO$OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPROVIDEFORTHEPOSSIBILITY
OF POSTPONEMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THROUGH AUDIOVISUAL LINK !T
PRESENTTHISPOSSIBILITYISLIMITEDTOCERTAINMAGISTERIALDISTRICTSANDCORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES4HEPURPOSEOFTHISDISPENSATIONISTOPREVENTUNNECESSARYDELAYS EX
PENSEANDINCONVENIENCECAUSEDBYTHEDAILYRITUALOFTRANSPORTINGAWAITING TRIAL
DETAINEESFROMCORRECTIONALFACILITIESTOCOURTANDBACK OFTENFORTHESOLEPURPOSE
OFPOSTPONEMENTPROCEEDINGS!NIMPORTANTREQUIREMENTISTHATTHERESHOULDBE
NOPREJUDICECAUSEDBYUSINGTHEAUDIOVISUALLINK)TISAPPLICABLEONLYTOAPER
SONOVERTHEAGEOFYEARS WHOHASALREADYAPPEAREDBEFOREACOURTANDWHOSE
CASEHASBEENPOSTPONED WHOISINCUSTODYPENDINGHISORHERTRIAL ANDWHOIS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
REQUIRED TO APPEAR OR TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT IN ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEED
INGSFORAFURTHERPOSTPONEMENT)TALSOAPPLIESTOTHECONSIDERATIONOFRELEASEON
CERTAINFORMSOFBAIL3UCHANINDIVIDUALISNOTREQUIREDTOAPPEARORBEBROUGHT
PHYSICALLYBEFORETHECOURTBUTMAYAPPEARBEFORECOURTBYAUDIOVISUALLINKAND
ISDEEMEDTOBEPHYSICALLYBEFORETHECOURT UNLESSTHECOURTDIRECTS INTHEINTER
ESTSOFJUSTICE THATHEORSHEISTOAPPEARORBEBROUGHTPHYSICALLYBEFOREIT!NY
PROCEEDINGSBYAUDIOVISUALLINKSHALLBEREGARDEDASHAVINGBEENHELDINTHEPRES
ENCEOFTHEACCUSEDIF DURINGTHEPROCEEDINGS THATPERSONISHELDINCUSTODYIN
ACORRECTIONALFACILITY ANDISABLETOFOLLOWTHECOURTPROCEEDINGSANDTHECOURTIS
ABLETOSEEANDHEARTHEACCUSEDPERSONBYMEANSOFAUDIOVISUALLINK4HEROOM
ORPLACEATTHEDESIGNATEDCORRECTIONALFACILITYWHERETHEACCUSEDPERSONAPPEARS
THROUGHAUDIOVISUALLINKISREGARDEDASBEINGAPARTOFTHECOURT
0AYMENTOFFINEWITHOUTAPPEARANCEINCOURTADMISSIONOFGUILT
rS
!PUBLICPROSECUTORORTHECLERKOFTHECOURTWHOISSUESASUMMONSINTERMSOF
STOANACCUSEDPERSONTOAPPEARINCOURTMAY IFHEORSHEBELIEVESONREASON
ABLEGROUNDSTHATAMAGISTRATESCOURT ONCONVICTINGTHEACCUSEDOFTHEOFFENCE
IN QUESTION WILL NOT IMPOSE A FINE EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE
-INISTER BY NOTICE IN THE 'OVERNMENT 'AZETTE AT PRESENT 2 ENDORSE THE
SUMMONSTOTHEEFFECTTHATTHEACCUSEDMAYADMITHISORHERGUILTINRESPECTOF
THEOFFENCEANDMAYPAYAFINESTIPULATEDONTHESUMMONSINRESPECTOFSUCHOF
FENCEWITHOUTAPPEARINGINCOURTS
!FTERANACCUSEDHASAPPEAREDINCOURTBUTBEFOREHEORSHEHASPLEADED APUB
LICPROSECUTORMAY IFHEORSHEBELIEVESONREASONABLEGROUNDSTHATAMAGISTRATES
COURT ON CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMIT
TED WILLNOTIMPOSEAFINEEXCEEDINGTHEAMOUNTDETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERBY
NOTICEINTHE'OVERNMENT'AZETTEATPRESENT2 HANDTOTHEACCUSEDAWRIT
TENNOTICE ORCAUSESUCHNOTICETOBEDELIVEREDTOTHEACCUSEDBYAPEACEOFFICER
CONTAININGANENDORSEMENTINTERMSOFSTHATTHEACCUSEDMAYADMITHISORHER
GUILTINRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCEANDPAYASTIPULATEDFINEINRESPECTTHEREOFWITH
OUTAPPEARINGINCOURTAGAINS! 4HEQUESTIONARISESWHETHERTHERERESTSA
POSITIVEDUTYONTHEPEACEOFFICERTOEXPLAINTOTHEACCUSEDTHATPAYMENTOFTHE
ADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEMAYRESULTINTHEACCUSEDHAVINGACRIMINALCONVICTION
)N2ADEMEYER;= UNREPORTED '0CASENO! !PRIL ITWASHELD
AT;= ASFOLLOWS
4HEREWASNODUTYUPONTHEPOLICEMENTODOSO7OULDTHESITUATIONHAVEBEENDIFFER
ENTIFSHEHADGONETOCOURTASSHENOWWANTSTODOSOANDPLEADEDGUILTY7OULDSHE
HAVEBEENWARNEDATANYSTAGEDURINGTHETRIALTHATUPONCONVICTIONSHEWOULDHAVEA
CRIMINALRECORD.EITHERMAGISTRATENOR*UDGEWARNSANACCUSEDINADVANCETHATIFSHE
ISCONVICTEDSHEWILLHAVEACRIMINALRECORD.OWHEREISITPRESCRIBEDTHATAMAGISTRATE
OR*UDGESHOULDDOSO
4HIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT IGNORANCE OR MISAPPREHENSION OF THE LEGAL SITUATION ON
THESIDEOFTHEACCUSEDSHOULDNOTBETAKENINTOACCOUNTWHENCONSIDERINGTHE
CONSEQUENCESOFANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINE4HEFACTTHATLAYPERSONSCOULDEQUATE
ANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEWITHATRAFFICFINEWASCONSIDEREDINTHEREVIEWCASEOF
-UTOBVU 3!#2'.0 4HECOURTNOTED AT;= ASFOLLOWS

#(!04%2r4(%!##53%$()3/2(%202%3%.#%!3!0!249
4HEINFERENCEISINESCAPABLETHATTHEACCUSED INTHELIGHTOFTHECIRCUMSTANCES
COULDHAVEEQUATEDTHEFINEWITHATRAFFICFINE!LAYPERSONWOULDNOTKNOWTHAT
ACRIMINALRECORDISTHERESULTOFTHEPAYMENTOFSUCHAFINE)TISALSOIMPORTANT
TONOTETHATTHEOFFICIALSUMMONS* WHICHWASHANDEDTOTHEACCUSEDDOES
NOTSETOUTTHECONSEQUENCESOFPAYINGANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINE/NTHEFACEOF
ITTHESUMMONSAPPEARSTOBEAKINTOATRAFFICFINE
)NGENERAL ONECANSAYTHATTHEREARETWOCONSIDERATIONSWHENDECIDINGWHETHER
AN ACCUSED IS BOUND BY AN ADMISSION OF GUILT 4HE FIRST CONCERNS POSSIBLE IR
REGULARITIESINTHEPROCEEDINGS ANDTHESECONDCONCERNSTHEPOSSIBILITYTHATTHE
ACCUSED IS INDEED INNOCENT$U 4OIT #OMMENTARY ON THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT
Ú!DANLAWA*$2'0 (OUTZAMER*$27##
4HE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING @A WRITTEN NOTICE TO APPEAR CAN BE LINKED TO THE
ADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEINTERMSOFS!PEACEOFFICERMAY INTERMSOFS
HANDAWRITTENNOTICETOANACCUSEDPERSONTOAPPEARINCOURT4HISNOTICEMAY
CONTAINASIMILARENDORSEMENT PROVIDEDTHEPEACEOFFICERHOLDSASIMILARBELIEF
BASEDONREASONABLEGROUNDSS C !PEACEOFFICERMUSTSTATEINACERTIFICATE
REFERREDTOINS D THATTHEACCUSEDWASHANDEDTHEORIGINALOFTHEWRITTEN
NOTICEANDTHATTHEIMPORTTHEREOFWASEXPLAINEDTOTHEACCUSED!NACCUSEDWHO
RECEIVESASUMMONSORWRITTENNOTICEASMENTIONEDMAY WITHOUTAPPEARINGIN
COURT ADMITHISORHERGUILTINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCEINQUESTIONBYPAYINGTHE
ADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEEITHERTOTHECLERKOFTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTWHICHHASJURIS
DICTIONORATANYPOLICESTATIONWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFTHATCOURT4HE
SUMMONSORWRITTENNOTICEMAYSTIPULATETHATTHEADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEMUSTBE
PAIDBEFOREADATESPECIFIEDS )N(OUTZAMER*$27## ITWAS
HELDAT;= THAT IFADATEBYWHICHTHEFINEMUSTBEPAIDISNOTSTIPULATED THE
FINECANBEPAIDATANYTIMEUPTOTHEDATEOFAPPEARANCE4HECOURTALSOCITED
S A WHICHSTATESTHATANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEMAYEVENBEACCEPTEDBYTHE
CLERKOFTHECOURTTHOUGHNOTBYTHEPOLICE AFTERTHESTIPULATEDDATEORTHEDATE
FORAPPEARANCEHASEXPIRED
!FTERTHECLERKOFTHECOURTCONCERNEDHASRECEIVEDSUCHADOCUMENT HEORSHE
ENTERSITINTHECRIMINALRECORDBOOKOFTHECOURTANDTHEACCUSEDISTHENDEEMED
TO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED BY THE COURT FOR THE OFFENCE CONCERNED
3UCHANADMISSIONOFGUILTAMOUNTSTOAPREVIOUSCONVICTIONFORTHEPURPOSESOF
ALLOFFENCES.'*4RADING3TORES0TY ,TDV'UERREIRO 3!!
4HEJUDICIALOFFICERMAYINCERTAININSTANCESSETASIDETHECONVICTIONANDSEN
TENCEANDDIRECTTHATTHEACCUSEDBEPROSECUTEDINTHEORDINARYCOURSES
!FTERTHEJUDICIALOFFICERHASFOUNDTHEDOCUMENTSINORDER HEORSHEISFUNCTUS
OFFICIOANDMAYNOTCONSIDERREPRESENTATIONSBYTHEACCUSED-ARION 3!
4 -AKHELE 3! .# CONTRA -AHABEER 3! .
3HANGE 3!.
!PUBLICPROSECUTORMAYALSOREDUCEANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEONGOODCAUSE
SHOWNS 7HERE A PROSECUTOR WITHDREW A CHARGE AFTER THE ACCUSED HAD
ALREADYPAIDANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEWHICHWASCONFIRMEDBYTHEMAGISTRATE
THECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEWERESETASIDEONREVIEWBECAUSEOFCONSIDERATIONSOF
JUSTICEANDEQUITY3MITH 3!4
!LTHOUGH S DOES NOT STIPULATE THE KIND OF OFFENCES IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN
ADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEMAYBESET ITHASBEENHELDTHATTHISPROCEDURESHOULD

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
INPRINCIPLEBELIMITEDTOSTATUTORYOFFENCESANDSHOULDNOTBEUSEDFOROFFENCES
UNDERTHECOMMONLAW" 3!37! (OWEVER ITISSOMETIMESUSED
INTHEFTCASESWHERETHESTOLENITEMSAREOFLITTLEMONETARYVALUE-AFUKIDZI
*$2'0 $AKALO*$2'0 4HISPROCEDUREISVERYOFTENASISGEN
ERALLYKNOWNTOMOTORISTS USEDFORTRAFFICOFFENCES&ORTHECONSEQUENCESOFAN
ACCUSEDSFAILURETOAPPEARINCOURTINACCORDANCEWITHASUMMONSINRESPECTOF
WHICHHEORSHECOULDHAVEPAIDANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEWHICHWASNOTPAID
SEE#HAPTER
3OME!CTSPROHIBITTHEACCEPTANCEOFADMISSIONOFGUILTFINESREGARDINGCERTAIN
OFFENCES
#/-0/5.$).'/&-)./2/&&%.#%3rS
!DISTINCTIONMUSTBEDRAWNBETWEENADMISSIONOFGUILTANDCOMPOUNDINGOFOF
FENCES)NTHECASEOFANADMISSIONOFGUILT THEACCUSEDISSUMMONED ORAWRITTEN
NOTICEISHANDEDTOTHEACCUSED4HEPROSECUTIONISTHEREFOREACTUALLYINITIATED"Y
SIGNINGANADMISSIONOFGUILT ANACCUSEDISDEEMEDTOHAVEBEENCONVICTEDAND
SENTENCED#OMPOUNDINGOFANOFFENCE ONTHEOTHERHAND MEANSTHATTHEOF
FENDERPAYSACERTAINAMOUNTTOSOMEOROTHERBODYFOREXAMPLEAMUNICIPALITY
INORDERNOTTOBEPROSECUTEDFORSOMEMINOROFFENCEWHICHHEORSHEHASCOM
MITTED4HISPROCEDUREISGENERALLYUSEDWITHTRAFFICOFFENCES
#OMPOUNDINGISREGULATEDBYSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT WHICHLIMITS
THISPROCEDURETOCERTAINMINORTRAFFICOFFENCESANDCONTRAVENTIONSOFTHERULES
ANDREGULATIONSOFLOCALAUTHORITIES&ORMOREONTHIS SEE$U4OIT#OMMENTARYON
THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT n
3ECTION SHOULD BE READ WITH THE !DMINISTRATIVE !DJUDICATION OF 2OAD
4RAFFIC/FFENCES!CTOF!!24/ 4HEDATEOFCOMMENCEMENTOFTHIS!CT
ASAWHOLEHAS ATTHETIMEOFWRITING NOTYETBEINGPROCLAIMED4HEBROADAIM
OFTHE!CTISTOSHIFTTHEBURDENOFTHEPROSECUTIONOFTRAFFICOFFENCESFROMTHE
CRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMTOANADMINISTRATIVESYSTEMTODECRIMINALISETRAFFICAND
OTHERADMINISTRATIVEOFFENCES TOSOMEEXTENT ANDTOIMPLEMENTAPOINTDEMERIT
SYSTEMFORTRAFFICOFFENCES
&ORPRESENTPURPOSESTHEFOLLOWINGBASICPROCEDURESHOULDBENOTEDISTHATTHE
INFRINGERWILLBESERVEDWITHANINFRINGEMENTNOTICEBYTHEISSUINGAUTHORITYFOR
INSTANCE THELOCALMUNICIPALITYORTHEPROVINCIALADMINISTRATION THEINFRINGER
WILLTHENHAVEANUMBEROFOPTIONS
 0AYTHEPENALTYWITHINDAYS
 -AKEARRANGEMENTSFORPAYMENTOFTHEPENALTY
 -AKEWRITTENREPRESENTATIONSTOTHEREPRESENTATIONSOFFICERATTHE2OAD4RAFFIC
)NFRINGEMENT!GENCY24)!
 %LECTTOBETRIEDINCOURT
)FTHEINFRINGERFAILSTOEFFECTANYOFTHEABOVEOPTIONS ACOURTESYLETTERWILLBE
SERVEDONTHEINFRINGERBYTHEREGISTRAROFTHE24)!4HEINFRINGERWILLAGAINHAVE
AFEWOPTIONSPAYTHEFINEPLUSADMINISTRATIONFEE DECIDETOPAYTHEFEESININ
STALLMENTSMAKEREPRESENTATIONSTOTHEREGISTRAROFTHE24)!ORELECTTOBETRIED
INCOURT!THIRDPHASEINTHEPROCESSISALSOPOSSIBLE NAMELYWHENTHEINFRINGER

#(!04%2r4(%!##53%$()3/2(%202%3%.#%!3!0!249
FAILSTOTAKEANYOFTHEABOVEOPTIONS4HEREGISTRAROFTHE24)!WILLTHENSERVEAN
ENFORCEMENTORDERONTHEINFRINGERANDTHEINFRINGERWILLHAVEANOTHERDAYSTO
PAYTHEPENALTYANDTHEPRESCRIBEDFEES FAILINGWHICHTHEINFRINGERWILLBESERVED
WITHAWARRANT4HEINFRINGERCANTHENELECTTOGOTOCOURTIFNOT THEWARRANTWILL
BEEFFECTED MEANINGTHATMOVEABLEPROPERTYOFTHEINFRINGERMAYBESEIZEDAND
SOLD THEINFRINGERSDRIVERSLICENCEMAYBESEIZED ANDORHISORHERMOTORVEHICLE
MAYBEIMMOBILISED
!SNOTED THEAIMOF!!24/ISTOTAKETHEUNWIELDYROADTRAFFICOFFENCESSYSTEM
TOALARGEEXTENTOUTOFTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMANDTOREPLACETHECURRENTSYS
TEMWITHANADMINISTRATIVEJUSTICESYSTEM4HISSYSTEMISALREADYOPERATIONALIN
THE#ITYOF4SHWANE-ETROPOLITAN-UNICIPALITYANDINTHE#ITYOF*OHANNESBURG
-ETROPOLITAN -UNICIPALITY WHERE IT SERVES AS A TRIAL RUN TO SEE HOW THE SYSTEM
WORKS&ORMOREONTHIS SEE(OCTOR#OOPERS-OTOR,AWED $ n$ '
&).%35##V*OHANNESBURG-ETROPOLITAN0OLICE$EPARTMENT 3!'*

0!24))
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCESS
0HASE/NE
0RE 4RIAL#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE

#(!04%2
4HEEXERCISEOFPOWERSANDTHE
VINDICATIONOFINDIVIDUALRIGHTS
'0+EMP
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
4(%02).#)0,%/&,%'!,)49).4(%#/.4%84/&#2)-).!,
02/#%$52%
4(%2%15)2%-%.4/&2%!3/.!",%.%33).4(%%8%2#)3%/&
0/7%23
3ECTIONr(UMANDIGNITY
%VERYONE HAS INHERENT DIGNITY AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR DIGNITY RESPECTED AND PRO
TECTED
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr&REEDOMANDSECURITYOFTHEPERSON
%VERY PERSON SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON WHICH
INCLUDESTHERIGHTr
D NOTTOBEDEPRIVEDOFFREEDOMARBITRARILYORWITHOUTJUSTCAUSE
E NOTTOBEDETAINEDWITHOUTTRIAL
F TOBEFREEFROMALLFORMSOFVIOLENCEFROMEITHERPUBLICORPRIVATESOURCES
G NOTTOBETORTUREDINANYWAYAND
H NOTTOBETREATEDORPUNISHEDINACRUEL INHUMANEORDEGRADINGWAY
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0RIVACY
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOPRIVACY WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHTNOTTOHAVEr
D THEIRPERSONORHOMESEARCHED
E THEIRPROPERTYSEARCHED
F THEIRPOSSESSIONSSEIZEDOR
G THEPRIVACYOFTHEIRCOMMUNICATIONSINFRINGED
3EE BELOW


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr0ROPERTY
.OONEMAYBEDEPRIVEDOFPROPERTYEXCEPTINTERMSOFALAWOFGENERALAPPLICATION
ANDNOLAWMAYPERMITARBITRARYDEPRIVATIONOFPROPERTY
3EE BELOW

H TOBEPRESUMEDINNOCENT

%VIDENCEOBTAINEDINAMANNERTHATVIOLATESANYRIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSMUSTBE
EXCLUDEDIFTHEADMISSIONOFTHATEVIDENCEWOULDRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISEBE
DETRIMENTALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
3EE BELOW
4HERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSMAYBELIMITEDONLYINTERMSOFLAWOFGENERALAP
PLICATIONTOTHEEXTENTTHATTHELIMITATIONISREASONABLEANDJUSTIFIABLEINANOPEN
ANDDEMOCRATICSOCIETYBASEDONHUMANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOM TAKINGINTO
ACCOUNTALLRELEVANTFACTORS INCLUDINGr
A THENATUREOFTHERIGHT
B THEIMPORTANCEOFTHEPURPOSEOFTHELIMITATION
C THENATUREANDEXTENTOFTHELIMITATION
D THERELATIONBETWEENTHELIMITATIONANDITSPURPOSEAND
E LESSRESTRICTIVEMEANSTOACHIEVETHEPURPOSE
%XCEPTASPROVIDEDINSUBSECTION ORINANYOTHERPROVISIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
NOLAWMAYLIMITANYRIGHTENTRENCHEDINTHE#ONSTITUTION
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr/BJECTSOF!CT
4HEOBJECTSOFTHIS!CTARETOr
D PROTECTTHERIGHTSOFCHILDRENASPROVIDEDFORINTHE#ONSTITUTION
E PROMOTETHESPIRITOFUBUNTUINTHECHILDJUSTICESYSTEMTHROUGHr
I FOSTERINGCHILDRENmSSENSEOFDIGNITYANDWORTH
II REINFORCINGCHILDRENmSRESPECTFORHUMANRIGHTSANDTHEFUNDAMENTALFREEDOMS
OFOTHERSBYHOLDINGCHILDRENACCOUNTABLEFORTHEIRACTIONSANDSAFE GUARDING
THEINTERESTSOFVICTIMSANDTHECOMMUNITY
III SUPPORTINGRECONCILIATIONBYMEANSOFARESTORATIVEJUSTICERESPONSEAND
IV INVOLVINGPARENTS FAMILIES VICTIMSAND WHEREAPPROPRIATE OTHERMEMBERSOF
THECOMMUNITYAFFECTEDBYTHECRIMEINPROCEDURESINTERMSOFTHIS!CTINORDER
TOENCOURAGETHEREINTEGRATIONOFCHILDREN
F PROVIDEFORTHESPECIALTREATMENTOFCHILDRENINACHILDJUSTICESYSTEMDESIGNEDTO
BREAKTHECYCLEOFCRIME WHICHWILLCONTRIBUTETOSAFERCOMMUNITIES ANDENCOURAGE
THESECHILDRENTOBECOMELAW ABIDINGANDPRODUCTIVEADULTS

#(!04%2r4(%%8%2#)3%/&0/7%23!.$4(%6).$)#!4)/./&).$)6)$5!,2)'(43
G PREVENTCHILDRENFROMBEINGEXPOSEDTOTHEADVERSEEFFECTSOFTHEFORMALCRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM BY USING WHERE APPROPRIATE PROCESSES PROCEDURES MECHANISMS
SERVICESOROPTIONSMORESUITABLETOTHENEEDSOFCHILDRENANDINACCORDANCEWITH
THE#ONSTITUTION INCLUDINGTHEUSEOFDIVERSIONAND
H PROMOTE CO OPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND BETWEEN GOVERN
MENTDEPARTMENTSANDTHENON GOVERNMENTALSECTORANDCIVILSOCIETY TOENSUREAN
INTEGRATEDANDHOLISTICAPPROACHINTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHIS!CT
3ECTIONr'UIDINGPRINCIPLES
)N THE APPLICATION OF THIS !CT THE FOLLOWING GUIDING PRINCIPLES MUST BE TAKEN INTO AC
COUNT
D !LLCONSEQUENCESARISINGFROMTHECOMMISSIONOFANOFFENCEBYACHILDSHOULDBE
PROPORTIONATETOTHECIRCUMSTANCESOFTHECHILD THENATUREOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHE
INTERESTSOFSOCIETY
E !CHILDMUSTNOTBETREATEDMORESEVERELYTHANANADULTWOULDHAVEBEENTREATEDIN
THESAMECIRCUMSTANCES
F %VERYCHILDSHOULD ASFARASPOSSIBLE BEGIVENANOPPORTUNITYTOPARTICIPATEINANY
PROCEEDINGS PARTICULARLYTHEINFORMALANDINQUISITORIALPROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFTHIS
!CT WHEREDECISIONSAFFECTINGHIMORHERMIGHTBETAKEN
G %VERYCHILDSHOULDBEADDRESSEDINAMANNERAPPROPRIATETOHISORHERAGEANDINTEL
LECTUALDEVELOPMENTANDSHOULDBESPOKENTOANDBEALLOWEDTOSPEAKINHISORHER
LANGUAGEOFCHOICE THROUGHANINTERPRETER IFNECESSARY
H %VERYCHILDSHOULDBETREATEDINAMANNERWHICHTAKESINTOACCOUNTHISORHERCUL
TURALVALUESANDBELIEFS
I !LL PROCEDURES IN TERMS OF THIS !CT SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND COMPLETED WITHOUT
UNREASONABLEDELAY
J 0ARENTS APPROPRIATE ADULTS AND GUARDIANS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASSIST CHILDREN IN
PROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFTHIS!CTAND WHEREVERPOSSIBLE PARTICIPATEINDECISIONSAF
FECTINGTHEM
K !CHILDLACKINGINFAMILYSUPPORTOREDUCATIONALOREMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITIESMUST
HAVEEQUALACCESSTOAVAILABLESERVICESANDEVERYEFFORTSHOULDBEMADETOENSURE
THATCHILDRENRECEIVESIMILARTREATMENTWHENHAVINGCOMMITTEDSIMILAROFFENCES
L 4HERIGHTSANDOBLIGATIONSOFCHILDRENCONTAINEDININTERNATIONALANDREGIONALINSTRU
MENTS WITHPARTICULARREFERENCETOTHE5NITED.ATIONS#ONVENTIONONTHE2IGHTSOF
THE#HILDANDTHE!FRICAN#HARTERONTHE2IGHTSAND7ELFAREOFTHE#HILD
).42/$5#4)/.
)T WAS NOTED IN #HAPTER THAT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE SEEN IN
FORMALISTICTERMSBUTALSOINNORMATIVETERMS#RIMINALPROCEDUREINCORPORATES
ANDBALANCESCERTAINFUNDAMENTALVALUES&UNDAMENTALRIGHTSPLAYANIMPORTANT
ROLEINTHISREGARD BUTONEMUSTALSOBEAWAREOFBROADERCONSTITUTIONALANDNOR
MATIVEGUARDRAILSTHATLIMITANDDIRECTTHEAWESOMEPOWEROFTHESTATEVIS º VIS
ITSCITIZENS INPARTICULARTHEPOWERSASSOCIATEDWITHTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM
4HE NOTION THAT THE EXERCISE OF PUBLIC OR STATE POWER SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE
ANDSUBJECTTOSCRUTINYISNOTNEW&ORINSTANCE INANCIENT2OMETHEREWERELAWS
AIMEDATTHEABUSEOFPOWERVISPUBLICA BYMAGISTRATES-OSTCOMMONOFTHESE
ABUSESWERETHEDENIALOFRIGHTSOFAPPEALADVERSUSPROVOCATIONEM ANDOTHERASSO
CIATEDRIGHTSSUCHASTHERIGHTOFANACCUSEDCITIZENTOPRESENTHISCASEINPERSON

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
IN2OME2OBINSON4HE#RIMINAL,AWOF!NCIENT2OME )NFEUDAL%UROPE
ANDDURINGTHE-IDDLE!GESTHEREWEREATTEMPTSTOESTABLISHPROCEDURALGUARAN
TEESAGAINSTTHEAUTHORITIESOFTHEDAY INCLUDINGTHEULTIMATEAUTHORITY THE+ING
-OSTFAMOUSOFTHESEWEREARE-AGNA#ARTA AGREEDTOBY+ING*OHNOF%NGLAND
WHICHWASADOPTEDININ%NGLAND ANDTHERIGHTSGRANTEDBY!LFONSO)8TO
THE #ORTES DE ,EÆN IN 3PAIN IN 4HERE ARE REMARKABLE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN
-AGNA#ARTAOF%NGLANDANDTHERIGHTSGRANTEDBYTHE3PANISH+ING!LFONSO)8TO
HISSUBJECTS4ODAYWEASSOCIATE-AGNA#ARTATHEORIGINALFOURCOPIESAREKEPTAT
THE"RITISH,IBRARYANDAT,INCOLNAND3ALISBURY#ATHEDRALS WITHIMPORTANTPRO
CEDURALRIGHTS INCLUDINGSUCHASHABEASCORPUSANDASSOCIATEDDUEPROCESSRIGHTS
!TTHEHEARTOF-AGNA#ARTAWEFINDTHEFAMOUSLINESOF#LAUSETRANSLATEDINTO
MODERN%NGLISH @.OFREEMANSHALLBESEIZEDORIMPRISONED ORSTRIPPEDOFHIS
RIGHTS OR POSSESSIONS OR OUTLAWED OR EXILED OR DEPRIVED OF HIS STANDING IN ANY
WAY NORWILLWEPROCEEDWITHFORCEAGAINSTHIM ORSENDOTHERSTODOSO EXCEPT
BYTHELAWFULJUDGMENTOFHISEQUALSORBYTHELAWOFTHELAND3EE ALSO "URTON
/RIGINOFTHE%NGLISH#ONSTITUTION n)NSIMILARVEINWECANPOINTTO
+ING!LFONSOOF3PAINSDECREESOF WHICHGUARANTEEDSEVERALED WHATWOULD
TODAYBEREGARDEDASDUEPROCESSRIGHTS4HESE INCLUDINGNOACTIONTOBEINITIATED
AGAINSTANACCUSEDUNTILHEHADBEENCITEDINWRITINGTOAPPEARINCOURTFULLAND
FAIRHEARINGSINCRIMINALMATTERSANDJUSTICETOBEADMINISTEREDIMPARTIALLYAND
NOTARBITRARILY/#ALLAGHAN4HE!MERICAN(ISTORICAL2EVIEW ATn
4HE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS RECOGNISED IN -AGNA #ARTA AND BY THE #ORTES DE ,EÆN
REPRESENTEDIMPORTANTMILESTONESINTHEDEVELOPMENTOFTHENOTIONOFTHE2ULE
OF,AWASAKEYFEATUREOFDEMOCRATICANDJUSTSOCIETIES"UTWHATWEWOULDTODAY
RECOGNISE AS THE 2ULE OF ,AW IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WAS THEN STILL A LONG WAY
OFF)TWASDURINGTHE%NLIGHTENMENTLATETHANDEARLYTHCENTURIES THATIDEAS
AROUND LIBERTY AND REASON CULMINATED IN A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND COHERENT
SET OF IDEAS REGARDING THE 2ULE OF ,AW INCLUDING DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL
FAIRNESS (ANS +ELSEN ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT LEGAL THEORISTS OF THE TWEN
TIETH CENTURY AND SELF DESCRIBED INTELLECTUAL HEIR OF THE %NLIGHTENMENT THINKER
)MMANUEL+ANT DEVELOPEDHIS@PURETHEORYOFLAW2EINE2ECHTSLEHRE ASANOTION
OFLAWANDLEGALRULESPURIFIEDOFALLPOLITICALIDEOLOGYANDALLNATURAL SCIENTIFIC
ELEMENTS +ELSENS FORMALISTIC APPROACH TO LAW WAS DONE FIRST AND FOREMOST TO
SHIELDITFROMPOLITICALANDIDEOLOGICALINFLUENCEANDMANIPULATION&OR+ELSEN
THE LEGAL ORDER IS BASED ON LEGALITY THAT IS INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR CONSTITUTING A
LEGALCOMMUNITY2ECHTSGEMEINSCHAFT 4HUS OFFICIALSCANONLYACTASOFFICIALSWITH
LEGALAUTHORITY4HATISTHECENTRALNOTIONOFTHE2ECHTSSTAATn3TEWART*OURNALOF
,AWAND3OCIETY n)NDEED FROMAPROCEDURALPOINTOFVIEW ONE
CAN SAY THAT +ELSENS GREATEST CONTRIBUTION WAS HIS RECOGNITION OF THE NEED FOR
CONTROLSOVERARBITRARYPOWER7ACKS5NDERSTANDING*URISPRUDENCEED
4HISNOTIONOFTHE2ECHTSSTAATCANBECOMPAREDTOTHE%NGLISHNOTIONOFTHE@2ULE
OF,AW FORINSTANCETHEIDEATHATAPOLICEOFFICERACTSOR REFRAINSFROMACTING
FIRSTANDFOREMOSTBECAUSEOFHISORHER@ORIGINALDISCRETIONARYAUTHORITYUNDER
THELAW4HEOFFICERISTHEREFORENOTANSWERABLEFIRSTANDFOREMOSTTOHISORHER
SUPERIOR BUTRATHERTOTHELAW3IMESTER $U"OIS 0EDIAN.EUMANNEDS ,IBERAL
#RIMINAL4HEORY (OWEVER BYINSULATING@LAWFROMPOLITICS IDEOLOGY
AND SOCIOLOGY IT CAN RIGHTLY BE ASKED WHETHER +ELSENS FORMALISM CONSTITUTED

#(!04%2r4(%%8%2#)3%/&0/7%23!.$4(%6).$)#!4)/./&).$)6)$5!,2)'(43
THE BEST AVAILABLE BULWARK AGAINST THE TWENTIETH CENTURYS WORST ABUSERS OF THE
LAWINSERVICEOFUNJUSTIDEOLOGIES/NECANCITEINTHISREGARDTHELAWSOF.AZI
'ERMANY ORTHEAPARTHEIDLAWSOF3OUTH!FRICAPRE .ORBERTO"OBBIO INFLU
ENCEDBYBUTCRITICALOFTHEPOSITIVISMOF+ELSEN WASTHEREFOREINTERESTEDINTHE
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF LAW MAKING AND NOT ONLY THE FORMAL VALIDITY OF RULES
!CCORDINGTO"OBBIO JUSTICESHOULDNOTBEREDUCEDTOONLYAQUESTIONOFFORMAL
VALIDITY-ARTINEZ2ATIO*URIS !ND *OHN$UGARD SURVEYINGTHEVARI
OUSSECURITYLAWSTHATWEREAPPLIEDINTHEENFORCEMENTOFTHEAPARTHEIDSYSTEM
AND TO SUPPRESS THE OPPOSITION TO APARTHEID NOTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFA
MOUSSOFTHE4ERRORISM!CTOF
)DONOTLIKETOUSETHETERM@LAWTODESCRIBETHISPROVISIONBECAUSEITTOTALLYLACKSANY
ELEMENTOFJUSTICE FAIRNESSORMORALITY)TISANABERRATIONOFLAW)TISTHETYPEOFLAW
WHICHWASENUNCIATEDBY(ITLERANDWHICH AFTER7WORLD7AR)) WASDENIEDTHENAME
OFLAWBYTHE.UREMBERG4RIBUNALANDTHE'ERMANCOURTSTHEMSELVES
3EE $UGARD#ONFRONTING!PARTHEID

3ECTIONOFTHE4ERRORISM!CTPROVIDEDFORLONGPERIODSOFDETENTIONANDHARSH
INTERROGATIONMETHODS4HEENDOFAPARTHEIDBROUGHTANENDTOHARSHANDUNJUST
LAWSLIKETHE4ERRORISM!CTANDTHE)NTERNAL3ECURITY!CTOFANDTHEASSO
CIATED EMERGENCY PROCLAMATIONS OF THE S WHICH PROVIDED FOR DETENTION
WITHOUTTRIAL 4HEPOST APARTHEIDLEGALORDER ASCONSTITUTEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTION
OF ISAMOVEAWAYFROMA@CULTUREOFAUTHORITYTO@ACULTUREINWHICHEVERY
EXERCISEOFPOWERISEXPECTEDTOBEJUSTIFIED-UREINIK3!*(2AT4HIS
ISNOTTOSAYTHATTHERESHOULDBENOCLEARRULESGOVERNINGINDIVIDUALANDOFFICIAL
BEHAVIOURINTHEPOST APARTHEIDLEGALORDER0IUS,ANGA THEFORMER#HIEF*USTICE
NOTEDTHAT@THEREISMUCHTOBESAIDFORSTICKINGTOTHERULESWHENTHEYARECLEAR
ANDGOOD)TISWHENADHERENCETOTHEWORDISTAKENTOOFAR WHENTHEUPHOLDING
OF A LAW OBSCURES OR IGNORES THAT LAW EXISTS TO TRY HOWEVER DIFFICULT TO ENSURE
JUSTICE THATFORMALISMBECOMESDANGEROUS,ANGA3TELL,2 AT
4HE KEY TO UNLOCKING THE JUST APPLICATION OF LEGAL RULES IN DEMOCRATIC POST
APARTHEID3OUTH!FRICA ISTHETRANSFORMATIVEWORKINGOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS4HESE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS PROVIDED FOR IN #HAPTER OF THE #ONSTITUTION TOGETHER
WITHTHEGENERALLIMITATIONSCLAUSESOFTHE#ONSTITUTION ARETHETOOLSTHATWE
WORKWITHTOESTABLISHACONSTITUTIONALISEDCRIMINALPROCEDURE4HEPOST APARTHEID
LEGALORDERJEALOUSLYPROTECTSTHEPERSONALITYANDPROPERTYRIGHTSOFINDIVIDUALS
4HESERIGHTSINCLUDEEVERYPERSONSRIGHTTOHISORHERBODY FREEDOM HONOUR DIG
NITYANDPRIVACY ASWELLASHISORHERRIGHTSREGARDINGPROPERTY!CCORDINGLY THESE
INTERESTSAREFULLYPROTECTEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONSEESS ANDQUOTED
IMMEDIATELYABOVE
3OMETIMES HOWEVER SOCIETYSWIDERINTERESTINTHECOMBATINGOFCRIMENECES
SITATESTHELIMITATIONOFTHESERIGHTS)TMAY FORINSTANCE BENECESSARYTOARREST
PERSONSANDTHEREBYENCROACHUPONTHEIRFREEDOMOFMOVEMENT ORTOSEIZEPROP
ERTY$ESPITETHIS THELAWCONSTANTLYSTRIVESTOWARDSACHIEVINGABALANCEBETWEEN
SOCIETYS DEMANDS ON THE ONE HAND TO BRING OFFENDERS TO JUSTICE AND ON THE
OTHERHAND TOUPHOLDTHEPERSONALITYANDPROPERTYRIGHTSOFTHEINDIVIDUAL4HE
LATTER AFTERALL UNTILFOUNDGUILTYINACOURTOFLAW ISPRESUMEDINNOCENTSEE
SԜ H OF THE #ONSTITUTION QUOTED ABOVE 4O ACHIEVE THIS THE LAW AND IN
PARTICULAR THE LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAYS DOWN STRICT RULES WITH REGARD TO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A LIMITATION OF THESE RIGHTS WILL BE PERMISSIBLE TO
INVESTIGATECRIMEORTOBRINGOFFENDERSTOJUSTICE4HECONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHESE
LIMITATIONS CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY MEASURING THEM AGAINST THE LIMITATION
CLAUSEINSԜOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONQUOTEDABOVE
3ECTION LAYS DOWN CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS WITH WHICH SUCH LIMITATIONS
MUST COMPLY BEFORE THEY CAN BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTIONAL !CCORDING TO THESE
REQUIREMENTSTHELIMITATION
A MUSTBECONTAINEDINALAWOFGENERALAPPLICATIONAND
B MUSTBEREASONABLEANDJUSTIFIABLEINANOPENANDDEMOCRATICSOCIETYBASEDON
HUMANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOM
)NCONSIDERINGWHETHERAPARTICULARLIMITATIONCOMPLIESWITHTHESEREQUIREMENTS
ACOURTHASTOTAKEINTOACCOUNTALLRELEVANTFACTORS INCLUDING
4HESE FACTORS WILL INDICATE WHETHER THE LIMITATION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PRO
PORTIONAL TO THE PURPOSE OF THE LIMITATION 3IMPLY STATED IT MEANS THAT A COURT
WILLHAVETODETERMINEWHATPURPOSETHELIMITATIONSETSOUTTOACHIEVE WHETHER
THISPURPOSEISSUFFICIENTLYIMPORTANTTOJUSTIFYALIMITATIONOFTHERIGHT WHETHER
THELIMITATIONWILLBEEFFECTIVETOACHIEVETHEPURPOSEAND FINALLY WHETHERTHE
PURPOSECOULDBEACHIEVEDINANOTHER LESSRESTRICTIVE MANNER#F0HARMACEUTICAL
-ANUFACTURERS!SSOCIATIONOF3!)N2E%X0ARTE0RESIDENTOFTHE23! 3!
## ANDTHE#ANADIANCASEOF/AKES;=$,2TH
4HE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AIM TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF ALL
MEMBERSOFSOCIETYESPECIALLYVULNERABLEGROUPS BYENABLINGTHEEFFECTIVEINVES
TIGATIONOFOFFENCES TOIDENTIFYOFFENDERSANDTOBRINGTHEMTOJUSTICE3TATUTORY
FRAMEWORKS LIKE THE #HILD *USTICE !CT OF GIVE FURTHER EFFECT TO 3OUTH
!FRICASINTERNATIONALANDREGIONALHUMANRIGHTSOBLIGATIONSREGARDINGTHEPRO
TECTIONOFCHILDRENINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM4HENOTIONOF@JUSTICESHOULD
THEREFOREBESEENINHOLISTICANDNORMATIVETERMS&ORINSTANCE IN+RUSEUNRE
PORTED ;=:!7#(# !UGUST THE7ESTERN#APE(IGH#OURT PER
$AVIS* REITERATEDTHEIMPORTANCEOFJUDICIALSENSITIVITYANDVIGILANCEINCRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGSINVOLVINGACCUSEDPERSONSWITHVULNERABILITIESORDISABILITIES INTHIS
INSTANCEANACCUSEDWITHIMPAIREDHEARINGANDSPEECH 4HEFUNDAMENTALRIGHT
TO HUMAN DIGNITY DEMANDS THAT PRESIDING OFFICERS IN A CRIMINAL CASE TREAT ALL
PERSONS WHO COME BEFORE THEM n INCLUDING THE ACCUSED n WITH DUE RESPECT FOR
THEIRDIGNITY4HISCASEISAGOODEXAMPLEOFTHENORMATIVEINFLUENCEOFHUMAN
RIGHTSONTHECRIMINALPROCESSBEYONDFORMALISMANDTOWARDSESTABLISHINGAPOSI
TIVEDUTYONJUDGES PROSECUTORS THEPOLICEANDOTHERROLEPLAYERSINTHECRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM LIVES UP TO THE IDEALS
ENVISAGEDIN3OUTH!FRICASTRANSFORMATIVE#ONSTITUTION
4HE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARE VERY STRICT IN ORDER TO PREVENT ARBITRARY
ACTION BY THE POLICE OR PRIVATE PERSONS 0ERSONS WHO ACT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS LAID

#(!04%2r4(%%8%2#)3%/&0/7%23!.$4(%6).$)#!4)/./&).$)6)$5!,2)'(43
DOWNBYTHESERULESACTUNLAWFULLY WHETHERTHEYDOSOTOINVESTIGATECRIMEORTO
BRINGOFFENDERSTOJUSTICEORNOT&ORINSTANCE IN3OUTH!FRICANCRIMINALPROCE
DUREITCAN ASAGENERALRULE BEASSUMEDTHATTHESEARCHOFPERSONSORPREMISES
THESEIZUREOFOBJECTSANDTHEARRESTOFPERSONSWILLINVARIABLYBEUNLAWFUL UNLESS
SUCHACTIONCOMPLIESWITHTHEAFOREMENTIONEDRULESORISJUSTIFIEDBYSOMEGROUND
OFJUSTIFICATIONSUCHASCONSENTTOTHESEARCH 4HECONSEQUENCESOFSUCHUNLAW
FULCONDUCTARETHREEFOLD
A &IRSTLY A PERSON UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED OR WHOSE PROPERTY WAS UNLAWFULLY
SEARCHED OR SEIZED MAY INSTITUTE A CIVIL CLAIM AGAINST THE PERSON EFFECTING
THEARREST SEARCHORSEIZUREAND INSOMEINSTANCES EVENAGAINSTHISORHER
EMPLOYEREGTHESTATE IFTHEPERSONWHOACTEDUNLAWFULLYWASASTATEOFFICIAL
SUCHASAPOLICEOFFICIAL
B 3ECONDLY INAPPROPRIATECIRCUMSTANCESANUNLAWFULSEARCH SEIZUREORARREST
MAYEVENCONSTITUTEANOFFENCE
C &INALLY SԜ OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONPROVIDESTHATEVIDENCEOBTAINEDINAMAN
NERTHATVIOLATESANYRIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSMUSTBEEXCLUDEDIFTHEADMIS
SIONOFTHATEVIDENCEWOULDRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISEBEDETRIMEN
TALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE4HISMEANSTHATIFEVIDENCEISOBTAINED
DURINGANUNLAWFULSEARCHORBYUNLAWFULLYARRESTINGAPERSON SUCHEVIDENCE
WILLBEEXCLUDEDANDMAYNOTBETAKENINTOACCOUNTBYTHECOURTDURINGTHE
TRIAL IFITSADMISSIONWOULDHAVEONEOFTHEAFOREMENTIONEDEFFECTS4HISMAY
RESULTINTHEACQUITTALOFTHEACCUSED
4
(%02).#)0,%/&,%'!,)49).4(%#/.4%84/&#2)-).!,
02/#%$52%
3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONOF3OUTH!FRICA ENTRENCHESTHEFACTTHAT3OUTH
!FRICAISACONSTITUTIONALDEMOCRACY WITHRESPECTFORTHERULEOFLAW)N#HAPTER
THECONCEPTSOFDUEPROCESS LEGALITYANDTHERULEOFLAWWEREDISCUSSEDWITH
REFERENCETOTHEEXERCISEOFSTATEPOWER SPECIFICALLYSTATEPOWERINTHECONTEXTOF
THECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM"EFOREWEDEALWITHTHEREQUIREMENTOFREASONABLENESS
INTHEEXERCISEOFSTATEPOWER ITISNECESSARYTORETURNBRIEFLYTOTHEROLEOFLEGALITY
ASAFUNDAMENTALSAFEGUARDAGAINSTABUSEOFPOWER
4HEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITYISONEOFTHEPILLARSOFTHERULEOFLAW7ECAN FORPRES
ENTPURPOSES IDENTIFYTHREEPILLARS&IRST ITREQUIRESTHATORGANSOFSTATEMUSTOBEY
THELAW3ECOND ITISIMPERATIVETHATTHESTATECANNOTEXERCISEPOWERUNLESSTHELAW
PERMITSITTODOSO4HIRD LAWSMUSTBECLEARANDACCESSIBLE3EE #URRIE$E7AAL
4HE"ILLOF2IGHTS(ANDBOOKTHED n
7ITHREGARDTOTHEFIRSTASPECTOFTHERULEOFLAW ONECANPOINTTOTHEDECISIONIN
-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTV3OUTHERN!FRICA,ITIGATION#ENTRE
3!3#! ASANEXAMPLEOFACASEWHEREGOVERNMENTANDTHEEXECU
TIVEMOREBROADLYWEREHELDTOHAVEACTEDUNLAWFULLYINTHATTHERELEVANTORGANS
OFSTATE INCLUDINGTHEPOLICE FAILEDTOARRESTANDDETAIN0RESIDENT/MAR!L "ASHIR
OF3UDANANDTOTRANSFERHIMTOTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT)## !TALLREL
EVANTTIMESTHEREEXISTEDINTERNATIONALARRESTWARRANTSFORTHEARRESTOF!L "ASHIR
ONCHARGESOFGENOCIDE CRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITYANDWARCRIMESBEFORETHE)##
3OUTH!FRICAISASTATEPARTYTOTHE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)## ANDISOBLIGATED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
INTERMSOFTHISMULTILATERALTREATYASWELLASINTERMSOFTHE)MPLEMENTATIONOF
THE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT!CTOFTOCO OPER
ATEWITHTHE)## WHICHINCLUDESTHEARRESTOFINDICTEDPERSONSANDTRANSFEROF
SUCHINDIVIDUALSTOTHE)##IN4HE(AGUE!L "ASHIRARRIVEDIN3OUTH!FRICAON
*UNETOATTENDANINTERNATIONALSUMMIT(OWEVER HEWASNOTONLYALLOWED
TOATTENDTHESUMMIT BUTWASALSOALLOWEDTOLEAVE3OUTH!FRICAWITHOUTBEING
ARRESTED DESPITEACLEARLEGALDUTYTODOSO4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHELDTHAT
THERELEVANTORGANSOFSTATEFAILEDTOTAKETHENECESSARYSTEPSTOARRESTANDDETAIN
!L "ASHIR4HISFAILUREWASINCONSISTENTWITH3OUTH!FRICASOBLIGATIONSINTERMSOF
THE2OME3TATUTEANDSԜOFTHE)MPLEMENTATION!CT4HISFAILUREWASHELDTOBE
UNLAWFULCONDUCT)NDEED THERELEVANTORGANSOFSTATEFAILEDTOOBEYTHELAW THUS
UNDERMININGTHEFIRSTPILLAROFTHERULEOFLAW
4HE SECOND PILLAR OF THE RULE OF LAW REQUIRES THAT THE STATE DOES NOT EXERCISE
POWERUNLESSTHELAWPERMITSITTODOSO4HESTATUTORYFRAMEWORKTHATGOVERNS
CRIMINALPROCEDUREISAGOODEXAMPLEOFTHEKINDOFRESTRAINTTHATISPUTONTHE
ORGANSOFSTATE/NECANTHINKOFTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
THATPROVIDEFORARREST SEARCH SEIZURE THEASCERTAINMENTOFBODILYFEATURES AND
SOFORTH4HESEPROVISIONSGOVERNTHELAWFULEXERCISEOFSTATEPOWEROVERPERSONS
ANDPROPERTY4HEREAREREMEDIESAVAILABLEINLAWFORINDIVIDUALSTOENFORCETHEIR
RIGHTSANDTOTAKEACTIONAGAINSTTHESTATEIFITACTSOUTSIDETHEPARAMETERSOFTHE
LAW)NACONSTITUTIONALISEDCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMTHISASPECTOFTHERULEOFLAW
GOES BEYOND MERE TECHNICAL OBSERVANCE OF THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS IT
ALSOINVOLVESASUBSTANTIVEANALYSISOFTHENORMSTHATSHOULDGUIDESTATEACTION
4HUS FORINSTANCE IN(IGHSTEAD%NTERTAINMENTTA@4HE#LUBV-INISTEROF,AWAND
/RDER 3!#2 # AN INTERDICT WAS GRANTED TO PREVENT FUTURE ARRESTS
WHERETHEMOTIVEFORTHEFUTUREARRESTSAPPEAREDTOBEUNLAWFUL/NTHESECOND
PILLAROFTHERULEOFLAW SEEALSO-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT
V#HONCO 3!## AT;=
4HETHIRDPILLAROFTHERULEOFLAWTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITYPLAYSANIMPORTANT
ROLEINSUBSTANTIVEANDPROCEDURALCRIMINALLAW)NSUBSTANTIVECRIMINALLAWTHE
PRINCIPLE IS OFTEN REFERRED TO IN TERMS OF THE MAXIM NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA
SINELEGE4HISPRINCIPLEENTAILSTHAT@NOPERSONSHOULDBESUBJECTEDTOPUNISHMENT
BYTHE3TATEEXCEPTFORCONDUCTTHATISDEFINEDASACRIMEACCORDINGTOVALIDAND
APPLICABLELAW+EMPETAL#RIMINAL,AWIN3OUTH!FRICAED ,EGALITY
IN THE SENSE THAT THE LAW MUST BE CLEAR AND ACCESSIBLE PLAYS ALSO AN IMPORTANT
ROLEINPROCEDURALCRIMINALLAW4HEREQUIREMENTSFORLAWFULARREST FORINSTANCE
OR EVENMORECONSEQUENTIAL THEUSEOFFORCEINCLUDINGLETHALFORCE BYTHESTATE
WHENEFFECTINGANARRESTSԜOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT SHOULDBEASCLEAR
ANDACCESSIBLEASPOSSIBLE NOTONLYTOPROTECTINDIVIDUALMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLIC
AGAINST ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL STATE POWER BUT ALSO TO GUIDE INDIVIDUAL POLICE
OFFICERSANDOTHERSEMPLOYEDINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM,EGALITYINTHISSENSE
SERVESTOENABLEACULTUREOFLAWFULNESSANDTHERESPECTFORTHERULEOFLAW
4(%2%15)2%-%.4/&2%!3/.!",%.%33).4(%%8%2#)3%/&0/7%23
)N#HAPTER MENTIONWASMADEOFTHEPOLICYCONSIDERATIONSRELATINGTOTHERE
QUIREMENTOFREASONABLENESSOFGOVERNMENTACTIONTHATCANBEGLEANEDFROMTHE

#(!04%2r4(%%8%2#)3%/&0/7%23!.$4(%6).$)#!4)/./&).$)6)$5!,2)'(43
JUDGMENTS OF OUR COURTS 4HE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE IN THE
EXERCISEOFPOWERSDURINGTHEPRE TRIALPHASEOFTHECRIMINALPROCESSNOWCALLSFOR
SOMEEXPLANATION
4HEVARIOUSSTATUTORYPROVISIONSPROVIDINGFORTHEPOWERTOCONDUCTSEARCHES
TOSEIZEARTICLESANDTOARRESTPERSONSREPEATEDLYREFERTO@REASONABLENESSINTHEIR
DESCRIPTIONOFTHECIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHTHESEPOWERSMAYBEEXERCISED3ECTION
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPROVIDESTHATCERTAINARTICLESMAYBESEIZEDIF
THEYARE@ONREASONABLEGROUNDSBELIEVEDTOBEARTICLESOFACERTAINNATURE3ECTION
A AUTHORISESTHEISSUINGOFSEARCHWARRANTSWHEREITAPPEARSFROMINFORMATION
ONOATHTHATTHEREARE@REASONABLEGROUNDSFORBELIEVINGTHATCERTAINARTICLESWILL
BEFOUNDATACERTAINPLACE3ECTIONB AUTHORISESAPOLICEOFFICIALTOCONDUCT
ASEARCHIFHEORSHE@ONREASONABLEGROUNDSBELIEVESTHATCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES
EXIST)NTERMSOFSԜAPERSONINCHARGEOFOROCCUPYINGPREMISESMAYCONDUCT
A SEARCH AND SEIZE ARTICLES PROVIDED HE OR SHE @REASONABLY SUSPECTS CERTAIN CIR
CUMSTANCES TO EXIST 3ECTIONS AND AUTHORISE A PERSON TO ENTER PREMISES
WHEREHE@REASONABLYSUSPECTSTHATACERTAINSTATEOFAFFAIRSEXISTS3ECTIONSTO
EMPOWER CERTAIN PERSONS TO ARREST PERSONS @REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF HAVING
COMMITTEDCERTAINOFFENCES3ECTIONAUTHORISESPEACEOFFICERSTOREQUIRETHAT
CERTAINPERSONSPROVIDECERTAININFORMATIONIFTHEYARE@REASONABLYSUSPECTEDOF
HAVINGCOMMITTEDOFFENCES
!PARTFROMTHEABOVE CERTAINSTATUTORYPROVISIONSALSOEMPOWERCERTAINPER
SONSTOUSESUCHFORCEASMAYBE@REASONABLYNECESSARYTOGAINENTRYTOPREMISES
SEESԜ WHICHAUTHORISESTHEUSEOFSUCHFORCEASMAYBE@REASONABLYNECESSARY
TOGAINENTRYTOPREMISES ANDSԜ INTERMSOFWHICHSUCHFORCEASMAYBE@REA
SONABLY NECESSARY MAY BE USED TO OVERCOME RESISTANCE AGAINST AN ARREST OR TO
PREVENTTHEARRESTEDPERSONFROMFLEEING
4HEQUESTIONISOFTENPOSEDHOWONEISSUPPOSEDTODETERMINEEXACTLYWHENA
SUSPICIONMAYBESAIDTOBEA@REASONABLESUSPICION ORWHENONECOULDBESAIDTO
HAVE@REASONABLEGROUNDSTOBELIEVETHATACERTAINSTATEOFAFFAIRSEXISTS ORWHAT
FORCEWOULDBE@REASONABLYNECESSARYTOACHIEVEACERTAINOBJECTIVE!LTHOUGHIT
WOULDBEIMPOSSIBLETOLAYDOWNANYHARDANDFASTRULESINTHISREGARD THEFOL
LOWINGGUIDELINESMAYBEFOLLOWED
)NEACHOFTHEAFOREMENTIONEDINSTANCESTHEREQUIREMENTOFREASONABLENESS
MAYBEDESCRIBEDASAREQUIREMENTTHATTHEREBE@REASONABLEGROUNDSFROM
WHICHACERTAININFERENCECANBEDRAWN)TCANFORINSTANCEONLYBESAIDTHAT
FORCEIS@REASONABLYNECESSARYTOACHIEVEACERTAINGOALIFTHEREARE@REASONABLE
GROUNDSTOBELIEVETHATSUCHFORCEISACTUALLYNECESSARYTOACHIEVETHEGOAL
!PERSONCANFURTHERMOREONLYBESAIDTOHAVEA@REASONABLESUSPICIONTHAT
ACERTAINSTATEOFAFFAIRSEXISTSIFHEORSHEHAS@REASONABLEGROUNDSTOBELIEVE
THATTHATSTATEOFAFFAIRSEXISTS#FINGENERALINTHISREGARD,3$V6ACHELL
7,$AT
!PERSONWILLONLYBESAIDTOHAVE@REASONABLEGROUNDSTOBELIEVEORSUSPECT
SOMETHINGORTHATCERTAINACTIONISNECESSARYIF
A HEORSHEREALLY@BELIEVESOR@SUSPECTSIT
B HISORHERBELIEFORSUSPICIONISBASEDONCERTAIN@GROUNDSAND
C INTHECIRCUMSTANCESANDINVIEWOFTHEEXISTENCEOFTHOSE@GROUNDS ANY
REASONABLEPERSONWOULDHAVEHELDTHESAMEBELIEFORSUSPICION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEWORD@GROUNDS ASITISUSEDHERE REFERSTOFACTS4HISMEANSTHATTHERE

WILLONLYBE@GROUNDSFORACERTAINSUSPICIONORBELIEFIFTHESUSPICIONORBELIEF
ISRECONCILABLEWITHTHEAVAILABLEFACTS4HEEXISTENCEOROTHERWISEOFAFACTIS
OBJECTIVELYDETERMINEDCF6AN(EERDEN 3!4 ATAND.ELL
3!37! AT4HISMEANSTHATONEWILLHAVETOLOOKATTHE
FACTSASTHEYREALLYAREANDNOTASSOMEONEMAYTHINKTHEYARE4ODETERMINE
WHAT THE FACTS REALLY ARE A PERSON WILL MAKE USE OF HIS OR HER FIVE SENSES
4HISMEANSTHATTHEPERSONWILLDETERMINETHETRUEFACTSBYLOOKING HEARING
SMELLING TOUCHINGANDTASTING
4OILLUSTRATETHISAPOLICEOFFICIALWALKSDOWNTHESTREET(ENOTICESANOTHER
PERSONAPPROACHINGHIM(EOBSERVESTHATTHEPERSONISSMOKING(EALSOOB
SERVESTHATTHESMOKETHATTHEPERSONISEXHALINGISSUSPENDEDINTHEAIR!S
HEAPPROACHESTHEPERSON HISHEADMOVESTHROUGHTHECLOUDOFSMOKE3MELL
INGTHESMOKE HERECOGNISESTHEPECULIARSWEETSMELLANDREALISESTHATHEHAS
SMELLEDTHISBEFORE(EREMEMBERSTHATTHEPREVIOUSTIMEHESMELLEDTHISWAS
DURINGAPOLICEOPERATIONWHENDAGGAWASFOUNDANDDESTROYEDBYSETTINGIT
ALIGHT(EFORMSTHEOPINIONTHATTHEPERSONWHOEXHALEDTHESMOKEWASIN
ALLPROBABILITYSMOKINGDAGGA
7HATARETHEFACTS4HEPOLICEOFFICIALSAWTHATTHEPERSONAPPROACHING
HIMWASSMOKING4HEPOLICEOFFICIALHIMSELFSMELLEDTHESMOKE4HE
SMELLREMINDEDHIMOFTHESMELLOFDAGGABEINGSMOKED4HEPOLICEOFFICIAL
DOESNOTKNOWWHETHERTHEPERSONISACTUALLYSMOKINGDAGGAHEWILLONLY
KNOWTHISONCETHESUBSTANCETHATTHEPERSONWASSMOKINGHASBEENANALYSED
BYANEXPERTINALABORATORYANDCONFIRMEDTOBEDAGGA
/NCEAPERSONHASESTABLISHEDWHATTHEFACTSREALLYARE HEORSHEWILLEVALUATE
THEMANDMAKEANINFERENCEFROMTHOSEFACTSWITHREGARDTOTHEEXISTENCEOR
OTHERWISEOFOTHERFACTS WHICHHEORSHEISATTHETIME FORWHATEVERREASON
UNABLETOESTABLISH4HISMEANSTHATHEORSHEWILLCONSIDERTHETRUEFACTSAND
WILLTHENDECIDEWHETHERTHETRUEFACTSAREINHISORHERVIEWSUFFICIENTTOWAR
RANTABELIEFTHATTHEOTHERFACTSALSOEXISTCF-NANZANA 3!4 AT

)NTHEILLUSTRATIONABOVE THEPOLICEOFFICIALDREWANINFERENCETHATTHEPER
SONWASSMOKINGDAGGASOMETHINGHEDIDNOTKNOW 4HISBELIEFHEFORMED
ONACCOUNTOFHAVINGSEENTHEPERSONSMOKINGANDEXHALINGTHESMOKE AND
HAVINGSMELLEDTHESMOKE
/NCEHEORSHEHASMADETHEINFERENCETHATTHEOTHERFACTSEXIST ITCANBESAID
THATTHEPERSONHIMSELFORHERSELF@BELIEVESOR@SUSPECTSTHATSUCHFACTSEXIST
)N THE ILLUSTRATION ABOVE THE POLICE OFFICIAL BELIEVED THAT THE PERSON WAS
SMOKINGDAGGA(EDIDNOTKNOWTHATTHEPERSONWASSMOKINGDAGGA(EBE
LIEVEDTHIS BASEDONHISPASTEXPERIENCEOFHAVINGSMELLEDDAGGABURNING
(OWEVER THEMEREFACTTHATACERTAINPERSONBELIEVESORSUSPECTSTHATCERTAIN
FACTSEXISTISNOTSUFFICIENTTOREGARDHISORHERBELIEFASONEBASEDON@REASON
ABLEGROUNDSASREQUIREDBYLAW4HISWILLONLYBETHECASEIFITCANBESAID
THATANYREASONABLEPERSONWOULDHAVEFORMEDTHESAMEBELIEFORSUSPICION
INTHECIRCUMSTANCESCF6AN(EERDENABOVE 4HEWORDS@ANYREASONABLEPER
SON ASTHEYAREUSEDINTHISREGARD REFERTOANYOTHERPERSONWHOHASMORE
ORLESSTHESAMEBACKGROUNDKNOWLEDGESUCHASTRAININGANDEXPERIENCE AS
THEPERSONWHOACTUALLYENTERTAINSTHEBELIEFORSUSPICION

#(!04%2r4(%%8%2#)3%/&0/7%23!.$4(%6).$)#!4)/./&).$)6)$5!,2)'(43
)N THE ILLUSTRATION ABOVE ANY POLICE OFFICIAL WITH THE SAME BACKGROUND
TRAININGANDEXPERIENCEASTHEPOLICEOFFICIALINOURILLUSTRATIONWOULDMOST
PROBABLYHAVEFORMEDTHESAMEBELIEF
! PERSON CAN THEREFORE BE SAID TO HAVE @REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE OR
SUSPECTSOMETHINGIFHEORSHEACTUALLYBELIEVESORSUSPECTSIT IFTHISBELIEFOR
SUSPICIONISBASEDONFACTSFROMWHICHHEORSHEHASDRAWNANINFERENCE AND
IFANYREASONABLEPERSONWOULD INVIEWOFTHOSEFACTS HAVEDRAWNTHESAME
INFERENCE4HISISAFACTUALQUESTIONTHATWILLHAVETOBEANSWEREDWITHREFER
ENCETOTHEFACTUALCIRCUMSTANCESTHATAREPRESENTINEACHCASE
)NTHEILLUSTRATIONABOVE ONEMAYTHEREFORECONCLUDETHATTHEBELIEFTHAT
THEPERSONWASSMOKINGDAGGA ISAREASONABLEBELIEFINTHECIRCUMSTANCES
)NTHEDISCUSSIONOFTHEVARIOUSPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTWHICH
PROVIDE FOR POWERS TO SEARCH SEIZE OR ARREST IT WILL BE POINTED OUT HOW THESE
GUIDELINESAREAPPLIED

#(!04%2
3ECURINGTHEATTENDANCEOFTHE
ACCUSEDATTHETRIAL
-4-OKOENA
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
35--/.3
72)44%../4)#%4/!00%!2
).$)#4-%.4
!22%34
'ENERAL
4HEREQUIREMENTSFORALAWFULARREST
!RRESTWITHAWARRANT
'ENERAL
4HEISSUEOFAWARRANTOFARREST
4HEEXECUTIONOFAWARRANTOFARREST
!RRESTWITHOUTAWARRANT
'ENERAL
4HEPOWERTOARRESTWITHOUTAWARRANT
0OWERSOFPEACEOFFICERS
0OWERSOFPRIVATEPERSONS
3PECIALSTATUTORYPOWERSOFCERTAINOFFICIALS
0ROCEDUREAFTERARREST
3PECIALMEASURESRELATINGTOTHEARRESTANDTREATMENT
OFACHILDSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE
ACHILDBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARS
A CHILDABOVETHEAGEOFBUTBELOWTHEAGE
OFYEARS
$ETENTIONOFAWAITINGTRIALPRISONERS
4HEEFFECTOFANARREST


#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
4HEDUTYTOARREST

2ESISTINGARRESTANDATTEMPTSTOFLEE
5SEOFFORCEINEFFECTINGANARREST
2EQUIREMENTSFORTHEUSEOFFORCE
%SCAPEFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
!RRESTANDDETENTIONFORINTERROGATION
/4(%2-%4(/$3
%842!$)4)/.
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOFREEDOMANDSECURITYOFTHEPERSON WHICHINCLUDESTHE
RIGHTr
3EE BELOW
c
F TOBEFREEFROMALLFORMSOFVIOLENCEFROMEITHERPUBLICORPRIVATESOURCES
3EE BELOW
G NOTTOBETORTUREDINANYWAY
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr&REEDOMOFMOVEMENT
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOFREEDOMOFMOVEMENT
3EE BELOW
3ECTION
%VERYONEWHOISARRESTEDFORALLEGEDLYCOMMITTINGANOFFENCEHASTHERIGHTr
c
E TOBEINFORMEDPROMPTLYr
I OFTHERIGHTTOREMAINSILENTAND
II OFTHECONSEQUENCESOFNOTREMAININGSILENT
c
G TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT AS SOON AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE BUT NOT LATER
THANr
I HOURSAFTERTHEARRESTOR
II THEENDOFTHEFIRSTCOURTDAYAFTERTHEEXPIRYOFTHEHOURS IFTHE
HOURSEXPIREOUTSIDEORDINARYCOURTHOURSORONADAYWHICHISNOTACOURT
DAY
H AT THE FIRST COURT APPEARANCE AFTER BEING ARRESTED TO BE CHARGED OR TO BE
INFORMEDOFTHEREASONFORTHEDETENTIONTOCONTINUE ORTOBERELEASED
c
3EE BELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
%VERYONEWHOISDETAINEDcHASTHERIGHTr
D TOBEINFORMEDOFTHEREASONFORBEINGDETAINED
c
G TOCHALLENGETHELAWFULNESSOFTHEDETENTIONINPERSONBEFOREACOURTAND IFTHE
DETENTIONISUNLAWFUL TOBERELEASED
3EE BELOW
c
K TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT TO REMAIN SILENT AND NOT TO TESTIFY DURING THE
PROCEEDINGS
c
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr3UMMONS
!SUMMONSISSUEDINRESPECTOFACHILDINTERMSOFSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCE
DURE!CTWHOISTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRY MUSTSPECIFYTHEDATE TIMEAND
PLACEOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
c
D !SUMMONSMUSTBESERVEDONACHILDINTHEPRESENCEOFHISORHERPARENT AN
APPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN INWHICHCASEBOTHTHECHILDANDPARENT APPRO
PRIATEADULTORGUARDIANMUSTACKNOWLEDGESERVICEBYWAYOFASIGNATUREORMARK
E )NEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES WHEREITISNOTPOSSIBLETOSERVEASUMMONSONA
CHILDINTHEPRESENCEOFHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN
THESUMMONSMUSTBESERVEDONTHECHILDANDACOPYOFTHESUMMONSMUST
ASSOONASCIRCUMSTANCESPERMIT BESERVEDONTHEPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTOR
GUARDIAN ANDBOTHTHECHILDANDPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANMUST
ACKNOWLEDGESERVICEBYWAYOFASIGNATUREORMARK
!POLICEOFFICIALMUST INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNERr
D WHENSERVINGASUMMONSONTHECHILD PARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANr
I INFORMTHEMOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONAGAINSTTHECHILD
II INFORMTHEMOFTHECHILDmSRIGHTS
III EXPLAINTOTHEMTHEIMMEDIATEPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOFTHIS
!CT
IV WARNTHECHILDTOAPPEARATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATEANDATTHE
TIMEANDPLACESPECIFIEDINTHESUMMONSANDTOREMAININATTENDANCEAND
V WARNTHEPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANTOBRINGORCAUSETHECHILD
TOBEBROUGHTTOTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATEANDATTHETIMEAND
PLACESPECIFIEDINTHESUMMONSANDTOREMAININATTENDANCEAND
E IMMEDIATELYBUTNOTLATERTHANHOURSAFTERTHESERVICEOFTHESUMMONSNOTIFY
THEPROBATIONOFFICERCONCERNED
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
3ECTIONr7RITTENNOTICETOAPPEARATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
!POLICEOFFICIALMAY INRESPECTOFACHILDWHOISALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMITTEDANOF
FENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE HANDTOTHECHILDAWRITTENNOTICEPROVIDEDFORIN
SECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT BUTASAMENDEDBYTHISSECTIONINRESPECT
OFCHILDREN REQUIRINGTHECHILDTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
4HEPROVISIONSOFSECTION C OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTRELATINGTOANAD
MISSIONOFGUILTANDPAYMENTOFAFINEDONOTAPPLYTOAWRITTENNOTICEINTERMSOF
THIS!CT
c
D !WRITTENNOTICEMUSTSPECIFYTHEDATE TIMEANDPLACEOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUI
RYANDBEHANDEDTOTHECHILDINTHEPRESENCEOFHISORHERPARENT APPROPRIATE
ADULTORGUARDIAN INWHICHCASEBOTHTHECHILDANDPARENT APPROPRIATEADULT
ORGUARDIANMUSTACKNOWLEDGERECEIPTBYWAYOFASIGNATUREORMARK
E )NEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES WHEREITISNOTPOSSIBLETOHANDAWRITTENNOTICE
TOTHECHILDINTHEPRESENCEOFHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARD
IAN THEWRITTENNOTICEMUSTBEHANDEDTOTHECHILDANDACOPYMUST ASSOONAS
CIRCUMSTANCESPERMIT BEHANDEDTOTHEPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIAN
ANDBOTHTHECHILDANDPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANMUSTACKNOWL
EDGERECEIPTBYWAYOFASIGNATUREORMARK
!POLICEOFFICIALMUST INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNERr
D WHEN HANDING A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CHILD PARENT APPROPRIATE ADULT OR
GUARDIANr
I INFORMTHEMOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONAGAINSTTHECHILD
II INFORMTHEMOFTHECHILDmSRIGHTS
III EXPLAINTOTHEMTHEIMMEDIATEPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOFTHIS
!CT
IV WARNTHECHILDTOAPPEARATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATE ANDATTHE
TIMEANDPLACESPECIFIEDINTHEWRITTENNOTICEANDTOREMAININATTENDANCE
AND
V WARNTHEPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANTOBRINGORCAUSETHECHILD
TOBEBROUGHTTOTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATEANDATTHETIMEAND
PLACESPECIFIEDINTHEWRITTENNOTICEANDTOREMAININATTENDANCEAND
E IMMEDIATELYBUTNOTLATERTHANHOURSAFTERHANDINGTHEWRITTENNOTICETOTHE
CHILD NOTIFYTHEPROBATIONOFFICERCONCERNED
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr!RREST
!CHILDMAYNOTBEARRESTEDFORANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE UNLESSTHEREARE
COMPELLINGREASONSJUSTIFYINGTHEARREST WHICHMAYINCLUDETHEFOLLOWINGCIRCUM
STANCES
D 7HERETHEPOLICEOFFICIALHASREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHECHILDDOESNOTHAVEA
FIXEDRESIDENTIALADDRESS
E WHERE THE POLICE OFFICIAL HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CHILD WILL CONTINUE TO
COMMITOFFENCES UNLESSHEORSHEISARRESTED
F WHERETHEPOLICEOFFICIALHASREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHECHILDPOSESADANGERTO
ANYPERSON
G WHERETHEOFFENCEISINTHEPROCESSOFBEINGCOMMITTEDOR
H WHERETHEOFFENCEISCOMMITTEDINCIRCUMSTANCESASSETOUTINNATIONALINSTRUC
TIONSREFERREDTOINSECTION D II

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!WARRANTOFARRESTISSUEDUNDERSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINRESPECT
OFACHILDMUSTDIRECTTHATTHECHILDBEBROUGHTTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
4HEPOLICEOFFICIALARRESTINGACHILDMUST INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNERr
D INFORMTHECHILDOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONAGAINSTHIMORHER
E INFORMTHECHILDOFHISORHERRIGHTS
F EXPLAINTOTHECHILDTHEIMMEDIATEPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOFTHIS
!CTAND
G NOTIFYTHECHILDmSPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANOFTHEARREST0ROVID
EDTHATIFAPOLICEOFFICIALISUNABLETONOTIFYTHECHILDmSPARENT ANAPPROPRIATE
ADULTORGUARDIANOFTHEARREST THEPOLICEOFFICIALMUSTSUBMITAWRITTENREPORT
TOTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
c
D !POLICEOFFICIAL WHEREPOSSIBLETHEPOLICEOFFICIALWHOARRESTEDTHECHILD MUST
IMMEDIATELY BUTNOTLATERTHANHOURSAFTERTHEARREST INFORMTHEPROBATION
OFFICERINWHOSEAREAOFJURISDICTIONTHECHILDWASARRESTEDOFTHEARRESTINTHE
PRESCRIBEDMANNER
E )FAPOLICEOFFICIALISUNABLETOINFORMAPROBATIONOFFICEROFTHEARREST THEPOLICE
OFFICIALMUSTSUBMITAWRITTENREPORTTOTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEATTHEPRELIMI
NARYINQUIRY FURNISHINGREASONSFORNON COMPLIANCE ASPRESCRIBED
!NYCHILDWHOHASBEENARRESTEDANDWHOREMAINSINCUSTODYMUST WHETHERORNOT
ANASSESSMENTOFTHECHILDHASBEENDONE BETAKENBYAPOLICEOFFICIALTOTHEMAGIS
TRATEmSCOURTHAVINGJURISDICTION INORDERTODEALWITHTHEMATTERINTERMSOFSECTION
TO ASSOONASPOSSIBLEBUTNOTLATERTHANHOURSAFTERARREST INWHICHCASE
THEPROVISIONSOFSECTION G OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTDEALINGWITHr
I ORDINARYCOURTHOURS
II PHYSICALILLNESSOROTHERPHYSICALCONDITIONAND
III ARRESTOUTSIDEOFTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFTHECOURT APPLYINRESPECTOFTHE
EXPIRYOFTHEPERIODOFHOURS
3ECTIONr&AILURETOAPPEARATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
!CHILDORHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN WHOHASBEENDIRECTED
TOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYINTERMSOFr
D AWRITTENNOTICEINTERMSOFSECTION
E ASUMMONSINTERMSOFSECTION
F AWRITTENNOTICEBYAPOLICEOFFICIALINTERMSOFSECTION READWITHSECTION
G AWARNINGBYAPRESIDINGOFFICERINTERMSOFSECTION OR
ORISOTHERWISEOBLIGEDTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYANDWHOFAILSTOAPPEARATTHE
INQUIRYORTOREMAININATTENDANCEATTHEPROCEEDINGSMUSTBEDEALTWITHINACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION WHICH APPLY WITH THE CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE
CONTEXT

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
).42/$5#4)/.
4HEREAREVARIOUSWAYSTHROUGHWHICHANACCUSEDSATTENDANCEMAYBESECURED
ATTHETRIAL4HEMOSTIMPORTANTOFTHESEAREASUMMONS AWRITTENNOTICETOAPPEAR
ANINDICTMENT ORARRESTOFTHEACCUSEDSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF
4HERULESRELATINGTOEACHOFTHESEWILLNOWBEDISCUSSED AFTERWHICHBRIEF
REFERENCEWILLBEMADETOTHEWARNINGTOTHEACCUSEDTOAPPEARANDEXTRADITION ASA
MEANSOFENSURINGANACCUSEDSCOURTAPPEARANCEINANOTHERCOUNTRY
35--/.3
!SUMMONSISORDINARILYUSEDINRESPECTOFASUMMARYTRIALINALOWERCOURT IN
CIRCUMSTANCESWHERETHEACCUSEDISNOTINCUSTODYORABOUTTOBEARRESTED)NTHE
INSTANCEWHERETHEREISNOREASONTOSUPPOSETHATSUCHANACCUSEDWILLABSCOND
ATTEMPTTOHAMPERTHEPOLICEINVESTIGATION ORATTEMPTTOINFLUENCEPROSECUTION
WITNESSES ITISPREFERABLETOSECURETHEACCUSEDSATTENDANCETHROUGHSUMMONS
ANDNOTTOSUBJECTHIMORHERTOTHEINDIGNITYOFANARREST!NACCUSEDMAY OF
COURSE BEARRESTEDEVENAFTERASUMMONSTOAPPEARONACERTAINDATEHASBEEN
SERVEDONHIMORHER4HISSTEPMAYHAVETOBETAKENWHENITBECOMESCLEARTHAT
THEACCUSEDORSHEWILLATTEMPTTODEFEATTHEENDSOFJUSTICE
)NTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF THEFOLLOWINGPROCE
DUREISFOLLOWEDINORDERTOSECURETHEATTENDANCEOFTHEACCUSEDINCOURT
4HEPROSECUTORDRAWSUPTHECHARGE4HEDOCUMENT WHICHCONTAINSINFORMA
TIONRELATINGTOTHENAME ADDRESSANDOCCUPATIONORSTATUSOFTHEACCUSED IS
THENHANDEDTOTHECLERKOFTHECOURT
4HE CLERK OF THE COURT PREPARES A SUMMONS WHICH ESSENTIALLY CONTAINS THE
CHARGE AND THE INFORMATION HANDED TO HIM OR HER BY THE PROSECUTOR 4HE
SUMMONSSPECIFIESTHEPLACE DATEANDTIMEFORTHEAPPEARANCEOFTHEACCUSED
INCOURT
4HECLERKOFTHECOURTHANDSTHESUMMONSTOAPERSONWHOISEMPOWEREDTO
SERVEASUMMONS SUCHAS FOREXAMPLE APOLICEOFFICIALORSHERIFF
4HESUMMONSISSERVEDBYMEANSOFDELIVERYTOTHEPERSONSPECIFIEDTHEREIN
AT HIS OR HER RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR PLACE OF BUSINESS )F THE
PERSON NAMED IN THE SUMMONS CANNOT BE FOUND IN PERSON AT ANY OF THE
ABOVE MENTIONED ADDRESSES DELIVERY MAY BE EFFECTED AT THE SAME ADDRESS
TOAPERSONWHOISAPPARENTLYOVERTHEAGEOFYEARS ANDWHOAPPARENTLY
RESIDES OR IS EMPLOYED AT SUCH ADDRESS ! SUMMONS ISSUED IN TERMS OF THIS
PROVISION IS ENFORCEABLE THROUGHOUT THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH !FRICA AND MAY
BE SERVED ANYWHERE WITHIN THE 2EPUBLIC!SUMMONSWHICHISTRANSMITTED
BYTELEGRAPHANDSERVICEOFATELEGRAPHICCOPYHASTHESAMEEFFECTASTHATOF
THEORIGINAL3ERVICEOFTHESUMMONSMUSTTAKEPLACEATLEASTDAYSBEFORE
THETRIALDATE4HE DAYPERIODSTIPULATEDFORTHESERVICEOFTHESUMMONS
EXCLUDES3UNDAYSANDPUBLICHOLIDAYS
4HEOFFICIALWHOISTASKEDWITHTHEDELIVERYOFTHESUMMONSRETURNSAREPORTRE
GARDINGHISORHERCHARGE WHICHISCALLEDTHERETURNOFSERVICE4HISRETURNBYTHE
PERSONWHOSERVEDTHESUMMONSTHATTHESERVICEHASBEENEFFECTEDINTERMSOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
S A MAY UPONTHEFAILUREOFTHEPERSONCONCERNEDTOATTENDTHEPROCEED

INGS BEHANDEDINATTHETRIALASPRIMAFACIEPROOFOFSERVICES B 3EEALSO
0ARSONS 3!#27##
3UBJECTTOS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF IFTHEPERSONSUMMONED
FAILSTOAPPEARATTHEPLACEONTHEDATEANDATTHETIMESPECIFIEDORFAILSTOREMAIN
IN ATTENDANCE HE OR SHE IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT OF A
FINE OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING THREE MONTHSS OF THE
#RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT 4HE COURT MAY IF SATISFIED FROM THE RETURN OF SERVICE
THATTHESUMMONSWASDULYSERVEDCF.GCOBO 3!. AND-INISTERVAN
0OLISIEV'OLDSCHAGG 3!! ANDTHATTHEACCUSEDHASFAILEDTOAPPEAROR
TOREMAININATTENDANCE ISSUEAWARRANTFORHISORHERARREST
)NTERMSOFS! THECOURTMUSTENDORSETHEWARRANTOFARRESTTOTHEEFFECT
THATTHEACCUSEDMAYADMITHISORHERGUILTINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCEINQUESTION
ANDMAYPAYTHEFINESTIPULATEDINTHESUMMONSWITHOUTAPPEARINGINCOURT4HE
COURTMAYMAKEAFURTHERENDORSEMENTONTHEWARRANTOFARRESTTOTHEEFFECTTHAT
THEACCUSEDMAY UPONARREST ADMITHISORHERGUILTINRESPECTOFTHEFAILURETO
APPEARINANSWERTOTHESUMMONSANDPAYTHEAMOUNTSTIPULATEDONTHEWARRANT
4HEAMOUNTSOSTIPULATEDSHALLNOTEXCEEDTHEAMOUNTOFTHEADMISSIONOFGUILT
FINETHATCOULDHAVEBEENIMPOSEDFORSUCHANOFFENCE
)FANACCUSEDFAILSTOPAYTHEADMISSIONOFGUILTASSTIPULATEDONTHEWARRANTAND
APPEARSINCOURTONTHEDUEDATE THECOURTMAYSUMMARILYENQUIREINTOHISORHER
FAILURETOAPPEAR4HECOURTMAYTHENCONVICTHIMORHEROFTHEABOVE MENTIONED
OFFENCEUNLESSTHEACCUSEDSATISFIESTHECOURTTHATHISORHERFAILUREWASNOTDUE
TOANYFAULTONHISORHERPARTS 4HEPROVISOTOTHISSECTION HOWEVER PRO
VIDESFORTHEFOLLOWINGTWOINSTANCESWHERETHEACCUSEDNEEDNOTBEARRESTEDIN
TERMSOFTHEWARRANT
7HERE IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON EXECUTING THE WARRANT THAT THE ACCUSED RE
CEIVEDTHESUMMONSANDTHATHEORSHEWILLAPPEARINCOURTINACCORDANCE
WITHAWARNINGUNDERSSEEBELOW HEORSHEMAYRELEASETHEACCUSEDON
SUCHWARNING)NTHISRESPECT THEOFFICIALTHUSHASADISCRETION
7HEREITAPPEARSTOTHEPERSONEXECUTINGTHEWARRANTTHATTHEACCUSEDDID
NOTRECEIVETHESUMMONSORTHATTHEACCUSEDHASPAIDANADMISSIONOFGUILT
FINEINTERMSOFSORTHATTHEREAREOTHERGROUNDSONWHICHITAPPEARSTHAT
THEFAILUREOFTHEACCUSEDTOAPPEARONTHESUMMONSWASNOTDUETOANYFAULT
ONTHEPARTOFTHEACCUSEDFORWHICHPURPOSEHEORSHEMAYREQUIRETHEAC
CUSEDTOFURNISHANAFFIDAVITORAFFIRMATION HEORSHEMUSTRELEASETHEAC
CUSEDONWARNINGUNDERS)NTHISINSTANCETHEOFFICIALHASNODISCRETION
)FANACCUSEDFAILEDTOAPPEARONASUMMONSANDITWASPERMISSIBLEFORHIMORHER
INTERMSOFSTOADMITHISORHERGUILTINRESPECTOFTHATSUMMONSANDTOPAYA
FINEWITHOUTAPPEARINGINCOURT S PROVIDESTHAT WHEREAWARRANTOFARREST
WAS ISSUED AND THE ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED IN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF A MAGIS
TRATESCOURTOTHERTHANTHEDISTRICTINWHICHTHEWARRANTOFARRESTWASISSUED SUCH
OTHERMAGISTRATESCOURTIFSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDHAS SINCETHEDATEONWHICH
HEORSHEFAILEDTOAPPEARONTHESUMMONS ADMITTEDHISORHERGUILTANDHASPAID
A FINE IN RESPECT THEREOF WITHOUT APPEARING IN COURTMAY SUMMARILY ENQUIRE
INTO HIS OR HER FAILURE TO APPEAR 5NLESS THE ACCUSED SATISFIES THE COURT THAT HIS

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
ORHERFAILUREWASNOTDUETOANYFAULTONHISORHERPART S SEEABOVE TAKES

EFFECT )N PROCEEDINGS IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE DISTRICT WHERE HE OR SHE
WASARRESTED ITISPRESUMED UPONPRODUCTIONOFTHEWARRANTOFARREST THATTHEAC
CUSEDFAILEDTOAPPEARONTHESUMMONS UNLESSTHECONTRARYISPROVEDS B
4HEEFFECTOFTHISSECTIONMAYBEILLUSTRATEDBYTHEFOLLOWINGEXAMPLE
!PERSON8 COMMITSAMINORTRAFFICOFFENCEIN4OWN!4OWN!ISONETHOU
SANDKILOMETRESAWAYFROMHISORHERHOMETOWN4OWN" 8RECEIVESASUMMONS
TOAPPEARINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTIN4OWN!4HESUMMONSMAKESPROVISIONFOR
THEACCUSEDTOPAYANADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEATTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTORPOLICE
STATIONIN4OWN!8FORGETSABOUTTHESUMMONSANDFAILSEITHERTOPAYTHEADMIS
SIONOFGUILTFINEORTOAPPEARINCOURTONTHESPECIFIEDDATE!WARRANTFORHISOR
HERARRESTISISSUED8ISARRESTEDIN4OWN")NTERMSOFTHISPROVISION8MAYNOW
PAYTHEADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEIN4OWN"ANDMAYBETRIEDINTHEMAGISTRATES
COURTOF4OWN"FORHISFAILURETOAPPEARINCOURT)TISTHEREFORENOTNECESSARYTO
TAKEHIMORHERTO4OWN!ANDHAVEHISORHERCASEHEARDINTHECOURTTHERE
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFORASUMMONSTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARY
INQUIRYTOBESERVEDONACHILDWHOISALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMITTEDANOFFENCES
4HE SUMMONS MUST BE SERVED ON THE CHILD IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS OR HER
PARENT GUARDIAN OR AN APPROPRIATE ADULT AND THE CHILD AND HIS OR HER PARENT
GUARDIANORANAPPROPRIATEADULTMUSTACKNOWLEDGERECEIPTBYMEANSOFASIGNA
TUREORMARKS A )NEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES WHEREITISNOTPOSSIBLETO
SERVEASUMMONSONTHECHILDINTHEPRESENCEOFHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATE
ADULTORGUARDIAN THESUMMONSMUSTBESERVEDONTHECHILDANDACOPYMUST
AS SOON AS CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT BE SERVED ON THE PARENT APPROPRIATE ADULT OR
GUARDIAN AND BOTH THE CHILD AND PARENT APPROPRIATE ADULT OR GUARDIAN MUST
ACKNOWLEDGERECEIPTBYWAYOFASIGNATUREORMARKS B !POLICEOFFICIAL
MUST INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNERSEEREGOFTHE2EGULATIONSINTERMSOFTHE!CT
AS PUBLISHED IN '. 2 OF -ARCH 'OVERNMENT 'AZETTE WHEN
SERVINGASUMMONSONTHECHILD PARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIAN INFORM
THEM OF THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE CHILD AND THE CHILDS RIGHTS
EXPLAIN TO THEM THE IMMEDIATE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN TERMS OF THIS !CT
WARNTHECHILDTOAPPEARATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATEANDATTHETIME
ANDPLACESPECIFIEDINTHESUMMONS ANDTOREMAININATTENDANCE ANDWARNTHE
PARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANTOBRINGORCAUSETHECHILDTOBEBROUGHT
TOTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATEANDATTHETIMEANDPLACESPECIFIEDINTHE
SUMMONSANDTOREMAININATTENDANCES A 4HEPOLICEOFFICIALMUSTALSO
IMMEDIATELY BUTNOTLATERTHANHOURSAFTERSERVINGTHESUMMONSONTHECHILD
NOTIFYTHEPROBATIONOFFICERCONCERNEDS B
72)44%../4)#%4/!00%!2
)FAPEACEOFFICERONREASONABLEGROUNDSBELIEVESTHATAMAGISTRATESCOURT ONCON
VICTINGANACCUSEDOFANOFFENCE WHETHERTHEACCUSEDISINCUSTODYORNOT WILL
NOTIMPOSEAFINEEXCEEDINGTHEAMOUNTDETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERFROMTIME
TOTIMEBYNOTICEINTHE'OVERNMENT'AZETTEATPRESENTTHISAMOUNTIS2 HE
ORSHEMAYHANDTOTHEACCUSEDAWRITTENNOTICE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SPECIFYINGTHENAME RESIDENTIALADDRESSANDOCCUPATIONORSTATUSOFTHEAC
CUSED
CALLING UPON THE ACCUSED TO APPEAR AT A PLACE AND ON A DATE AND AT A TIME
SPECIFIEDINTHEWRITTENNOTICETOANSWERACHARGEOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDTHE
OFFENCEINQUESTION
CONTAININGANENDORSEMENTINTERMSOFSTHATTHEACCUSEDMAYADMITHIS
ORHERGUILTINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHATHEORSHEMAYPAYASTIPULATED
FINEWITHOUTAPPEARINGINCOURTAND
CONTAININGACERTIFICATESIGNEDBYTHEPEACEOFFICERTHATHEORSHEHASHANDED
THEORIGINALNOTICETOTHEACCUSEDANDEXPLAINEDTHEIMPORTTHEREOFTOHIMOR
HERS 3EEALSOSUB SS AND OFTHISSECTIONASWELLASS! IN
RESPECTOFTHEWRITTENNOTICEREFERREDTOINTHATSECTION
)FANACCUSEDFAILSTORESPONDTOTHEWRITTENNOTICEINQUESTION THEPROVISIONSOF
SWITHREGARDTOASUMMONSSEEABOVE APPLYMUTATISMUTANDISS
!WRITTENNOTICETOAPPEARDIFFERSFROMASUMMONSASFOLLOWS&IRSTLY AWRITTEN
NOTICETOAPPEARISPREPARED ISSUEDANDHANDEDDIRECTLYTOTHEACCUSEDBYAPEACE
OFFICER WHEREAS A SUMMONS IS PREPARED BY THE PROSECUTOR ISSUED BY THE CLERK
OFTHECOURTANDSERVEDONTHEACCUSEDBYAMESSENGEROFTHECOURTORAPOLICE
OFFICIALSEES 3ECONDLY WHEREASAWRITTENNOTICETOAPPEARALWAYSOFFERSTHE
ACCUSEDTHEOPTIONOFPAYINGASETADMISSIONOFGUILTFINEINORDERTOAVOIDACOURT
APPEARANCE ASUMMONSNEEDNOTPROVIDETHISOPTION4HEPURPOSEOFTHISPROCE
DUREISCLEARLYTOEXPEDITETHECOURSEOFJUSTICEINTHECASEOFMINOROFFENCES3EE
ALSO0ARSONS 3!#27##
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFORAWRITTENNOTICETOAPPEARATAPRE
LIMINARYINQUIRYTOBEHANDEDTOACHILDWHOISALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMITTEDAN
OFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULETOTHAT!CTS 3UCHANOTICEMAYNOTMAKE
PROVISIONFORTHECHILDTOADMITGUILTANDPAYAFINES 4HENOTICEMUSTBE
HANDEDTOTHECHILDINTHEPRESENCEOFHISORHERPARENT GUARDIANORANAPPROPRI
ATEADULTANDTHECHILDANDHISORHERPARENT GUARDIANORANAPPROPRIATEADULT
MUSTACKNOWLEDGERECEIPTBYMEANSOFASIGNATUREORMARKS A )NEXCEP
TIONALCIRCUMSTANCES WHEREITISNOTPOSSIBLETOHANDAWRITTENNOTICETOTHECHILD
INTHEPRESENCEOFHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIAN THEWRITTEN
NOTICEMUSTBEHANDEDTOTHECHILDANDACOPYMUST ASSOONASCIRCUMSTANCES
PERMIT BE HANDED TO THE PARENT APPROPRIATE ADULT OR GUARDIAN AND BOTH THE
CHILDANDPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANMUSTACKNOWLEDGERECEIPTBYWAY
OFASIGNATUREORMARKS B !POLICEOFFICIALMUST INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNER
SEEREGOFTHE2EGULATIONSINTERMSOFTHE!CT REFERREDTOABOVE WHENHAND
INGAWRITTENNOTICETOTHECHILD PARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIAN INFORM
THEMOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONAGAINSTTHECHILD THECHILDSRIGHTS EXPLAIN
TOTHEMTHEIMMEDIATEPROCEDURETOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOFTHIS!CT WARNTHE
CHILDTOAPPEARATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATEANDATTHETIMEANDPLACE
SPECIFIEDINTHEWRITTENNOTICEANDTOREMAININATTENDANCE ANDWARNTHEPAR
ENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANTOBRINGORCAUSETHECHILDTOBEBROUGHTTOTHE
PRELIMINARYINQUIRYONTHEDATEANDATTHETIMEANDPLACESPECIFIEDINTHEWRIT
TENNOTICEANDTOREMAININATTENDANCES A 4HEPOLICEOFFICIALMUSTALSO
IMMEDIATELY BUTNOTLATERTHANHOURSAFTERHANDINGTHEWRITTENNOTICETOTHE
CHILD NOTIFYTHEPROBATIONOFFICERCONCERNEDS B

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
).$)#4-%.4
4HECHARGESOFATRIALINTHE(IGH#OURTARECONTAINEDINADOCUMENTKNOWNASAN
INDICTMENT WHICHISDRAWNUPINTHENAMEOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
4HEINDICTMENTCONTAINSTHECHARGEAGAINSTTHEACCUSED HISORHERNAME ADDRESS
SEX NATIONALITY AND AGE 4HE INDICTMENT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SUMMARY
OFTHESUBSTANTIALFACTSOFTHECASE ANDALISTOFTHENAMESANDADDRESSESOFSTATE
WITNESSESS AND
4HEINDICTMENT TOGETHERWITHANOTICEOFTRIAL MUSTBESERVEDONTHEACCUSEDAT
LEASTDAYS3UNDAYSANDPUBLICHOLIDAYSEXCLUDED BEFORETHETRIALDATE UNLESS
THEACCUSEDAGREESTOASHORTERPERIOD)TISSERVEDBYHANDINGITTOTHEACCUSEDIN
SUBSTANTIALLYTHESAMEMANNERASASUMMONSDISCUSSEDABOVE SEES A
ORISHANDEDTOTHEACCUSEDBYTHEMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATEWHOCOMMITS
HIMORHERTOTHESUPERIORCOURTFORTRIAL!RETURNOFSERVICEISPRIMAFACIEPROOFOF
THESERVICES B
&AILURE TO APPEAR IN TERMS OF AN INDICTMENT CARRIES THE SAME IMPLICATIONS AS
CONTAINEDINS AND
!22%34
'
ENERAL
!RRESTCONSTITUTESONEOFTHEMOSTDRASTICINFRINGEMENTSOFTHERIGHTSOFANINDI
VIDUALEGHISORHERRIGHTNOTTOBEDEPRIVEDOFHISORHERFREEDOMARBITRARILYOR
WITHOUT JUST CAUSE AND HIS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT SS A AND
RESPECTIVELYOFTHE#ONSTITUTION ANDCF 'ELLMANV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY
3!#27 )TISTHEREFORENOTSURPRISINGTHATTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTLAYSDOWNSTRICTRULESCONCERNINGWHENAPERSONMAYBEARRESTED
)N TERMS OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT ARREST SHOULD PREFERABLY BE EFFECTED
ONLY AFTER A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST HAS BEEN OBTAINED )T IS ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCESTHATPRIVATEINDIVIDUALS OREVENTHEPOLICE AREAUTHORISEDTOARREST
ANYONEWITHOUTTHEAUTHORITYOFAWARRANT!NYARRESTWITHOUTAWARRANT WHICH
ISNOTSPECIFICALLYAUTHORISEDBYLAWWILLBEUNLAWFUL%VENAPOLICEOFFICIALWHO
EXECUTESAWARRANTFORTHEARRESTOFAPERSONMUSTEXERCISEPROPERCAREINDOING
SO)FHEORSHENEGLIGENTLYARRESTSTHEWRONGPERSON HEORSHEMAY INANACTION
FOR WRONGFUL ARREST BE COMPELLED TO PAY DAMAGES TO SUCH PERSON !PART FROM
THAT SHOULD AN ARRESTEE CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF HIS ARREST AND DETENTION THE
ONUSTOPROVETHELAWFULNESSTHEREOFISONTHEARRESTERORTHEPERSONWHOORDERED
THEARREST-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDERV0ARKER 3!! 2AMAKULUKUSHA
V#OMMANDER 6ENDA.ATIONAL&ORCE 3!6 AND2ALEKWAV-INISTEROF
3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!4
(OWEVER IFAPERSONISAUTHORISEDTOARRESTANOTHER ABADMOTIVEFORTHEARREST
WILLNOTMAKEANOTHERWISELAWFULARRESTUNLAWFUL-INISTERVANDIE3!0OLISIEV
+RAATZ 3!!
4HEREQUIREMENTSFORALAWFULARREST
,AWFUL ARREST AND LAWFUL CONTINUED DETENTION AFTER ARREST ARE BASED UPON FOUR
@PILLARS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEFIRSTPILLARISTHATTHEARRESTWITHORWITHOUTAWARRANT MUSTHAVEBEEN
PROPERLY AUTHORISED IE THERE MUST BE A STATUTORY PROVISION AUTHORISING THE
ARREST7ESHALLDISCUSSTHISREQUIREMENTINDETAILUNDERPARAGRAPHSAND
BELOW
4HESECONDPILLARISTHATTHEARRESTERMUSTEXERCISEPHYSICALCONTROLOVERTHE
ARRESTEE(EORSHEMUSTTHEREFORELIMITTHELATTERSFREEDOMOFMOVEMENT5N
LESSTHEARRESTEESUBMITSTOCUSTODY ANARRESTISEFFECTEDBYACTUALLYTOUCHING
HISPERSONOR IFTHECIRCUMSTANCESSOREQUIRE BYFORCIBLYCONFININGHISPER
SONS 4HEAMOUNTOFFORCETHATMAYBEUSEDLEGALLYWILLBEDISCUSSED
BELOW
4HETHIRDPILLARISTHEINFORMINGOFTHEARRESTEEOFTHEREASONFORHISARREST
S REQUIRESTHATANARRESTERMUST ATTHETIMEOFEFFECTINGTHEARRESTORIM
MEDIATELYTHEREAFTER INFORMTHEARRESTEEOFTHEREASONFORHISARRESTOR IFTHE
ARRESTTOOKPLACEBYVIRTUEOFAWARRANT HANDTHEARRESTEEACOPYOFTHEWAR
RANTUPONDEMAND4HISREQUIREMENTISALSOENTRENCHEDINTHE#ONSTITUTION
S A QUOTEDABOVE
!NARRESTEESCUSTODYWILLBEUNLAWFULIFTHISREQUIREMENTISNOTCOMPLIED
WITHSEE+LEYN#0$AND.GIDI 3!.
4HE QUESTION WHETHER THE ARRESTEE WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE REASON FOR HIS OR
HERARRESTDEPENDSONTHECIRCUMSTANCESOFEACHCASE4HEARRESTEDPERSONS
PARTICULARKNOWLEDGEOFTHESURROUNDINGCIRCUMSTANCESFORHISORHERARREST
ISANIMPORTANTCONSIDERATIONINTHISREGARD4HEEXACTWORDINGOFTHECHARGE
WHICHWILLLATERBEBROUGHTAGAINSTTHEARRESTEENEEDNOTBECONVEYEDATTHE
TIMEOFTHEARREST-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDERV+ADER 3!! ANDCF
"RANDV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!!
7HILST AN ARRESTEES DETENTION IS REGARDED UNLAWFUL IF HE OR SHE WAS NOT
INFORMEDATTHEOUTSETOFTHEREASONFORTHEARREST HISORHERDETENTIONISLAW
FULIFHEORSHEISLATERINFORMEDOFTHEREASON.QUMBAV3TATE0RESIDENT
3!% $ETAILEDINFORMATIONRELATINGTOSOMETHINGTHATTHEARRESTEE
OUGHTTOKNOWNEEDNOTBEGIVEN ESPECIALLYWHENTHEARRESTEEISCAUGHTIN
THEACT-ACUV$U4OIT 3!# AND-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDERV
0ARKER 3!!
)F A CHILD IS ARRESTED THE POLICE OFFICIAL ARRESTING THE CHILD MUST IN THE
PRESCRIBEDMANNERSEEREGOFTHE2EGULATIONSINTERMSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CT INFORMTHECHILDOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONAGAINSTHIMORHERAND
HISORHERRIGHTS EXPLAINTOTHECHILDTHEIMMEDIATEPROCEDURETOBEFOLLOWED
INTERMSOFTHIS!CT ANDNOTIFYTHEPARENTORGUARDIANOFTHECHILDORANAP
PROPRIATEADULTOFTHEARRESTS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
4HEFINALPILLARISTHEREQUIREMENTTHATTHEARRESTEEBETAKENTOTHEAPPROPRI
ATEAUTHORITIESASSOONASPOSSIBLE3ECTION A PROVIDESTHATANARRESTEE
MUSTASSOONASPOSSIBLEBEBROUGHTTOAPOLICESTATIONOR IFTHEARRESTWAS
MADEINTERMSOFAWARRANT TOTHEPLACESTIPULATEDINTHEWARRANT)N%ZEKIELV
+YNOCH.0$CITEDIN'ARDINER,ANSDOWN APERSONWASDE
TAINEDFORHOURSPENDINGINVESTIGATIONOFATHEFTATAPLACEFIVEKILOMETRES
FROM THE POLICE STATION THIS WAS HELDTOBEUNLAWFUL ANDHEWAS AWARDED
DAMAGES3ECTIONWILLBEDISCUSSEDINDETAILBELOW

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
)N-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV3EKHOTO 3!#23#! THE3UPREME

#OURTOF!PPEALCONFIRMEDTHEAFOREMENTIONEDJURISDICTIONALREQUIREMENTSPIL
LARS ANDREJECTEDTHEINTERPRETATIONFIRSTLAIDDOWNIN,OUWV-INISTEROF3AFETY
AND3ECURITY 3!#24 BY"ERTELSMANN*ANDSUBSEQUENTLYFOLLOWED
INANUMBEROFOTHERDECISIONS THATTHEREISAFIFTHJURISDICTIONALFACT NAMELY
THATTHEREMUSTHAVEBEENNOLESSINVASIVEOPTIONSAVAILABLEINORDERTOBRINGTHE
SUSPECTBEFORECOURT BEFOREANARRESTWILLBEREGARDEDASLAWFUL
!RRESTWITHAWARRANT
*HQHUDO
!WARRANTOFARRESTISAWRITTENORDERDIRECTINGTHATTHEPERSONDESCRIBEDINTHE
WARRANTBEARRESTEDBYAPEACEOFFICERINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCESETOUTINTHEWAR
RANT ANDTHATHEORSHEBEBROUGHTBEFOREALOWERCOURTINTERMSOFSWHICH
GOVERNSTHEPROCEDUREAFTERARREST S
5NLESSITISIMPRUDENTORINCONVENIENTINTHECIRCUMSTANCESTOOBTAINAWARRANT
OR THE SUMMARY ARREST OF THE OFFENDER IS NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE IN THE CIRCUM
STANCES ITISDESIRABLETHATAWARRANTSHOULDBEOBTAINEDBEFORETHELIBERTYOFA
PERSONISINFRINGED
7KHLVVXHRIDZDUUDQWRIDUUHVW
!MAGISTRATEORJUSTICEOFTHEPEACEMAYISSUEAWARRANTOFARRESTUPONTHEWRITTEN
APPLICATION OF A DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR A POLICE
OFFICER3UCHAPPLICATIONMUST
SETOUTTHEOFFENCEALLEGEDTOHAVEBEENCOMMITTED
SETOUTTHEJURISDICTIONWITHINWHICHTHEOFFENCEWASALLEGEDLYCOMMITTED
CONFIRMUPONOATHTHATTHEPERSONBEINGSOUGHTINRESPECTOFTHEWARRANT
DID INFACT COMMITTHEOFFENCE
!WARRANTMAYBEISSUEDONANYDAYANDREMAINSINFORCEUNTILITISCANCELLEDBY
THEPERSONWHOISSUEDITORUNTILITISEXECUTEDS
!WARRANTOFARRESTISSUEDUNDERSINRESPECTOFACHILDMUSTDIRECTTHATTHE
CHILDBEBROUGHTTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CT
! WARRANT ISSUED IN ONE DISTRICT IS VALID IN ALL OTHER DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE
2EPUBLICWITHOUTANYFURTHERFORMALITIESHAVINGTOBECOMPLIEDWITHS)N
TERMSOFS ATELEGRAPHICORSIMILARWRITTENORPRINTEDCOMMUNICATIONFROMANY
MAGISTRATE JUSTICEOFTHEPEACEORPEACEOFFICERSTATINGTHATAWARRANTHASBEEN
ISSUEDFORTHEARRESTOFAPERSONSHALLBESUFFICIENTAUTHORITYTOANYPEACEOFFICER
TOARRESTANDDETAINTHESAIDPERSON
)F AN APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT IS MADE AND SUCH WARRANT IS INTENDED TO BE
EXECUTEDONLYUNDERCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES THEWARRANTISNOTNECESSARILYVOID
BYVIRTUEOFTHISFACTONLY)NOTHERWORDS THEOFFICIALTOWHOMITISISSUEDISNOT
DEPRIVEDOFHISORHERDISCRETIONARYPOWERSREGARDINGTHEAMBITOFTHEEXECUTION
OFTHEWARRANT-INISTERVANDIE3!0OLISIEV+RAATZ 3!! ATn
$UNCANV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!! AT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
7KHH[HFXWLRQRIDZDUUDQWRIDUUHVW
!WARRANTOFARRESTISEXECUTEDBYAPEACEOFFICERS
)NTERMSOFSWHICHCONTAINSTHEDEFINITIONS @PEACEOFFICERINCLUDESAMAG
ISTRATE JUSTICEOFTHEPEACE POLICEOFFICIAL MEMBEROFCORRECTIONALSERVICESAND
CERTAINPERSONSDECLAREDBYTHE-INISTEROF*USTICETOBEPEACEOFFICERSFORSPECI
FIEDPURPOSESCFS@0OLICEOFFICIALMEANSAMEMBEROFTHE3!0OLICE3ERVICE
ASDEFINEDINSOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOF
)N4HEOBALDV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2'3* AT THE
COURTHELDTHATAWARRANTOFARRESTPERMITSAPEACEOFFICERTOEXECUTETHEWARRANT
BUTDOESNOTPLACEANOBLIGATIONONHIMORHERTODOSO)NOTHERWORDS THEPEACE
OFFICERISSTILLINVESTEDWITHTHEDISCRETIONWHETHERORNOTTOEFFECTARREST
3ECTIONS AND COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE PEACE OFFICER WHO EXECUTES A
WRONGFULARREST4HUS WHEREAPEACEOFFICERWHOISAUTHORISEDTOEXECUTE ORTO
ASSIST IN AN ARREST NONETHELESS ARRESTS THE WRONG INDIVIDUAL OR ACTS ON A WAR
RANTWHICHHASSUBSTANTIVEDEFECTS HEORSHEISEXEMPTEDFROMLIABILITY)NEITHER
INSTANCE THE PEACE OFFICER MUST ACT IN GOOD FAITH REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE
SUSPECTANDTHESUBSTANCEOFTHEWARRANT RESPECTIVELY4HETESTTODETERMINETHE
ACTIONS OF THE PEACE OFFICER IS OBJECTIVE 4HE COURT MUST THEREFORE DETERMINE
WHETHERAPERSONOFORDINARYINTELLIGENCE WHOTAKESREASONABLECARE WOULDHAVE
BELIEVEDTHATTHEARRESTEEWASTHEPERSONNAMEDINTHEWARRANT)NGRAMV-INISTER
OF*USTICE 3!7 AND-INISTERVAN7ETEN/RDEV6ANDER(EEVER
3!# 3EES OFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOF 4HUS
THEARRESTERISPLACEDINTHEPOSITIONHEORSHEWOULDHAVEBEENINHADTHEWAR
RANTBEENVALID)NTHECASEOFTHEARRESTOFTHEWRONGPERSON WITHOUTTHEARRESTER
HAVINGBEENNEGLIGENT THEARRESTINGPERSONISPLACEDINTHESAMEPOSITIONHEOR
SHEWOULDHAVEBEENINHADHEORSHEARRESTEDTHECORRECTPERSON
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT THEREFORE DOESNOTDEPRIVEAPERSONWHOHASBEEN
MALICIOUSLYANDWRONGFULLYARRESTEDOFACIVILREMEDYFORACLAIMOFDAMAGESS
!CHARGEOFRESISTINGANARRESTMADEINTERMSOFAWARRANTSHOULDNOTNECES
SARILY FAIL MERELY BECAUSE THE POLICE OFFICIALS WERE NOT IN UNIFORM PROVIDED IT
APPEARSTHATTHEWARRANTWASSHOWNANDEXPLAINEDTOTHEARRESTEEANDTHATHE
ORSHEKNEWORWASINFORMEDTHATITWASBEINGEXECUTEDBYTHEPOLICE+ALASE*3
#
)NTERMSOFS THEPERSONEFFECTINGANARRESTINTERMSOFAWARRANTSHALL
UPONTHEDEMANDSEE4HEOBALDV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2
'3* OFTHEPERSONARRESTED HANDHIMORHERACOPYOFTHEWARRANT-INISTEROF
3AFETYAND3ECURITYV+RUGER 3!#23#! AT
)N -INISTER VAN 6EILIGHEID EN 3EKURITEIT V 2AUTENBACH 3!#2 ! IT
WASHELDTHATIFTHEPERSONEFFECTINGTHEARRESTISNOTINPOSSESSIONOFTHEWARRANT
OF ARREST AND REALISES THAT HE OR SHE WILLNOTBEABLETOCOMPLYWITHADEMAND
MADEINTERMSOFS THEARRESTWILLBEUNLAWFUL)NTHISCASETHEPOLICEMAN
INTENDEDTOTAKETHEARRESTEDPERSONTOTHEPOLICESTATIONANDHANDHIMORHERTHE
COPYOFTHEWARRANTATTHEPOLICESTATION!CCORDINGTOTHECOURT THISWOULDHAVE
TAKENTOOLONGANDWOULDNOTHAVECOMPLIEDWITHTHEREQUIREMENTSOFS

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
!RRESTWITHOUTAWARRANT
*HQHUDO
!LTHOUGHITISPREFERABLETHATANARRESTBEEXECUTEDONLYTHROUGHAWARRANT CIR
CUMSTANCES MAY ARISE WHERE THE DELAY CAUSED BY OBTAINING A WARRANT MIGHT
ENABLETHESUSPECTTOESCAPE)TISTHEREFOREIMPERATIVETHATPROVISIONBEMADEFOR
THEARRESTOFSUSPECTSWITHOUTAWARRANTINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES
4HEPROTECTIONOFTHELIBERTIESOFTHEINDIVIDUALSTRETCHESSOFARTHATAPUBLIC
SPIRITEDPERSONWHOCONCEIVESITTOBEHISORHERDUTYTOARRESTANOTHERPERSON
WITHOUTFIRSTHAVINGSTUDIEDTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT MAYSEEMTOBEEMBARK
INGONAPERILOUSUNDERTAKING(OWEVER THEPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTAREBASEDONSOUNDCOMMONSENSEAND GENERALLY EMPOWERPERSONSTOARREST
IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ANY ORDINARY CITIZEN WOULD FEEL MORALLY OBLIGED TO
INTERVENEONTHESIDEOFLAWANDORDER!SALREADYSTATED PRIVATEINDIVIDUALSAND
EVENTHEPOLICEMAYWITHOUTAWARRANT ARRESTPERSONSBELIEVEDTOHAVECOMMITTED
ANOFFENCEONLYIFTHEREARESPECIALCIRCUMSTANCESJUSTIFYINGTHISFORMOFARREST
4HEPOWERSTOARRESTOFPEACEOFFICERSAREWIDERTHANTHOSEOFPRIVATEINDIVIDU
ALS ANDWIDERPOWERSARECONFERREDINRESPECTOFTHEARRESTOFPERSONSWHOARE
CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO CAUGHT IN THE ACT THAN IN RESPECT OF PERSONS MERELY
SUSPECTEDOFTHECOMMISSIONOFANOFFENCE3USPICIONSUFFICIENTTOJUSTIFYARREST
DOESNOTREFERTOA@HUNCHORFLIMSYGROUNDS)TMUSTBEAREASONABLESUSPICION
INRESPECTOFSERIOUSCRIME4HENATUREANDCONTENTOF@REASONABLESUSPICIONIS
DISCUSSEDIN#HAPTER
"EFORESETTINGOUTINDETAILTHECIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHAPERSONMAYBEARRESTED
WITHOUTAWARRANT AVERYIMPORTANTGENERALPRINCIPLEONTHEEXERCISEOFTHEPOWER
TOARREST WHICHWASLAIDDOWNBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL MUSTBEMEN
TIONED)NTHECASEOF4SOSEV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!! ITWASHELDTHAT
@)FTHEOBJECTOFANARREST THOUGHPROFESSEDLYTOBRINGANARRESTEDPERSONBEFORE
THECOURT ISREALLYNOTSUCH BUTISTOFRIGHTENORHARASSANDSOINDUCEHIMORHER
TOACTINAWAYDESIREDBYTHEARRESTER WITHOUTHISORHERAPPEARINGINCOURT THE
ARRESTISUNLAWFUL"UTIFTHEOBJECTOFTHEARRESTERISTOBRINGTHEARRESTEDPERSON
BEFORECOURTINORDERTHATHEORSHEMAYBEPROSECUTEDTOCONVICTIONANDSOMAY
BELEDTOCEASETOCONTRAVENETHELAW THEARRESTISNOTRENDEREDILLEGALBECAUSETHE
ARRESTERSMOTIVEISTOFRIGHTENANDHARASSTHEARRESTEDPERSONINTODESISTINGFROM
HIS OR HER ILLEGAL CONDUCT @0UNITIVE ARREST IE ARREST TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER IS
THEREFOREILLEGAL)N4SOSESCASETHEPOLICEREPEATEDLYARRESTEDANUNLAWFULSQUAT
TERONAFARM ALLEGEDLYWITHAVIEWTOCOMPELLINGHIMTOLEAVECFALSO-INISTER
VANDIE3!0OLISIEV+RAATZ 3!! ATnAND-ANQALAZAV-%#FOR
3AFETY3ECURITY %ASTERN#APE;=!LL3!4K
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTPLACESLIMITATIONSONTHEPOWERTOARRESTACHILD!CHILD
BETWEENTHEAGESOFAND MAYNOTBEARRESTEDFORANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN
3CHEDULE UNLESS THERE ARE COMPELLING REASONS JUSTIFYING THE ARREST S
@#OMPELLING REASONS INCLUDE WHERE A POLICE OFFICIAL HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
THECHILDDOESNOTHAVEAFIXEDADDRESS WILLCONTINUETOCOMMITOFFENCESUNLESS
ARRESTED ORPOSESADANGERTOANYPERSONINCLUDINGHIMSELFORHERSELF ORWHERE
THEOFFENCEISINTHEPROCESSOFBEINGCOMMITTED
4HESTATUTORYPROVISIONSPRESCRIBINGTHECIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHANARRESTWITH
OUTAWARRANTMAYBEEFFECTEDWILLNOWBEDISCUSSED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
7KHSRZHUWRDUUHVWZLWKRXWDZDUUDQW
0
OWERSOFPEACEOFFICERS
)NTERMSOFSEVERYPEACEOFFICERMAY WITHOUTAWARRANT ARREST
!NYPERSONWHOCOMMITSORATTEMPTSTOCOMMITANYOFFENCEINHISORHER
PRESENCES A CF,OUBSER 3!4 'ULYASV-INISTEROF,AW
AND/RDER 3!# -INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV-HLANA
3!#27## 3CHEEPERSV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2
%#' AND-RASIV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2%#'
!NY PERSON WHOM HE OR SHE REASONABLY SUSPECTS OF HAVING COMMITTED AN
OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN 3CHEDULE OTHER THAN THE OFFENCE OF ESCAPING FROM
LAWFULCUSTODYS B SEE-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV"OTHMA
3!#2%#' -INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV+ITASE 3!#2
3#! -AWUV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!#27## ,APANEV-INISTEROF
0OLICE 3!#2,4
#OMMENT
A 3CHEDULETOTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINCLUDESTHESERIOUSOFFENCES
ANDWILLBEDISCUSSEDINGREATERDETAILBELOW!LISTOFOFFENCESINTERMSOF
3CHEDULE)ISSETOUTASANANNEXUREATTHEENDOFTHEBOOK
B 7ITH REGARD TO THE PROVISION THAT A PEACE OFFICER MAY ARREST SOMEONE
WHOM HE OR SHE REASONABLY SUSPECTS OF HAVING COMMITTED AN OFFENCE
MENTIONED IN 3CHEDULE TO THE !CT THE PEACE OFFICER MUST BE CERTAIN
THATTHESUSPECTEDACTDOESINFACTCONSTITUTEACRIME5NION'OVERNMENT
V"OLSTRIDGE!$
C 4HEWORDS@REASONABLYSUSPECTSDONOTIMPLYTHATTHEREMUSTBEAPRIMA
FACIECASEAGAINSTTHESUSPECT4HESECTIONREQUIRESONLYAREASONABLESUS
PICIONANDNOTACERTAINTY4HESUSPICIONMUST HOWEVER HAVEAFACTUAL
BASIS4HEREASONABLEPERSONWOULDTHEREFOREANALYSEANDASSESSTHEQUAL
ITYOFTHEINFORMATIONATHISORHERDISPOSALCRITICALLYANDHEORSHEWOULD
NOTACCEPTITLIGHTLYORWITHOUTCHECKINGITWHEREITCANBECHECKED-A
BONAV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!3% 3EEFURTHER-AWUV
-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!#27## AT;=
D 4HESUSPICIONMUSTBETHATOFTHEPEACEOFFICER!PEACEOFFICERCANNOT
MERELYRELYONTHESUSPICIONOFANOTHERPERSONBUTMUSTFORMHISORHER
OWNSUSPICION2ALEKWAV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!
4
E 4HE PEACE OFFICER WHEN EFFECTING THE ARREST NEED NOT NECESSARILY HAVE
THEINTENTIONOFBRINGINGTHEARRESTEDPERSONTOCOURTTOBEPROSECUTED!
REASONABLESUSPICION COUPLEDWITHTHEINTENTIONTOMAKEFURTHERINQUI
RIESBEFOREDECIDINGWHETHERTHECASEMERITSPROSECUTION WILLSUFFICE!
FURTHERINVESTIGATIONISESPECIALLYNECESSARYINACASEWHEREINFORMATION
IS OBTAINED FROM AN INFORMER WHOSE EVIDENCE MUST BE REGARDED WITH
CAUTION -ABONAV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDERABOVE 4HEPOSSIBILITYOF
ANARRESTEDPERSONBEINGRELEASEDBEFOREHISORHERAPPEARANCEINCOURTIS
NOTANOMALOUSITARISESFROMTHEDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHETESTLAIDDOWN
FORALAWFULARRESTWITHOUTAWARRANTANDTHEPRACTICALREQUIREMENTOFA

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR A PROSECUTION$UNCAN V -INISTER OF ,AW AND /RDER
3!4
F 4ELEGRAPHICINFORMATIONFROMTHEPOLICETHATAWARRANTHASBEENISSUED
SOMEWHEREELSEISSUFFICIENTGROUNDFORARRESTINTERMSOFTHISPARAGRAPH
"OTHA3#
G !SWASHELDIN4SOSESCASEABOVE THEMOTIVEOFDETERRINGTHEOFFENDERIS
NOTINITSELFSUFFICIENTTOMAKETHEARRESTLAWFUL
!NYPERSONWHOHASESCAPEDORWHOATTEMPTSTOESCAPEFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
S C !@REASONABLESUSPICIONTHATAPERSONHASESCAPEDISNOTSUFFICIENT
FOR AN ARREST IN TERMS OF THIS PROVISION ! PERSON WHO EFFECTS AN ARREST IN
TERMSOFTHISPROVISIONMUSTKNOWTHATTHEPERSONHEORSHEARRESTSHASES
CAPEDFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
!NYPERSONWHOHASINHISORHERPOSSESSIONANYHOUSEBREAKINGIMPLEMENT
ORCAR BREAKINGIMPLEMENT ASREFERREDTOINTHE'ENERAL,AW4HIRD!MEND
MENT!CTOF ANDWHOISUNABLETOACCOUNTFORSUCHPOSSESSIONTOTHE
SATISFACTIONOFTHEPEACEOFFICERS D 4HEPOSSESSIONOFHOUSEBREAKING
OR CAR BREAKING IMPLEMENTS IN SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTES AN OF
FENCEINTERMSOFTHESAID!CT
!NYPERSONWHOISFOUNDINPOSSESSIONOFANYTHINGWHICHTHEPEACEOFFICER
REASONABLYSUSPECTSTOBESTOLENPROPERTYORPROPERTYDISHONESTLYOBTAINED
ANDWHOMTHEPEACEOFFICERREASONABLYSUSPECTSOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOF
FENCEWITHRESPECTTOSUCHTHINGS E
!NYPERSONWHOISFOUNDATANYPLACEATNIGHTINCIRCUMSTANCESWHICHAFFORD
REASONABLEGROUNDSFORBELIEVINGTHATSUCHPERSONHASCOMMITTEDORISABOUT
TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE S F 4HE PURPOSE OF THE ARREST PROVIDED FOR IN
THIS PROVISION IS TO ENABLE THE PEACE OFFICER TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION TO
FINDOUTWHETHERTHEPERSONHASCOMMITTEDANOFFENCEORNOT)FITAPPEARS
THATNOOFFENCEHASBEENCOMMITTED THEPERSONWILLHAVETOBERELEASED
!NYPERSONWHOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFBEINGORHAVINGBEENINUNLAWFUL
POSSESSIONOFSTOCKORPRODUCEASDEFINEDINANYLAWRELATINGTOTHETHEFTOF
STOCKORPRODUCES G
!NYPERSONWHOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFCOMMITTINGOROFHAVINGCOMMIT
TED AN OFFENCE UNDER ANY LAW GOVERNING THE MAKING SUPPLY POSSESSION OR
CONVEYANCEOFINTOXICATINGLIQUOROROFDEPENDENCE PRODUCINGDRUGSORTHE
POSSESSIONORDISPOSALOFARMSORAMMUNITIONS H
!NY PERSON FOUND IN A GAMBLING HOUSE OR AT A GAMBLING TABLE IN CONTRA
VENTIONOFANYLAWRELATINGTOTHEPREVENTIONORSUPPRESSIONOFGAMBLINGOR
GAMESOFCHANCES I
!NY PERSON WHO OBSTRUCTS HIM OR HER IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS OR HER DUTY
S J
!NYPERSONWHOHASBEENCONCERNEDINORAGAINSTWHOMAREASONABLECOM
PLAINTHASBEENMADEORCREDIBLEINFORMATIONHASBEENRECEIVEDORAREASON
ABLESUSPICIONEXISTSTHATHEORSHEHASBEENCONCERNEDINANYACTCOMMITTED
OUTSIDETHE2EPUBLICWHICH IFCOMMITTEDINTHE2EPUBLIC WOULDHAVEBEEN
PUNISHABLEASANOFFENCE ANDFORWHICHHEORSHEIS UNDERANYLAWRELATINGTO
EXTRADITIONOFFUGITIVEOFFENDERS LIABLETOBEARRESTEDORDETAINEDINCUSTODY
INTHE2EPUBLICS K %XTRADITIONWILLBEDISCUSSEDBELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!NYPERSONWHOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFBEINGAPROHIBITEDIMMIGRANTIN
THE2EPUBLICINCONTRAVENTIONOFANYLAWREGULATINGENTRYINTOORRESIDENCEIN
THE2EPUBLICS L
!NYPERSONWHOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFBEINGADESERTERFROMTHE3OUTH
!FRICAN.ATIONAL$EFENCE&ORCES M
!NYPERSONWHOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGFAILEDTOOBSERVEANYCON
DITIONIMPOSEDINPOSTPONINGTHEPASSINGOFSENTENCEORINSUSPENDINGTHE
OPERATION OF ANY SENTENCE UNDER THIS !CT S N 4HE PURPOSE WITH THE
ARRESTINTHISINSTANCEISTOBRINGTHEPERSONBEFORETHECOURTTOENABLETHE
COURTTODETERMINEWHETHERTHESENTENCESHOULDBEIMPOSEDORBEPUTINTO
OPERATION
!NYPERSONWHOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGFAILEDTOPAYANYFINEOR
PARTTHEREOFONTHEDATEFIXEDBYORDEROFCOURTUNDERTHIS!CTS O
!NYPERSONWHOFAILSTOSURRENDERHIMSELFORHERSELFINORDERTHATHEORSHE
MAYUNDERGOPERIODICIMPRISONMENTWHENANDWHEREHEORSHEISREQUIREDTO
DOSOUNDERANORDEROFCOURTORANYLAWRELATINGTOPRISONSS P
!NYPERSONWHOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANACTOFDO
MESTICVIOLENCEASCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE$OMESTIC6IOLENCE!CT
WHICH CONSTITUTES AN OFFENCE IN RESPECT OF WHICH VIOLENCE IS AN ELEMENT
S Q
)NGENERAL APERSONISNOTOBLIGEDTOFURNISHHISORHERNAMETOAPOLICEOFFICER
3ECTION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT PROVIDES THREE INSTANCES IN WHICH A
PERSON MAY BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE HIS OR HER NAME AND ADDRESS NAMELY A
PERSON
A WHOMHEORSHEHASTHEPOWERTOARREST
4HISCATEGORYRELATES INSIMPLETERMS TOPERSONSWHOARECLASSIFIEDUNDERS
SUCHASONEWHOISCAUGHTINFLAGRANTEDELICTO!PERSONARRESTEDUNDERTHESECIR
CUMSTANCESCANNOTBEHEARDTOOBJECTIVELYARGUETHATHEORSHEDOESNOTHAVEA
DUTYTOPROVIDEHISORHERNAMETOAPOLICEOFFICER ANDCOMMITSACRIMEBYHISOR
HERREFUSALTOPROVIDESUCHINFORMATION
B W
HOISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDOROFHAVINGATTEMPTED
TOCOMMITANOFFENCE
)N-AYV5NION'OVERNMENT 3!. AT&THECOURTHELDTHATTEST
FORREASONABLESUSPICIONINRESPECTOFTHECOMMISSIONOFANOFFENCEENTAILSTHAT
SUSPICIONMUSTBEBASEDONTHEEXISTENCEORAPPEARANCEOFTHEESSENTIALELEMENTS
OFTHEOFFENCEINTHECONDUCTCOMPLAINEDOF ATTHEVERYLEAST(OWEVER $U4OIT
ETAL23 CH P MAINTAINTHATTHEEXISTENCEOFAPRIMAFACIECASEASTHE
TESTFORREASONABLENESSISUNSUSTAINABLE ANDSHOULDBERECONSIDERED4HUS REA
SONABLESUSPICIONMAYNECESSARILYEXISTWITHOUTTHEBENEFITOFABSOLUTECERTAINTY
)NADDITION THEQUESTIONOFUNCERTAINTYMAYBEAPPLIEDINTHECONTEXTOFWHETHER
ACRIMEWASINDEEDCOMMITTED ANDWHETHERTHECRIMEORTHEATTEMPTTHERETOWAS
COMMITTEDBYTHEACCUSEDINQUESTION

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
C W
HO INTHEOPINIONOFTHEPEACEOFFICER MAYBEABLETOGIVEEVIDENCEIN
REGARDTOTHECOMMISSIONORSUSPECTEDCOMMISSIONOFANYOFFENCE
!PEACEOFFICERMAYFORTHWITHARRESTSUCHAPERSONWHOFAILSTOFURNISHTHEOFFI
CERWITHHISORHERFULLNAMEANDADDRESS)FTHEPEACEOFFICERREASONABLYSUSPECTS
THATTHEPERSONHASSUPPLIEDHIMORHERWITHAFALSENAMEORADDRESS HEORSHE
MAY ARREST SUCH PERSON AND DETAIN HIM OR HER FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING
HOURS UNTILTHENAMEANDADDRESSSOFURNISHEDHAVEBEENVERIFIEDS
&AILURETOFURNISHANAMEANDADDRESSINTHEABOVE MENTIONEDCIRCUMSTANCES
ANDTHEFURNISHINGOFANINCORRECTORFALSENAMEANDADDRESS CONSTITUTEOFFENCES
WHICHAREPUNISHABLEBYAFINEORIMPRISONMENTWITHOUTTHEOPTIONOFAFINEFOR
APERIODOFTHREEMONTHSS
4HEFAILUREOFAPERSONTOPROVIDEHISORHERNAMETOAPEACEOFFICERWHICHIS
BASEDONTHEASSERTIONTHATSUCHPERSONHADBEENADVISEDBYHISORHERLAWYER
@NOTTOSAYANYTHINGISNOTACOMPATIBLEDEFENCEUNDERTHISPROVISION2V3OTIRALIS
;=!LL3!4 7HEREAPERSONJUSTIFIABLYREFUSESTOFURNISHHISORHER
NAMEANDADDRESS THEPEACEOFFICERMAYNOTARRESTHIMORHERBECAUSEOFTHAT
REFUSAL4HEPEACEOFFICERMUSTPROVIDEAREASONFORSEEKINGTHENAMEANDADDRESS
OF A PERSON 2 V $U 0LESSIS %$, AT 7HERE A PERSON IS ARRESTED FOR
REFUSALTOFURNISHHISORHERNAMEANDADDRESS THEREASONFORTHEARRESTMUSTBE
PROVIDEDTOHIMORHERIMMEDIATELYOTHERWISETHEARRESTMAYBEDEEMEDUNLAW
FUL2V+LEYN#0$
)N 2 V .KALA !ND !NOTHER 3! 32 THE APPELLANTS WERE CONVICTED
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT ON TWO COUNTS NAMELY TRESPASSING AND THE REFUSAL
TOLEAVEAFTERBEINGWARNEDTODOSOBYTHEMANAGEROFTHESTORETHEYWEREIN
4HE SECOND COUNT ALLEGED THAT THE ACCUSED HAD REFUSED TO GIVE THEIR NAMES
ANDADDRESSESAFTERBEINGASKEDFORTHISINFORMATIONBYAPOLICESERGEANT WHO
REASONABLY SUSPECTED THEM OF HAVING COMMITTED AN OFFENCE !T THE TIME OF
THIS OCCURRENCE IT WAS THE PRACTICE TO SERVE %UROPEANS AT THE COUNTERS INSIDE
THE STORE AND SAVE IN THE CASE OF PURCHASES OF LIQUOR AND OF POSTAL BUSINESS
TO SERVE !FRICANS AT THE !FRICAN COUNTER ONLY 4HIS COUNTER WAS SO PLACED THAT
PERSONSSEEKINGATTENTIONATITREMAINEDONTHEVERANDAHOFTHESTOREANDTHUS
DID NOT ENTER THE STORE !FRICANS REQUIRING LIQUOR OR WISHING TO DO POSTAL BUSI
NESS WERE SERVED AT A COUNTER INSIDE THE STORE RESERVED SPECIALLY FOR !FRICANS
/N THE DAY IN QUESTION THE APPELLANTS ENTERED THE STORE AND SOUGHT TO MAKE
A PURCHASE AT THE GROCERY COUNTER WHICH WAS MEANT TO SERVE %UROPEANS ONLY
4HEMANAGERINFORMEDTHEMTHATTHEYSHOULDGOOUTOFTHESTOREANDBESERVED
AT THE COUNTER SERVICING !FRICANS (E ALSO TOLD THEM THAT THEY WERE TRESPASS
ING 4HEY REFUSED TO LEAVE THE STORE WHEREUPON THE MANAGER TELEPHONED THE
POLICE ! POLICE OFFICER ARRIVED LATER AND FOUND THE APPELLANTS IN THE STORE (E
HADACONVERSATIONWITHTHEAPPELLANTS ANDTHENREQUESTEDTHEMTOGIVETHEIR
NAMES AND ADDRESSES WHICH THEY REFUSED TO DO 3HORTLY AFTERWARDS THE POLICE
OFFICER ARRESTED THEM 4HE COURT HELD ON APPEAL THAT THE SUSPICION IN RESPECT
OF THE CHARGE OF TRESPASS WAS NOT BASED ON REASONABLE GROUNDS #ONSEQUENTLY
THEACCUSEDSREFUSALTOPROVIDETHEIRNAMESANDADDRESSESINTHECIRCUMSTANCES
COULD NOT BE DEEMED UNLAWFUL 4HE COURT TOOK THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE
FREEDOMOFAPERSONMUSTNOTBEDISTURBEDATAWHIM UNLESSTHEREISADEQUATE
PROOF OF THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE 4HE FACT THAT THE STATE COULD NOT DIS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CHARGEITSONUSINTHISREGARDIMPLIEDTHATTHEAPPELLANTSWERENOTCOMPELLEDTO
PROVIDETHEIRNAMESANDADDRESSESTOTHEPOLICEOFFICER
4HELEGISLATUREHASSHOWNTHESAMECONCERNFORTHEPERSONALLIBERTYOFANINDI
VIDUALASTHECOURTS4HISAPPEARSFROMTHEFACTTHATTHEPOLICEARENOTENTITLED
TODETAINAPERSONFORMORETHANHOURSINORDERTOVERIFYANAMEANDADDRESS
FURNISHEDINTERMSOFS
0
OWERSOFPRIVATEPERSONS
4HERIGHTOFAPRIVATEPERSONTOARRESTAPERSONISADDRESSEDINSSAND)NTERMS
OFSAPRIVATEPERSONMAY WITHOUTAWARRANT ARRESTTHEFOLLOWINGPERSONS
!NY PERSON WHO COMMITS OR ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT IN HIS OR HER PRESENCE OR
WHOMHEORSHEREASONABLYSUSPECTSOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDA3CHEDULEOF
FENCES A THEPRIVATEPERSONMAYPURSUETHATPERSONANDANYOTHER
PRIVATEPERSONTOWHOMTHEPURPOSEOFTHEPURSUITHASBEENMADEKNOWN
MAYJOINANDASSISTTHEREINS
!NYPERSONWHOMHEORSHEREASONABLYBELIEVESTOHAVECOMMITTEDANYOF
FENCEANDTOBEESCAPINGFROMANDTOBEFRESHLYPURSUEDBYAPERSONWHOM
SUCHPRIVATEPERSONREASONABLYBELIEVESTOHAVEAUTHORITYTOARRESTTHATPER
SONFORTHEOFFENCES B
!NYPERSONWHOMHEORSHEISBYANYLAWAUTHORISEDTOARRESTWITHOUTWAR
RANTINRESPECTOFANYOFFENCESPECIFIEDINTHATLAWS C )NTERMSOFS
OFTHE3TOCK4HEFT!CTOF FORINSTANCE APRIVATEPERSONMAYARREST
ANOTHERWITHOUTAWARRANTWHERETHEREISAREASONABLESUSPICIONTHATTHELAT
TERHASCOMMITTEDANYONEOFCERTAINOFFENCESCREATEDBYTHE!CT
!NYPERSONWHOMHEORSHESEESENGAGEDINANAFFRAYS D THEAFORE
MENTIONEDGROUNDSOFARRESTAREAUTHORISEDBYS
4HEOWNER LAWFULOCCUPIERORPERSONINCHARGEOFPROPERTYONORINRESPECT
OFWHICHANYPERSONISFOUNDCOMMITTINGANYOFFENCE ANDANYPERSONAUTHO
RISEDTHERETOBYSUCHOWNER ETC MAYWITHOUTAWARRANTARRESTTHEPERSONSO
FOUNDS
4HEPOWERCONFERREDUPONAPRIVATECITIZENTOARRESTWITHOUTAWARRANTSHOULD
HOWEVER BE EXERCISED SPARINGLY AND WITH GREAT CIRCUMSPECTIONCF -ARTINUS
3!#2! 4HECOURTSAREMOREINCLINEDTOPROTECTTHELIBERTYOFTHE
INDIVIDUAL ASISDEMONSTRATEDINTHECASEOF-ORAPEDIV3PRINGS-UNICIPALITY
40$ (ERE A MUNICIPAL CONSTABLE ON FINDING THE APPELLANTS UNLAWFULLY IN
POSSESSIONOFLIQUOR ENDEAVOUREDTOEFFECTANARRESTBUTWASFORCIBLYRESISTED4HE
APPELLANTSWERECHARGEDWITHANDCONVICTEDOFOBSTRUCTINGTHECONSTABLEINTHE
EXECUTIONOFHISORHERDUTY/NAPPEAL THECOURTHELDTHATTHECONSTABLEWASNOT
APEACEOFFICER-OREOVER THECONSTABLEDIDNOTHAVETHEPOWERTOARRESTWITHOUT
AWARRANTASAPRIVATEPERSON ASTHISRIGHTEXTENDEDONLYTOOFFENCESINVOLVING
THESUPPLYOFLIQUORANDNOTTOMEREPOSSESSION
-EMBERSOFNEIGHBOURHOODWATCHES
)N HIS ARTICLE @$IE REGSBEVOEGDHEDE VAN BUURTWAGEENHEDE $E 2EBUS /CTOBER
$ "OUWER SETS OUT THE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCHES
.7S THEMEMBERSOFWHICHARE FORALLINTENTSANDPURPOSES PRIVATEPERSONS

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
)TISSUBMITTEDTHATTHESAMEPRINCIPLESAPPLY MUTATISMUTANDIS TOSO CALLEDCOM

MUNITYPOLICINGFORUMS
.OGENERALDUTYRESTSONA.7TOEFFECTARRESTONANOTHERPERSON4HEONLY
OBLIGATIONINRESPECTOFA.7RELATESTOSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
INTERMSOFWHICH@EVERYMALEINHABITANTOFTHE2EPUBLICOFANAGENOTBELOW
SIXTEENANDNOTEXCEEDINGSIXTYYEARSISOBLIGATEDTOASSISTAPOLICEOFFICIALIN
ARRESTINGORDETAININGAPERSON
!.7WHOSTANDSINTHEPOSITIONOFOWNER LAWFULOCCUPANT ORLAWFULPOS
SESSOROFPROPERTYMOVEABLEORIMMOVABLE HASTHERIGHTTOARRESTANYPER
SONWHOCOMMITSANOFFENCEINRESPECTOFSUCHPROPERTYWITHOUTAWARRANTOF
ARREST
!N.7 ARRESTORMAYUSEFORCETOEFFECTARREST
4HE.7 ARRESTORMUSTINFORMTHESUSPECTOFTHEREASONFORHISORHERARREST
S &AILURETOINFORMTHEARRESTEEOFTHEREASONFORARREST INCIRCUM
STANCESWHERETHEOPPORTUNITYTOPROVIDEINFORMATIONWASPRESENT RENDERS
THEARRESTUNLAWFUL
7HERETHEARRESTEEESCAPESBEFORETHE.7HASHADTHEOPPORTUNITYTOINFORM
HIMORHERABOUTTHEREASONSFORHISORHERARREST HEORSHECOMMITSTHECRIME
OFESCAPEFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
!.7HASTHEPOWERTOTRESPASSONPROPERTYBELONGINGTOANOTHERWITHOUT
PERMISSION TOACCOSTANESCAPINGSUSPECT
!.7MAY INTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT BREAKOPEN ENTER
ANDSEARCHANYPREMISESFORTHEPURPOSEOFARRESTINGASUSPECT4HE.7MUST
HOWEVER AUDIBLYANNOUNCETHEREASONFORHISORHERPRESENCEBEFOREINVADING
THEPROPERTYINQUESTION
!.7MUST@ASSOONASPOSSIBLEHANDTHEARRESTEDPERSONTOMEMBERSOFTHE
POLICEFORDETENTION
3
PECIALSTATUTORYPOWERSOFCERTAINOFFICIALS
3ECTIONSPECIFICALLYPROVIDESTHATNOTHINGCONTAINEDINTHE!CTINREGARDTO
ARRESTSHALLBECONSTRUEDASTAKINGAWAYORDIMINISHINGANYAUTHORITYSPECIALLY
CONFERREDBYANYOTHERLAWTOARREST DETAINORPLACEANYRESTRAINTONANYPERSON
)TISIMPOSSIBLETOREFERTOALLSTATUTORYPROVISIONSCONFERRINGSPECIALPOWERSOF
ARRESTONPRIVATEPERSONSOROFFICIALS4HEFOLLOWINGARE HOWEVER AFEWINSTANCES
!NENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENTINSPECTOR APPOINTEDINTERMSOFTHE.ATION
AL%NVIRONMENTAL-ANAGEMENT!CTOF MAYEXERCISEALLTHEPOWERS
ASSIGNEDTOAPEACEOFFICERORTOAPOLICEOFFICIALWHOISNOTACOMMISSIONED
OFFICER IN TERMS OF #HAPTER AND OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT
S(OFTHE.ATIONAL%NVIRONMENTAL-ANAGEMENT!CT
!N OFFICER OF A SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS MAY ARREST
WITHOUT A WARRANT ANY PERSON REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF HAVING CONTRAVENED
A PROVISION OF THE !NIMALS 0ROTECTION !CT OF IF THERE IS REASON TO
BELIEVETHATTHEENDSOFJUSTICEWILLBEDEFEATEDBYTHEDELAYINOBTAININGA
WARRANTS B OF!CTOF
!N AUTHORISED PERSON MAY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE NO OTHER
MEANSOFENSURINGTHEPRESENCEOFAPERSONINCOURT WITHOUTAWARRANTARREST

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ANYPERSONWHOHASCOMMITTEDORISREASONABLYSUSPECTEDTOHAVECOMMITTED
ANYOFFENCEREFERREDTOINTHE#IVIL!VIATION!CTOFS OFTHE
#IVIL!VIATION!CT
0ROCEDUREAFTERARREST
!NARRESTEDPERSONMUSTBEBROUGHTTOAPOLICESTATIONASSOONASPOSSIBLEAFTERAR
REST4HEPURPOSEOFBRINGINGANARRESTEETOAPOLICESTATIONISTOENSURETHATHEOR
SHEISPLACEDKEPTINTHECUSTODYOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE@ASSOONASPOSSIBLE
ANDORSHEISDETAINEDBYTHEPOLICEFORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGHOURS4HERE
IS NO PURPOSE IN BRINGING AN ARRESTED PERSON TO A POLICE STATION UNLESS FURTHER
DETENTIONISENTRUSTEDTOTHEPOLICE
4HECUSTODYENVISAGEDBYSCONSISTSOFTWOPERIODS4HEFIRSTISTHEPERIOD
FOLLOWINGTHEARRESTBUTBEFORETHEARRIVALATTHEPOLICESTATION4HESECONDRELATES
TOTHEPERIODAFTERTHEARRESTEDPERSONHASBEENBROUGHTTOTHEPOLICESTATION)TIS
THEFIRSTPERIODWHICHISGOVERNEDBYTHEWORDS@ASSOONASPOSSIBLE
,AW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OTHER THAN POLICE OFFICIALS WHO HAVE THE POWER TO
ARRESTINTERMSOFSHAVENOPOWERSOFDETENTIONINTERMSOFSOTHERTHAN
DURINGTHEFIRSTPERIOD THATIS UNTILTHEARRESTEDPERSONISBROUGHTTOAPOLICESTA
TION3UCHPERSONSCANNOTASSUMETHEPOWEROFDETENTIONIETHESECONDPERIOD
MERELYBECAUSETHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICECANNOTORWILLNOTEXERCISEITSPOWERSOF
DETENTION-AHLONGWANAV+WATINIDUBU4OWN#OUNCIL 3!#2% IN
THISCASETHEARRESTEDPERSONWASUNLAWFULLYDETAINEDOVERNIGHTINTHEBACKOFA
MUNICIPALPOLICEVANBECAUSETHEPOLICECELLSATTHEPOLICESTATIONWEREFULL
)FANARRESTEEISNOTRELEASEDBECAUSENOCHARGESARETOBEBROUGHTAGAINSTHIM
ORHEREGWHERETHEPOLICEDISCOVERTHATTHEREISINDEEDNOTHINGIRREGULARABOUT
HISORHERBEHAVIOUR HEORSHEMAYNOTBEDETAINEDFORLONGERTHANHOURS
UNLESSHEORSHEISBROUGHTBEFOREALOWERCOURT4HISISCALLEDTHE@FIRSTAPPEAR
ANCE 4HE @FIRST APPEARANCE IN TERMS OF S DOES NOT NORMALLY SIGNIFY THE
BEGINNING OF THE ARRESTED PERSONS TRIAL SEE #HAPTER AND CF -INISTER OF ,AW
AND/RDERV+ADER 3!! !TTHEFIRSTAPPEARANCEHEORSHEMAYBE
REMANDEDINCUSTODYPENDINGFURTHERINVESTIGATIONORFORHISORHERTRIAL ORBE
RELEASEDONBAILORONWARNING)FHEORSHEWASARRESTEDFORSOMEOTHERREASON
THANANALLEGEDOFFENCEEGFORNOTHAVINGPAIDAFINETHECOURTMAY ATTHIS
FIRST APPEARANCE ADJUDICATE UPON THE CAUSE OF THE ARRESTSEE 3IMANGO
3!4 AND$UNCANV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!4 !CHARGE
NEEDNOTNECESSARILYBEPUTTOANACCUSEDATHISORHERFIRSTAPPEARANCE)NADDI
TION HEORSHEMAYNOTBEASKEDTOPLEADTOTHECHARGES IFTHEYARE INDEEDPUT
TOHIMORHER(OWEVER ITISIMPORTANTTHATTHEACCUSEDSHOULD ATLEASTINGEN
ERAL TERMS KNOW WHY HE OR SHE IS BEING DETAINED%X PARTE 0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL
4RANSVAAL 3!4
)FAPERSONISUNLAWFULLYARRESTED HISORHERDETENTIONAFTERTHEARRESTWILLALSO
BEUNLAWFUL-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV4YOKWANA 3!#23#! AT
;=(OWEVER ONCESUCHPERSONISBROUGHTBEFOREACOURT ANDHISORHERFURTHER
DETENTIONISORDERED THEFURTHERDETENTION AFTERTHEHEARING IS INDEED LAWFUL
)N-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV4YOKWANA 3!#23#! AT;= THE
COURTHELD HOWEVER THATANARRESTEDPERSONSCONTINUEDDETENTION BYVIRTUEOF
ANORDEROFCOURTREMANDINGHIMORHERINCUSTODYINTERMSOFS DOESNOT

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
RENDERSUCHCONTINUEDDETENTIONAUTOMATICALLYLAWFUL4HEARRESTEENONETHELESS
RETAINSHISORHERRIGHTTOINSTITUTEANACTIONFORDAMAGESASARESULTOFTHEUNLAW
FUL ARREST AND INITIAL DETENTIONSEE )SAACS V -INISTER VAN 7ET EN /RDE
3!#23#!
/RDINARILY THEACCUSEDSHOULDBEMADETOAPPEARINCOURTONAWEEKDAY IE
-ONDAYTO&RIDAYBETWEENHANDH)NOTHERWORDS THEACCUSEDWOULD
NOTAPPEARINCOURTONAWEEKENDORAFTERHOURS4HEREFORE THEPERIODOFHOURS
EXPIRESASFOLLOWSSD
I 7 HERETHESUSPECTISARRESTEDOUTSIDEOFTHEREGULATEDCOURTHOURSIEAFTER
H HE OR SHE MUST BE MADE TO APPEAR IN COURT EITHER ON THE NEXT
COURTDAYORHOURSAFTERTHEINITIALARREST
II 7 HERE THE SUSPECT IS ARRESTED ON A DAY WHICH FALLS ON A WEEKEND HE OR
SHEMUSTONLYAPPEARINCOURTONTHENEXTWEEKDAY ORHOURSAFTERTHE
INITIALARREST)NEITHERINSTANCE THE HOURPERIODISDEEMEDTOEXPIREAT
H
III 7 HERETHEACCUSEDCANNOTAPPEARINCOURTBECAUSEOFINJURYORILLNESS THE
CALCULATIONOFTHEEXPIRYOFHOURSBECOMESELASTIC)NOTHERWORDS THE
PERIODEXPIRESONTHEFIRSTDAYONWHICHTHEACCUSEDBECOMESPHYSICALLYFIT
TOATTENDCOURTPROCEEDINGS)NTHEMEANTIME AMEDICALCERTIFICATEMUST
BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT SETTINGS OUT THE PHYSICAL CONDITION AND THE
WHEREABOUTSOFTHEACCUSED
IV )FTHEACCUSEDISINDETENTIONANDISINTRANSITTOAPARTICULARJURISDICTIONAL
AREA THE HOURPERIODMUSTBEDEEMEDTOEXPIREATTHEENDOFTHENEXT
COURTDAYINTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHEFORWARDINGCOURT
4HE #ONSTITUTION FURTHER BUTTRESSES THE PROVISIONS OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE
!CTINTHISREGARD)NTERMSOFS D EVERYONEWHOISARRESTEDFORALLEGEDLY
COMMITTING AN OFFENCE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT AS SOON AS
REASONABLYPOSSIBLE BUTNOTLATERTHAN
II THEENDOFTHEFIRSTCOURTDAYAFTERTHEEXPIRYOFTHEHOURS IFTHEHOURS
EXPIRE OUTSIDE ORDINARY COURT HOURS OR ON A DAY WHICH IS NOT AN ORDINARY
COURTDAY
4HETIMELIMITOFHOURSFORDETENTIONMUSTBESTRICTLYOBSERVED!NYFURTHER
DETENTION IN THIS REGARD MUST BE DEEMED UNLAWFUL 4HIS WAS HELD IN -TUNGWA
40$ WHEREANACCUSEDESCAPEDFROMCUSTODYAFTERHAVINGBEENARREST
ED WITHOUT A WARRANT AND AFTER HE HAD BEEN DETAINED FOR MORE THAN HOURS
4HECOURTHELDTHATTHEACCUSEDCOULDNOTBECONVICTEDOFTHECRIMEOFESCAPING
FROMCUSTODY$ESPITETHEFACTTHATSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTSEEMSTO
ALLOWTHEDETENTIONOFANARRESTEDPERSONFORHOURS THE#ONSTITUTIONREQUIRES
THAT HE OR SHE EITHER BE RELEASED OR BE BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT AS SOON AS IT IS
REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO DO SO 4HIS CAN BE EXPLAINED BY MEANS OF THE FOLLOWING
EXAMPLE
)F8ISARRESTED
A ON-ONDAYMORNINGAT THE HOURPERIODDURINGWHICHHEORSHEMUST
APPEAR IN COURT EXPIRES ON 7EDNESDAY )F HOWEVER THE POLICE MAKE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SUFFICIENTPROGRESSININVESTIGATION ANDTHECOURTSTILLSITS THEACCUSEDMAYBE

MADETOAPPEARINCOURTONTHESAMEDAYBEFORE)NTHESAMEVEIN THE
ACCUSEDMAYBEMADETOAPPEARINCOURTONTHEFOLLOWINGDAY4UESDAYBEFORE
IFTHEPROGRESSOFTHEINVESTIGATIONWARRANTSSUCHAPPEARANCE
B ON7EDNESDAY MORNINGAT THE HOURPERIODDURINGWHICHHEOR
SHEMUSTBEMADETOAPPEARINCOURTEXPIRESON&RIDAY
C ONTHEWEEKEND3ATURDAYOR3UNDAYREGARDLESSOFTHETIME THE HOURPE
RIODDURINGWHICHHEORSHEMUSTMADETOAPPEARINCOURTEXPIRESON4UESDAY

D ONALONG WEEKENDWHICHINCLUDESAHOLIDAYTHATFALLSONA&RIDAYORA-ON
DAY THE HOURPERIODDURINGWHICHTHEACCUSEDMUSTAPPEARINCOURTEX
PIRESON7EDNESDAY
4HE DETENTION OF AN ACCUSED BEYOND THE REGULATIONS SET OUT ABOVE CONSTITUTES
UNLAWFULDETENTION
6 SHFLDOPHDVXUHVUHODWLQJWRWKHDUUHVWDQGWUHDWPHQWRIDFKLOGVXVSHFWHGRI
KDYLQJFRPPLWWHGDQRIIHQFH
!
CHILDBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARS
!CHILDWHOCOMMITSANOFFENCEWHILEUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSDOESNOTHAVE
CRIMINALCAPACITYANDCANNOTBEPROSECUTEDFORTHATOFFENCES OFTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CT!POLICEOFFICIALWHOHASREASONTOBELIEVETHATACHILDSUSPECTEDOF
HAVING COMMITTED AN OFFENCE IS UNDER THE AGE OF YEARS MAY NOT ARREST THE
CHILD BUTMUST INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNERSEEREGOFTHE2EGULATIONSINTERMS
OFTHE!CT IMMEDIATELYHANDTHECHILDOVERA TOHISORHERPARENTSORANAP
PROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIANORB IFNOPARENT APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIAN
ISAVAILABLEORIFITISNOTINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDTOBEHANDEDOVERTO
THEPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN TOASUITABLECHILDANDYOUTHCARE
CENTRE ANDMUSTNOTIFYAPROBATIONOFFICERS
!PROBATIONOFFICERWHORECEIVESSUCHANOTIFICATIONFROMAPOLICEOFFICIALMUST
ASSESS THE CHILD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BUT NOT LATER THAN SEVEN DAYS AFTER BEING
NOTIFIEDS 4HE PROBATION OFFICER MAY HAVING ASSESSED THE CHILD IN THE
PRESCRIBEDMANNERSEEREGSnOFTHEABOVE MENTIONED2EGULATIONS
I REFERTHECHILDTOTHECHILDRENSCOURT
II REFERTHECHILDFORCOUNSELLINGORTHERAPY
III REFERTHECHILDTOANACCREDITEDPROGRAMMEDESIGNEDSPECIFICALLYTOSUITTHE
NEEDSOFCHILDRENUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS
IV ARRANGESUPPORTSERVICESFORTHECHILD
V ARRANGEAMEETING WHICHMUSTBEATTENDEDBYTHECHILD HISORHERPARENT
ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN ANDWHICHMAYBEATTENDEDBYANYOTHER
PERSONLIKELYTOPROVIDEINFORMATIONFORTHEPURPOSESOFTHEMEETINGOR
VI DECIDETOTAKENOACTION)FPROBATIONOFFICERDECIDESNOTTOTAKEANYACTION
THISDOESNOTIMPLYTHATTHECHILDISCRIMINALLYLIABLEFORTHEINCIDENTTHATLED
TOTHEASSESSMENTS
4HEPURPOSEOFTHEMEETINGCONVENEDBYAPROBATIONOFFICERISTOASSISTTHEPROBA
TIONOFFICERTOESTABLISHMOREFULLYTHECIRCUMSTANCESSURROUNDINGTHEALLEGATIONS

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
AGAINST THE CHILD AND TO FORMULATE A WRITTEN PLAN APPROPRIATE TO THE CHILD AND
RELEVANTTOTHECIRCUMSTANCESS
)NTHEEVENTOFACHILDFAILINGTOCOMPLYWITHANYOBLIGATIONIMPOSEDONHIM
ORHER INCLUDINGCOMPLIANCEWITHTHEWRITTENPLAN THEPROBATIONOFFICERMUST
REFERTHEMATTERTOACHILDRENSCOURTTOBEDEALTWITHINTERMSOFTHE#HILDRENS
!CTS
!
CHILDABOVETHEAGEOFBUTBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARS
!CHILDWHOISYEARSOLDOROLDER BUTBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARS HASTHERIGHT
NOTTOBEDETAINED EXCEPTASAMEASUREOFLASTRESORT ANDIFDETAINED ONLYFOR
THE SHORTEST APPROPRIATE PERIOD OF TIME TO BE TREATED IN A MANNER AND KEPT IN
CONDITIONSTHATTAKEACCOUNTOFTHECHILDSAGETOBEKEPTSEPARATELYFROMADULTS
ANDWITHBOYSSEPARATEDFROMGIRLS WHILEINDETENTIONTOFAMILY PARENTALORAP
PROPRIATEALTERNATIVECARETOBEPROTECTEDFROMMALTREATMENT NEGLECT ABUSEOR
DEGRADATIONANDNOTTOBESUBJECTEDTOPRACTICESTHATCOULDENDANGERTHECHILDS
WELL BEING EDUCATION PHYSICALORMENTALHEALTHORSPIRITUAL MORALORSOCIALDE
VELOPMENTSREADWITHTHE0REAMBLETOTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
4HE #HILD *USTICE !CT ALSO PLACES SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER TO ARREST
ACHILD!CHILDYEARSOLDOROLDER BUTBELOW MAYNOTBEARRESTEDFORAN
OFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOFTHAT!CT UNLESSTHEREARECOMPELLINGREASONS
JUSTIFYINGTHEARRESTS @#OMPELLINGREASONSINCLUDEWHEREAPOLICEOFFICIAL
HASREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHECHILDDOESNOTHAVEAFIXEDADDRESS WILLCONTINUE
TOCOMMITOFFENCESUNLESSARRESTED ORPOSESADANGERTOANYPERSONINCLUDING
HIMSELFORHERSELF WHERETHEOFFENCEISINTHEPROCESSOFBEINGCOMMITTED ORIN
CIRCUMSTANCESPROVIDEDFORINPARA OFTHE.ATIONAL)NSTRUCTIONISSUEDBYTHE
.ATIONAL#OMMISSIONEROF0OLICEPUBLISHEDIN''OF3EPTEMBER
&URTHERMORE IN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO ARREST THE CHILD FOR AN OFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULESAND APOLICEOFFICIALMUSTTAKEINTOACCOUNTTHESAME
CONSIDERATIONSREFERREDTOABOVEAS@COMPELLINGREASONSPARAS AND
OFTHE.ATIONAL)NSTRUCTION
)FACHILDISARRESTEDBYAPOLICEOFFICIALFORANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
THEPOLICEOFFICIALMUSTRELEASETHECHILDASSOONASPOSSIBLEANDBEFORETHECHILD
APPEARSATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY UNLESSA THECHILDSPARENTORANAPPROPRIATE
ADULTORGUARDIANCANNOTBELOCATEDORISNOTAVAILABLEANDALLREASONABLEEFFORTS
HAVEBEENMADETOLOCATETHEPARENTORAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANORB THERE
ISASUBSTANTIALRISKTHATTHECHILDMAYBEADANGERTOANYPERSONINCLUDINGHIM
SELF OR HERSELF S 4HE POLICE OFFICIAL MUST RELEASE THE CHILD INTO THE CARE
OFAPARENT GUARDIANORAPPROPRIATEADULTANDHANDAWRITTENNOTICESEEPARA
ABOVE TOTHECHILDS )FTHECHILDSPARENTORGUARDIANORANAPPROPRIATE
ADULTISNOTPRESENTORTHEREISASUBSTANTIALRISKTHATTHECHILDMAYBEADANGER
TO ANY PERSON INCLUDING HIMSELF OR HERSELF THE POLICE OFFICIAL MUST CONSIDER
THEOPTIONSFORTHERELEASEOFTHECHILD GIVINGPREFERENCETOTHELEASTRESTRICTIVE
OPTIONPOSSIBLEINTHECIRCUMSTANCESS
)FTHECHILDCANNOTBERELEASED THECHILDMUST DEPENDINGONTHEAGEOFTHE
CHILD AND THE ALLEGED OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE CHILD BE PLACED IN A SUITABLE
CHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE)FPLACEMENTINASUITABLECHILDANDYOUTHCARECEN

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TREISNOTAPPROPRIATEORAPPLICABLE THEPOLICEOFFICIALMUSTDETAINTHECHILDINA
POLICECELLORLOCK UPS
)F ATANYSTAGEBEFOREACHILDSFIRSTAPPEARANCEATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRY THE
CHILDHASNOTBEENRELEASEDFROMDETENTIONINPOLICECUSTODYANDISCHARGED IN
THECASEOFACHILDWHOISA I YEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS
WITHANYOFFENCEORII YEARSOROLDER WITHANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
OR THEPOLICEOFFICIALMUSTGIVECONSIDERATIONTOTHEDETENTIONOFTHECHILDIN
ANAPPROPRIATECHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE IFACENTREISAVAILABLEANDTHEREISA
VACANCY ORIFACENTREORVACANCYISNOTAVAILABLE INAPOLICECELLORLOCK UPOR
B YEARSOROLDER WITHANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE THEPOLICEOFFICIAL
MUSTCAUSETHECHILDTOBEDETAINEDINAPOLICECELLORLOCK UP
!PRESIDINGOFFICERMAY ATACHILDSFIRSTORSUBSEQUENTAPPEARANCEATAPRELIMI
NARYINQUIRYORTHEREAFTERATACHILDJUSTICECOURT ORDERTHEFURTHERDETENTIONOF
THECHILDINA ACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTREINACCORDANCEWITHSORB A
PRISONINACCORDANCEWITHS SUBJECTTOTHELIMITATIONSSETOUTINTHATSECTION
S
)FACHILDHASNOTBEENRELEASED THEPOLICEINVESTIGATINGOFFICERMUSTPROVIDE
THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEWITHAWRITTENREPORTINTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNERSEEREG
OFTHE2EGULATIONSINTERMSOFTHE!CT REFERREDTOABOVE GIVINGREASONSWHYTHE
CHILDCOULDNOTBERELEASED WITHPARTICULARREFERENCETOTHEFACTORSREFERREDTOIN
A ORB S
'HWHQWLRQRIDZDLWLQJWULDOSULVRQHUV
!PERSONWHOHASBEENARRESTEDANDISINDETENTIONWHILEAWAITINGHISORHERTRIAL
IS KNOWN AS AN @AWAITING TRIAL PRISONER3UCHAPERSONHASNOT BEEN CONVICTED
BYACOURTOFLAWANDMUSTTHEREFOREBEPRESUMEDTOBEINNOCENT!WAITINGTRIAL
PRISONERSINTHEDETENTIONOFTHE$EPARTMENTOF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICESATACOR
RECTIONALFACILITYAREDETAINEDSEPARATELYFROMPRISONERSWHOHAVEALREADYBEEN
CONVICTEDANDSENTENCED4HECONDITIONSOFDETENTIONOFAWAITINGTRIALPRISONERS
AREGENERALLYMOREFAVOURABLETHANTHOSEOFSENTENCEDPRISONERSSEE#HAPTERS
ANDOFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOF
)N:EALANDV-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!
## THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT HELD THAT TO DETAIN AN AWAITING TRIAL PRISONER
TOGETHERWITHSENTENCEDPRISONERSISUNLAWFULANDCONSTITUTESABREACHOFSUCH
PERSONS RIGHT NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM ARBITRARILY OR WITHOUT JUST CAUSE
WHICHISCONTAINEDINS A OFTHE#ONSTITUTION 4HECOURTHELDFURTHER
THATITAMOUNTEDTOAFORMOFPUNISHMENTIMPOSEDONTHEAWAITINGTRIALPRISONER
WITHOUTHISORHERHAVINGBEENCONVICTEDOFANOFFENCE
4HEEFFECTOFANARREST
4HEEFFECTOFALAWFULARRESTISTHATTHEARRESTEDPERSONISINLAWFULCUSTODYUN
LESSTHATCUSTODYSUBSEQUENTLYBECOMESUNLAWFUL EGASIN%ZEKIELSCASEABOVE
ANDMAYBEDETAINEDUNTILHEORSHEISLAWFULLYDISCHARGEDORRELEASEDS
3EE ALSO .HLABATHI V !DJUNK 0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL 4RANSVAAL 3! 7
ANDCF-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTV:EALAND 3!#2

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
3#! WHICHWASSETASIDEIN:EALANDV-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL
$EVELOPMENT 3!#2##
4HEFACTTHATANARRESTORDETENTIONISUNLAWFULOBVIOUSLYDOESNOTAFFECTTHE
LIABILITYOFANACCUSEDINSOFARASTHEOFFENCEISCONCERNEDINCONNECTIONWITH
WHICHHEORSHEISDETAINEDORHASUNLAWFULLYBEENARRESTED %STA40$
)NCASEOFUNLAWFULDETENTIONTHEDETAINEEMAYAPPLYTOTHECOURTFORANORDER
FORHISORHERRELEASE"ECAUSETHEDETAINEEISUNABLETOBRINGSUCHANAPPLICATION
HIMSELF OR HERSELF THE APPLICATION MAY BE BROUGHT ON HIS OR HER BEHALF BY AN
INTERESTEDPERSON SUCHASAFAMILYMEMBER FRIEND PARTNER CO MEMBEROFASOCI
ETY CHURCHORPOLITICALPARTYCF7OODV/NDANGWA4RIBAL!UTHORITY 3!
! 4HEISSUEINSUCHANAPPLICATION REVOLVESAROUNDTHEQUESTIONWHETHER
THEPERSONCONCERNEDISBEINGUNLAWFULLYDEPRIVEDOFHISORHERLIBERTY
)N DEALING WITH SUCH AN APPLICATION UNCERTAINTY PREVAILED WHETHER TO APPLY
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE HABEAS CORPUS REMEDY OF %NGLISH LAW OR THE 2OMAN $UTCH
INTERDICTUMDELIBEROHOMINEEXHIBENDO ESPECIALLYSINCEINTERMSOFTHEHABEASCOR
PUS PROCEDURE THE RULE EXISTED UNTIL RECENTLY IN %NGLISH LAW THAT A PERSON OR
INTERESTEDPERSONAGAINSTWHOMANORDERHADBEENMADECOULDNOTAPPEALAGAINST
SUCHANORDER)N+ABINETVANDIE4USSENTYDSE2EGERINGVAN3UIDWES !FRIKAV+ATOFA
3!! AT%THECOURTHELDTHATTHEPRINCIPLESOFHABEASCORPUSARE
NOTPARTOF3OUTH!FRICANLAW THATTHEPRINCIPLESOFTHEINTERDICTUMDELIBEROHOM
INEEXHIBENDOMUSTAPPLYANDTHATPARTIESAGAINSTWHOMSUCHORDERSHAVEBEEN
MADEMAYAPPEALAGAINSTTHEM
4HEPOWERSANDDUTIESOFPERSONSAUTHORISEDBYAWARRANTTOARRESTANOTHERARE
CO EXTENSIVEWITHSUCHPOWERSANDDUTIESOFAPERSONARRESTINGANOTHERWITHOUT
AWARRANTINTHEFOLLOWINGRESPECTS
A THEPLACINGOFOBJECTSFOUNDONTHEARRESTEDPERSONINSAFECUSTODY
B THEGENERALPOWERSNECESSARYFORTHEPURPOSESOFEFFECTINGANARRESTAND
C THERIGHTTOREQUIRETHIRDPERSONSTOASSISTINTHEARREST
4HEDUTYTOARREST
!SAGENERALRULETHEREISNOOBLIGATIONONAPRIVATEINDIVIDUALTOARRESTSOMEONE
4HEEXCEPTIONTOTHISRULEISTHATEVERYMALEINHABITANTOFTHE2EPUBLICBETWEEN
THEAGESOFANDIS WHENCALLEDUPONBYAPOLICEOFFICIALTODOSO REQUIREDTO
ASSISTSUCHPOLICEOFFICIALINARRESTINGANDDETAININGAPERSONS &AILURETO
RENDERASSISTANCEISANOFFENCEPUNISHABLEBYAFINEORIMPRISONMENTFORAPERIOD
NOTEXCEEDINGTHREEMONTHSS
)N-GWENYA40$ITWASHELDTHATLAMENESSMAYEXEMPTTHEACCUSED
FROMCRIMINALLIABILITY-ENSREAHASBEENHELDTOBEANELEMENTOFTHECRIMEOF
CONTRAVENINGTHISSECTION)N,AKIER40$ ADETECTIVEENDEAVOURINGTO
RETAIN CUSTODY OF AN ARRESTED PERSON REQUESTED THE ACCUSED , TO ASSIST , HAD
BEENCALLEDTOTHESCENEONINFORMATIONTHATTWOMENWEREFIGHTING4HEDETEC
TIVE WAS IN PLAIN CLOTHES BUT INFORMED , THAT HE WAS A DETECTIVE , REFUSED TO
ASSISTSINCEHEBELIEVEDTHATHEWASBEINGBLUFFED4HEPERSONARRESTEDTHENSAID
HEWASWILLINGTOACCOMPANYTHEDETECTIVEAND,THENREALISEDHISORHERMISTAKE
AND DID THEREAFTER RENDER ASSISTANCE 4HE COURT HELD ON APPEAL THAT ASSUMING
THAT THERE WAS A PRESUMPTION OF MENS REA WHEN , FIRST REFUSED ASSISTANCE THAT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PRESUMPTION WAS REFUTED BY HIS OR HER EXPLANATION AND SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT ,
WASTHEREFOREACQUITTED
)NORDERTOSECUREACONVICTIONUNDERS THE3TATEMUSTDISCHARGETHEONUSOF
PROVINGTHATTHEPOLICEOFFICIALHADAUTHORITYTOEFFECTTHEARREST2OSENTHAL
40$
!N AUTHORISED PERSON MAY CALL ON ANY PERSON TO ASSIST HIM OR HER TO EFFECT
AN ARREST OF A PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED OR IS REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF HAVING
COMMITTEDANYOFFENCEREFERREDTOINTHE#IVIL!VIATION!CTOF ANDMAY
USESUCHFORCEASMAYINTHECIRCUMSTANCESBEREASONABLYNECESSARYTOOVERCOME
RESISTANCEORTOPREVENTTHEPERSONCONCERNEDFROMFLEEINGS OFTHE#IVIL
!VIATION!CT
2ESISTINGARRESTANDATTEMPTSTOFLEE
8VHRIIRUFHLQHIIHFWLQJDQDUUHVW
)T HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT THAT ARREST IS A DRASTIC METHOD OF SECURING THE
PRESENCEOFANACCUSEDATHISORHERTRIAL4OUSEFORCEINORDERTOEFFECTANARREST
ISEVENMOREDRASTIC4HELAWACCORDINGLYLAYSDOWNVERYSTRICTREQUIREMENTSTHAT
MUSTBECOMPLIEDWITHBEFOREFORCEMAYBEUSEDINORDERTOEFFECTANARRESTAND
IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT OUR COURTS ARE VERY STRICT IN THEIR APPLICATION OF THESE
REQUIREMENTS
!SAGENERALRULE FORCEMAYNOTBEUSEDINORDERTOEFFECTANARREST PARTICULARLY
WHERETHEARRESTEESUBMITSHIMSELFORHERSELFTOARREST4HENEEDTOUSEFORCEONLY
ARISES UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE FORCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME RESISTANCE TO
THEARRESTORTOPREVENTTHESUSPECTFROMFLEEING4HEUSEOFFORCETOPUNISHTHE
ARRESTEEISALWAYUNLAWFUL
%VERYPERSONRETAINSHISORHERCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSASENSHRINEDINTHE"ILLOF
2IGHTSDESPITETHESUSPICIONTHATHEORSHEHASCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE
)NTERMSOFS C nE OFTHE#ONSTITUTION EVERYPERSONHASTHERIGHTÚ
I TO FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON WHICH INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO BE FREE
FROMALLFORMSOFVIOLENCEFROMEITHERPUBLICORPRIVATESOURCES
II NOTTOBETORTUREDINANYWAYAND
III NOTTOBETREATEDORPUNISHEDINACRUEL INHUMANEORDEGRADINGWAY
&URTHERMORE S H CONFIRMSTHERIGHTOFEVERYACCUSEDPERSONTOAFAIRTRIAL
WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHTTOBEPRESUMEDINNOCENT
4HEUSEOFFORCEINEFFECTINGANARRESTMUSTACCORDINGLYBEVIEWEDAGAINSTTHIS
BACKGROUND3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREADSASFOLLOWS
5SEOFFORCEINEFFECTINGARREST
&ORTHEPURPOSESOFTHISSECTION
A @ARRESTORMEANSANYPERSONAUTHORISEDUNDERTHIS!CTTOARRESTORTOASSISTIN
ARRESTINGASUSPECT
B @SUSPECTMEANSANYPERSONINRESPECTOFWHOMANARRESTORHASAREASONABLE
SUSPICIONTHATSUCHPERSONISCOMMITTINGORHASCOMMITTEDANOFFENCEAND
C @DEADLYFORCEMEANSFORCETHATISLIKELYTOCAUSESERIOUSBODILYHARMORDEATH
ANDINCLUDES BUTISNOTLIMITEDTO SHOOTINGATASUSPECTWITHAFIREARM
)FANYARRESTORATTEMPTSTOARRESTASUSPECTANDTHESUSPECTRESISTSTHEATTEMPT OR
FLEES ORRESISTSTHEATTEMPTANDFLEES WHENITISCLEARTHATANATTEMPTTOARRESTHIM
ORHERISBEINGMADE ANDTHESUSPECTCANNOTBEARRESTEDWITHOUTTHEUSEOFFORCE

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
THEARRESTORMAY INORDERTOEFFECTTHEARREST USESUCHFORCEASMAYBEREASONABLY

NECESSARYANDPROPORTIONALINTHECIRCUMSTANCESTOOVERCOMETHERESISTANCEORTO
PREVENTTHESUSPECTFROMFLEEINGBUT INADDITIONTOTHEREQUIREMENTTHATTHEFORCE
MUSTBEREASONABLYNECESSARYANDPROPORTIONALINTHECIRCUMSTANCES THEARRESTOR
MAYUSEDEADLYFORCEONLYIF
A T HESUSPECTPOSESATHREATOFSERIOUSVIOLENCETOTHEARRESTORORANYOTHERPER
SONOR
B T HESUSPECTISSUSPECTEDONREASONABLEGROUNDSOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDACRIME
INVOLVINGTHEINFLICTIONORTHREATENEDINFLICTIONOFSERIOUSBODILYHARMAND
THEREARENOOTHERREASONABLEMEANSOFEFFECTINGTHEARREST WHETHERATTHAT
TIMEORLATER
4HEWORDS@REASONABLYNECESSARYWHICHALSOAPPEAREDINTHEPREVIOUSS HAVE
BEENINTERPRETEDBYOURCOURTSTOINCLUDEAPROPORTIONALITYTEST
)N 'OVENDER V -INISTER OF 3AFETY AND 3ECURITY 3! 3#! AT THE
3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL HELD THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE #ONSTITUTION THE PRO
PORTIONALITY TEST SHOULD REFER TO ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE FORCE IS USED
!CCORDINGTOTHECOURT THISREPRESENTSARATIONALANDEQUITABLEWAYOFBALANCING
THEINTERESTSOFTHE3TATE SOCIETY THEPOLICEOFFICERSINVOLVED ANDTHEFUGITIVE)N
VIEWOFTHIS NOTONLYTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE BUTOTHERFACTORSSUCHASTHE
FACTWHETHERTHESUSPECTISARMED POSESATHREATTOTHEARRESTERORANOTHERPERSON
ISKNOWNANDCANEASILYBEAPPREHENDEDATALATERSTAGE ETC MUSTBETAKENINTO
ACCOUNTINDETERMININGWHETHERTHEUSEOFAPARTICULARDEGREEOFFORCEWASJUSTI
FIED INTHECIRCUMSTANCES
)TISASERIOUSMATTERTOKILLAPERSONINTHECOURSEOFARRESTBECAUSETHESUSPECT
MAY BE COMPLETELY INNOCENT ! PERSON WHO CLAIMS THE PROTECTION ENTAILED IN
SBEARSTHEONUSOFPROOF ONAPREPONDERANCEOFPROBABILITIES TODEMONSTRATE
THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PROVISION WERE COMPLIED WITH"RITZ 3!
! 3WANEPOEL 3! ! )N 3CHOLTZ 3! 7 AT IT
WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF LIFE IN A STATE UNDER THE RULE
OFLAWTHATTHEPOLICEDONOTEXCEEDTHELIMITSOFTHEIRPOWERSINTERMSOFS
#FALSO'OVERNMENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICAV"ASDEO 3!!
!CCORDINGLY EVERYFACETOFPOLICEACTIONUNDERSMUSTBECAREFULLYANALYSED
ANDMEASUREDAGAINSTTHEREQUIREMENTSOFTHISSECTION
.OTONLYTHEKILLINGOFAPERSONSHOULDBEREGARDEDINASERIOUSLIGHT3OMETIMES
FORCEISUSEDWHICHDOESNOTRESULTINTHEDEATHOFTHEPERSONTOBEARRESTED BUT
SERIOUSLYINJURESTHATPERSONORHASTHEPOTENTIALOFSERIOUSLYWOUNDINGORKILLING
THEPERSON)N'OVENDERV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!3#! THE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALREFERREDTOTHEUSEOF@DEADLYFORCEOR@POTENTIALLYLETHAL
FORCE!CCORDINGTOTHECOURT @DEADLYFORCEOR@POTENTIALLYLETHALFORCESHOULDBE
REGARDEDASREFERRINGTOTHATDEGREEOFFORCEWHICHHASTHEPOTENTIALOFKILLINGTHE
SUSPECT ORFORCEWHICHCANBEREASONABLYEXPECTEDEITHERTOKILLORSERIOUSLYTO
INJURETHEPERSONTOBEARRESTED4HISPRINCIPLEISEMBODIEDINS
/URCOURTSHAVEOVERMANYYEARSEMPHASISEDTHATANARRESTERSHOULDNOTINDIS
CRIMINATELYHAVERECOURSETOSHOOTINGATASUSPECTTOEFFECTARREST)N'OVENDERV
-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!3#! THESUSPECTAPPLICANTSSON
AND SOME FRIENDS WERE SEEN BY THE POLICE DRIVING A STOLEN CAR 4HE POLICE GAVE
CHASEANDSWITCHEDONTHEIRSIRENANDBLUELIGHTS4HESUSPECT WHOWASDRIVING
THECAR FAILEDTOSTOP!FTERAHIGH SPEEDCHASEHESTOPPEDTHECARANDATTEMPTED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TORUNAWAY/NEOFTHEPOLICEMENPURSUEDHIMONFOOTANDSHOUTEDATHIMTO
STOP4HEPOLICEMANFIREDAWARNINGSHOTINTOAGRASSBANKANDAGAINSHOUTEDTO
HIMTOSTOP4HEPOLICEMANWASCONVINCEDTHATHEWOULDNOTBEABLETOCATCHTHE
SUSPECT ANDFIREDASHOTATHISLEGS4HESHOTSTRUCKHIMINTHESPINE RESULTING
INHISBECOMINGAPARAPLEGIC4HECOURTHELDTHATTHEFACTTHATTHEFUGITIVEWAS
OBVIOUSLY YOUNG OR UNARMED OR OF SLIGHT BUILD HAD TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
4HESEFACTORSIMPLIEDTHATHECOULDHAVEBEENBROUGHTTOJUSTICEINSOMEOTHER
WAY!TANYRATE HEDIDNOTPRESENTANYTHREATORDANGERTOTHEPOLICEOFFICERSOR
TOMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLIC ATTHATPOINT5NDERTHESECIRCUMSTANCES ITCOULDBE
ARGUEDTHATTHEREWASNOINTERESTOFSOCIETYWHICHWASSOPRESSINGTHATITJUSTIFIED
THEVIOLATIONOFTHESUSPECTSPHYSICALINTEGRITY
)N-ARTINUS 3!#2! THE!PPELLATE$IVISIONWARNEDTHEPRIVATE
CITIZENTOEXERCISETHEPOWERSCONFERREDUPONHIMORHERINTERMSOFSSAND
SPARINGLYANDWITHEXTREMECIRCUMSPECTION4HEUSEOFAFIREARMASAMETHODOF
EXERCISINGFORCETOEFFECTANARRESTSHOULDBERESORTEDTOWITHGREATCAUTION!PRI
VATECITIZENCONTEMPLATINGTHEUSEOFFORCEINTERMSOFS SHOULDBEARINMIND
THATHISORHERACTIONSWILLBEJUDGEDACCORDINGTOTHEOBJECTIVESTANDARDOFTHE
REASONABLEMANANDNOTACCORDINGTOHISORHEROWNBONAFIDESUBJECTIVEEVALUA
TIONOFTHESITUATION&ORADETAILEDDISCUSSIONOFTHEUSEOFFORCEINTHECOURSEOF
ANARRESTBYAPRIVATEPERSONWITHREFERENCETOSS AND SEE-ACUV$U
4OIT 3!!
4HE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT IN %X 0ARTE -INISTER OF 3AFETY AND 3ECURITY )N 2E 3 V
7ALTERS 3!## ATSTATEDTHELAWWITHREGARDTOTHEUSEOFFORCE
INORDERTOEFFECTANARRESTASFOLLOWS
)NORDERTOMAKEPERFECTLYCLEARWHATTHELAWREGARDINGTHISTOPICNOWIS )TABULATETHE
MAINPOINTS
A 4HEPURPOSEOFARRESTISTOBRINGBEFORECOURTFORTRIALPERSONSSUSPECTEDOFHAVING
COMMITTEDOFFENCES
B !RRESTISNOTTHEONLYMEANSOFACHIEVINGTHISPURPOSE NORALWAYSTHEBEST
C !RRESTMAYNEVERBEUSEDTOPUNISHASUSPECT
D 7HEREARRESTISCALLEDFOR FORCEMAYBEUSEDONLYWHEREITISNECESSARYINORDERTO
CARRYOUTTHEARREST
E 7HERE FORCE IS NECESSARY ONLY THE LEAST DEGREE OF FORCE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO
CARRYOUTTHEARRESTMAYBEUSED
F )NDECIDINGWHATDEGREEOFFORCEISBOTHREASONABLEANDNECESSARY ALLTHECIRCUM
STANCESMUSTBETAKENINTOACCOUNT INCLUDINGTHETHREATOFVIOLENCETHESUSPECT
POSESTOTHEARRESTEROROTHERS ANDTHENATUREANDCIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEOFFENCETHE
SUSPECTISSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDTHEFORCEBEINGPROPORTIONALINALLTHESE
CIRCUMSTANCES
G 3HOOTINGASUSPECTSOLELYINORDERTOCARRYOUTANARRESTISPERMITTEDINVERYLIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCESONLY
H /RDINARILY SUCH SHOOTING IS NOT PERMITTED UNLESS THE SUSPECT POSES A THREAT OF
VIOLENCE TO THE ARRESTER OR OTHERS OR IS SUSPECTED ON REASONABLE GROUNDS OF HAV
INGCOMMITTEDACRIMEINVOLVINGTHEINFLICTIONORTHREATENEDINFLICTIONOFSERIOUS
BODILYHARMANDTHEREARENOOTHERREASONABLEMEANSOFCARRYINGOUTTHEARREST
WHETHERATTHATTIMEORLATER
I 4HESELIMITATIONSINNOWAYDETRACTFROMTHERIGHTSOFANARRESTERATTEMPTINGTO
CARRYOUTANARRESTTOKILLASUSPECTINSELF DEFENCEORINDEFENCEOFANYOTHERPER
SON

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
7KHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHXVHRIIRUFH
)NVIEWOFTHEABOVE ONECANASSUMETHATOURLAWHASNOWREACHEDASTAGEINITS
DEVELOPMENTINWHICHTHEFOLLOWINGREQUIREMENTSMUSTBECOMPLIEDWITHBEFORE
ANARRESTERTHEPERSONATTEMPTINGTOEFFECTANARREST MAYUSEFORCEINORDERTO
EFFECTTHEARREST
4HEPERSONWHOISTOBEARRESTEDTHESUSPECT MUSTHAVECOMMITTEDANOF
FENCE)FTHEARRESTERISACTINGONASUSPICIONTHATTHESUSPECTHASCOMMITTED
ANOFFENCE THESUSPICIONMUSTBEAREASONABLESUSPICION)NDECIDINGTHIS THE
TESTISOBJECTIVE IETHECIRCUMSTANCESSHOULDBESUCHTHATAREASONABLEPERSON
WOULDALSOHAVECONCLUDEDTHATTHESUSPECTHASCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE.ELL
3!37! 0URCELL 'ILPIN 3!2!
4HEARRESTERMUSTBELAWFULLYENTITLEDTOARRESTTHESUSPECT4HEPERSONWHO
ARRESTSORATTEMPTSTOARRESTWITHORWITHOUTAWARRANTMUSTHAVETHEPOW
ERTOARRESTTHESUSPECTORTOASSISTINHISORHERARRESTFORSUCHOFFENCE
4HEARRESTERMUSTATTEMPTTOARRESTTHESUSPECTCF-ETELERKAMP 3!
% 4HEARRESTERCANNOTUSEFORCEWITHOUTANYATTEMPTONHISORHERPART
TOARRESTTHEOFFENDER4HEPOPULARBELIEFTHATTHEOWNEROFAHOUSEMAYSHOOT
AN OFFENDER WHO HAS TRESPASSED ON OR BROKEN INTO HIS OR HER PREMISES AND
THENRUNSAWAY AFTERHAVINGWARNEDHIMORHERTHREETIMESTOSTOP ISERRONE
OUS3UCHACTIONCLEARLYDOESNOTINALLCIRCUMSTANCESAMOUNTTOANATTEMPT
TOARREST
4HE ARRESTER MUST HAVE THE INTENTION TO ARREST THE SUSPECT AND NOT TO PUN
ISHTHESUSPECT4HISMEANSTHATTHEARRESTERMUSTHAVEHADTHEINTENTIONOF
BRINGINGTHEOFFENDERTOJUSTICESEE-ALINDISA 3!4 -ALINDISA
HADSHOTANDKILLEDAPERSONWHOMHESUSPECTEDOFHAVINGSTOLENHISDAGGA
(E DID NOT HAVE THE INTENTION OF BRINGING THE ACCUSED TO JUSTICE (E JUST
WANTEDTOGETHOLDOFHIMANDDEALWITHHIMINHISOWNMANNER4HECOURT
HELDTHAT-ALINDISACOULDNOTRELYUPONTHEPROTECTIONOFTHISSECTION
4HESUSPECTMUSTATTEMPTTOESCAPEBYFLEEINGOROFFERINGRESISTANCE
4HESUSPECTMUSTBEAWARETHATANATTEMPTISBEINGMADETOARRESTHIMORHER
ANDMUSTINSOMEWAYBEINFORMEDOFTHEINTENTIONANDCONTINUETOTRYTO
FLEEORRESISTTHEATTEMPTEDARRESTDESPITEBEINGAWARETHEREOF4HEARRESTER
THEREFORE MAYNOTTAKEITFORGRANTEDTHATTHEARRESTEEKNOWSTHATSOMEBODY
ISATTEMPTINGTOARRESTHIMORHER)N"ARNARD 3!! THEDECEASED
DISCOVERED THAT HE COULD CAUSE HIS PICK UP VAN TO MAKE EXPLODING NOISES
BY SWITCHING THE VEHICLES ENGINE ON AND OFF WHILST DRIVING /NE NIGHT HE
TORETHROUGHTHESTREETSOF0IETERMARITZBURGWHERE SHORTLYBEFORE THEREHAD
BEENATERRORISTATTACKONTHECOURTBUILDING" APOLICEOFFICIAL HEARDTHE
BANGS MADE BY THE DECEASEDS VEHICLE IN THE VICINITY OF THE COURT BUILDING
ANDHURRIEDOVER(EWASUNDERTHEIMPRESSIONTHATTERRORISTSWEREMAKING
THEIRESCAPEINTHE@BAKKIE GAVECHASEINTHEPOLICEVEHICLEANDFIREDWHEN
THEPERSONSINTHE@BAKKIEFAILEDTOREACTTOHISSIGNALSTOSTOP4HEDECEASED
WASKILLED UNAWARETOTHEENDTHATHEHADBEENPURSUED4HECOURTHELDTHAT
ITMUSTBECLEARTOTHEPERSONABOUTTOBEARRESTEDTHATTHEARRESTERISATTEMPT
INGTOARRESTHIMORHER"WASACCORDINGLYHELDLIABLE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HERE MUST BE NO OTHER REASONABLE MEANS AVAILABLE TO EFFECT THE ARREST OF
THESUSPECT7HETHERTHISREQUIREMENTHASBEENCOMPLIEDWITHDEPENDSOF
COURSEUPONTHEFACTSOFEACHINDIVIDUALCASE
7HENACOURTHASTOCONSIDERWHETHERTHEREWEREALTERNATIVEMEANSAVAIL
ABLE TO THE ARRESTER TO EFFECT THE ARREST WHICH WOULD HAVE INVOLVED A LESSER
DEGREE OF FORCE THAN SHOOTING AT THE SUSPECT THERE ARE TWO CONSIDERATIONS
ACCORDINGTO-ACUV$U4OIT 3!! AT THATHAVETOBEKEPTIN
MINDFIRSTLY THATACERTAINACTIONCANONLYBECONSIDEREDTOBEANALTERNATIVE
IFITWOULDBEPRACTICABLEANDREASONABLYEFFECTIVEINORDERTOBRINGABOUTTHE
DETENTIONOFTHEPERSONTOBEARRESTED AND SECONDLY THETIMEATTHEARRESTERS
DISPOSALTOCONSIDERPOSSIBLEALTERNATIVELINESOFACTIONWHICHISOFTENLIMITED
ANDMAYCALLFORARAPIDDECISIONTOPREVENTTHEARRESTEEFROMESCAPING
)N-ETELERKAMP$E6ILLIERS*0STATEDTHAT
ASINTHECASEOFSELF DEFENCE WEASTHEJUDGESOFFACT MUSTGETOUTOFTHEARMCHAIRS
ONTHE"ENCHANDPLACEOURSELVESINTHEPOSITIONOFTHEACCUSEDATTHETIMEWHEN
THECONDUCTCOMPLAINEDOFTOOKPLACE
!NDFURTHER
2 EASONISNOT TOBEDISREGARDEDINDECIDINGWHETHERITWASPOSSIBLETOARRESTTHE
DECEASEDANDPREVENTHIMFROMESCAPINGWITHOUTKILLINGHIM7HATCOULDHAVE
BEENDONEMEANSWHATCOULDINREASONHAVEBEENDONE HAVINGREGARDTOTHEFACTS
WHICHTHEKILLERKNEWOROUGHTTOHAVEKNOWN;,ABUSCHAGNE 3!!
AT' ANDCF3AMBOV-ILNS 3!4 ATn=
)N-AZEKAV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!! 6ANDEN(EEVER*!MADETHIS
STATEMENT
7HEREAFITYOUNGMANOFINTENDSTOARRESTAPERSONMUCHMORETHANTENYEARS
HISSENIOR WHOHASONLYAFEWYARDSSTARTANDISADMITTEDLYNOTRUNNINGVERYFAST
WHERESUCHAYOUNGMANPROMPTLYAVAILSHIMSELFOFTHEULTIMARATIOLEGISWITHOUT
ESSAYINGANYOTHERMEANSOFEFFECTINGANARRESTESPECIALLYWHEREHEHASINFORMA
TION WHICH POINTS TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE ARRESTEE BEING IDENTIFIED LOCATED AND
ARRESTED)DONOTTHINKITISENOUGHFORHIMTOSAYTHATHETHOUGHTTHEREWERENO
OTHERMEANSOFPREVENTINGTHEESCAPE
)N+ONING 3!4 THEACCUSED WHOWASTHEWARDEROFATEAMOF
CONVICTS HADAREASONABLESUSPICIONTHATONEOFTHEMWASTRYINGTOESCAPE
(EPROMPTLYSHOTANDKILLEDTHEMANTOPREVENTHISESCAPING4HECOURTHELD
THATKILLINGTHEMANWASBYNOMEANSTHEONLYWAYOFPREVENTINGTHEESCAPE
THEACCUSEDCOULDHAVEUSEDHISWHISTLEHECOULDHAVEWARNEDTHEDECEASED
TOSTANDHECOULDEVENHAVEOVERTAKENANDRUNDOWNTHEDECEASEDWITHHIS
HORSE
4HEFORCEUSEDMUSTBEDIRECTEDATTHESUSPECTEDOFFENDER7HERE!ONREA
SONABLE GROUNDS SUSPECTS " OF HAVING COMMITTED AN OFFENCE INVOLVING THE
INFLICTIONORTHREATENEDINFLICTIONOFSERIOUSBODILYHARMAND"ISONEOFTHE
OCCUPANTSOFAVEHICLE AMONGWHOMTHEREMAYALSOBEINNOCENTPERSONS !
MAYNOTSHOOTINDISCRIMINATELYATTHEOCCUPANTS'OVERNMENTOFTHE2EPUBLIC
OF3OUTH!FRICAV"ASDEO 3!!
4HEDEGREEOFFORCETHATMAYBEUSEDINORDERTOEFFECTTHEARRESTMUSTBEREA
SONABLYNECESSARYANDPROPORTIONALINALLTHECIRCUMSTANCES
)N%X0ARTE-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY)N2E3V7ALTERS 3!## AT
PARA;=F ÜH THECOURTEXPOUNDEDUPONTHELAST MENTIONEDREQUIREMENT
ASCITEDABOVE

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
)N DECIDING WHAT DEGREE OF FORCE IS BOTH REASONABLE AND NECESSARY ALL THE CIRCUM
STANCESMUSTBETAKENINTOACCOUNT INCLUDINGTHETHREATOFVIOLENCETHESUSPECTPOSES
TOTHEARRESTEROROTHERS ANDTHENATUREANDCIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEOFFENCETHESUSPECTIS
SUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDTHEFORCEBEINGPROPORTIONALINALLTHESECIRCUMSTANCES
3HOOTINGASUSPECTSOLELYINORDERTOCARRYOUTANARRESTISPERMITTEDINVERYLIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCESONLY
/RDINARILYSUCHSHOOTINGISNOTPERMITTEDUNLESSTHESUSPECTPOSESATHREATOFVIOLENCE
TOTHEARRESTEROROTHERSORISSUSPECTEDONREASONABLEGROUNDSOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDA
CRIMEINVOLVINGTHEINFLICTIONORTHREATENEDINFLICTIONOFSERIOUSBODILYHARMANDTHERE
ARENOOTHERREASONABLEMEANSOFCARRYINGOUTTHEARREST WHETHERATTHATTIMEORLATER
;#FALSO'OVENDERV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!3#! =
!RRESTUSINGADOG
4O ARREST A PERSON USING A DOG IS AN EXTREMELY HUMILIATING ACT PERPETRATED ON
SUCHAPERSON-OTSWANAV-%#FOR3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#2.#
4HEREFORE POLICE OFFICERS @ARMED WITH POLICE DOGS SHOULD EXERCISE THE GREATEST
OF CARE AND RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE USING A DOG TO ARREST OR APPREHEND SUSPECTS
-OTSWANA ABOVE 4HEREARENOSTATUTORYPROVISIONSWHICHEXPRESSLYAUTHORISE
ORREGULATETHEUSEOFDOGSBYTHEPOLICE*OOSTEV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!
% AT-OTSWANA ABOVEAT;PARA=4HUSCIRCUMSTANCESMUSTBEADJUDGEDIN
TERMSOFTHEPRINCIPLESSETIN3AMBOV-ILNS 3!4
4HEFOLLOWINGPRINCIPLESWERESETIN*OOSTE
"YNATUREOFITSTRAINING ONCETHEDOGISLETLOOSEONASUSPECTITCANNOT UN
LIKEAHUMANBEING INTERPOSEANYJUDGMENTASTOWHETHERTHECIRCUMSTANCES
REQUIREORJUSTIFYTHEUSEOFFORCE
7HERETHEDOGISTRAINEDINSUCHAWAYTHATITSUSEINVOLVESTHELIKELIHOODOF
HARMTOASUSPECTANDTHECIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHITISUSEDARENOTJUSTIFIED
THEDEFENDANTMUSTFACELIABILITYFORTHEINJURYWHICHRESULTS
4HEUSEOFTHEDOGISEQUATEDTOTHEUSEOFANYOTHERTYPEOFFORCE
7HEREADOGISUSEDINTHECOURSEOFARREST ITMUSTBEESTABLISHEDTHATTHE
FORCEUSEDINTHECIRCUMSTANCESWAS INDEED REASONABLYNECESSARYTOEFFECT
ARREST
7HEREUSEOFADOGISJUSTIFIEDBYCIRCUMSTANCES THEHANDLERSHOULD IFATALL
POSSIBLE WARNTHESUSPECTTHATTHEDOGWOULDBEUSED ANDAFFORDHIMORHER
THEOPPORTUNITYTOSUBMIT
4HEUSEOFADOGTOEFFECTARRESTCANNOTBEREGARDEDAS@MINIMUMFORCE WHEN
TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHEAMOUNTOFVIOLENCEWHICHISENTAILEDINTHEEXERCISE
%
SCAPEFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
4HEEFFECTOFANARRESTISTHATTHEARRESTEEISINLAWFULCUSTODYANDDETAINEDUNTIL
HEORSHEISLAWFULLYDISCHARGEDORRELEASEDFROMCUSTODYS
%SCAPINGFROMLAWFULCUSTODYORATTEMPTINGTODOSOISASERIOUSOFFENCE3ECTION
OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAVING BEEN
ARRESTEDANDBEINGINLAWFULCUSTODYSEE%VILIO 3!#2'3* BUTNOT
HAVINGYETBEENLODGEDINANYPRISON POLICECELLORLOCK UP ESCAPESORATTEMPTS
TO ESCAPE FROM SUCH CUSTODY SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE SEE "USUKU
3!#2% AND-AFORA 3!#2.7- WITHREGARDTOTHEREQUIRE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
MENTOFBEING@LODGEDANDTHESUBSEQUENTDISTINCTIONBETWEENCONTRAVENTIONOF
S OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTANDSA OFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CT
OF !NYPERSONWHORESCUESORATTEMPTSTORESCUEFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
ANYOTHERPERSONWHOHASBEENARRESTED BUTISNOTYETLODGEDINANYPRISONOR
SIMILARPLACE ORWHOAIDSSUCHPERSONTOESCAPE ORWHOHARBOURSORCONCEALSOR
ASSISTSINHARBOURINGORCONCEALINGHIMORHER ISLIKEWISEGUILTYOFANOFFENCECF
-PANZA 3!. "EFOREANACCUSEDMAYBECONVICTEDITISINCUMBENT
UPONTHE3TATETOPROVETHATTHEPERSONWHOWASASSISTEDBYTHEACCUSEDTOESCAPE
WASINLAWFULCUSTODY3KWATI40$+ISTESAMY 3!. .GIDI
3!.
7EHAVESEENTHATAPRIVATEPERSONWHOARRESTSANOTHERMUSTFORTHWITHINFORM
THELATTEROFTHEREASONFORTHEARREST7HATISTHEPOSITIONNOWOFAPERSONWHO
WANTSTOEFFECTANARREST TOUCHESTHEBODYOFANOTHERANDTHELATTERFREESHIMSELF
ORHERSELFANDRUNSAWAYBEFORETHEPERSONARRESTINGHIMORHERHASREASONABLY
HADTHECHANCETOINFORMHIMORHEROFTHECHARGE)TWASHELDIN3EPTEMBER
3!# THATINTHISCASETOOTHEOFFENDERWASGUILTYOFESCAPEFROMLAWFUL
CUSTODY4HEINFORMINGOFTHEACCUSEDOFTHEREASONFORTHEARRESTISNOTPARTOF
THEARRESTITSELF ACCORDINGTO"LOCH* BUTSOMETHINGWHICHMUSTBEDONEASSOON
ASISREASONABLYPOSSIBLEAFTERTHEARRESTHASBEENEFFECTED
!RRESTANDDETENTIONFORINTERROGATION
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTCONTAINSIMPORTANTPROVISIONSRELATING
TOTHEARRESTANDDETENTIONOFCERTAINPERSONS4HISFORMOFARRESTISNOTDIRECTLY
INTENDEDTOBRINGASUSPECTEDOFFENDERBEFOREACOURT ANDDOESNOTSTRICTLYFALL
UNDERTHETYPEOFARRESTWHICHFORMSTHESUBJECTOFTHISCHAPTER"UTBECAUSETHE
SECTION REGULATES INTER ALIA ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT IT MAY PROPERLY BE MEN
TIONEDHERE
/4(%2-%4(/$3
!PARTFROMTHEABOVEFOURMETHODSFORSECURINGTHEATTENDANCEOFTHEACCUSED
ATTHETRIALSPECIFICALLYMENTIONEDINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINTHISREGARD
THEREISALSOTHEPOSSIBILITYOFRELEASEONWARNINGINTERMSOFS)FANACCUSED
ISINCUSTODYINRESPECTOFANOFFENCEANDAPOLICEOFFICIALORACOURTMAYRELEASE
HIMORHERONBAILUNDERSSOR THEPOLICEOFFICIALORCOURTMAYINLIEUOFBAIL
ANDWITHREGARDTOCERTAINOFFENCESCFS RELEASETHEACCUSEDFROMCUSTODY
ANDWARNHIMORHERTOAPPEARBEFOREASPECIFIEDCOURTATASPECIFIEDTIMEONA
SPECIFIEDDATE)FTHEACCUSEDISUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS SUCHACCUSEDISPLACED
INTHECAREOFTHEPERSONINWHOSECUSTODYHEORSHEIS ANDSUCHPERSONISWARNED
TO BRING THE ACCUSED TO A SPECIFIED COURT ON A FIXED DATE ! POLICE OFFICIAL WHO
RELEASESANACCUSEDINTERMSOFTHISSECTIONMUST ATTHETIMEOFTHERELEASEOFTHE
ACCUSED HANDTOHIMORHERAWRITTENNOTICEONWHICHMUSTBEENTEREDTHEOF
FENCE THECOURTBEFOREWHICHANDTHETIMEANDDATEONWHICHTHEACCUSEDMUST
APPEAR3TRICTLYSPEAKING THEREFORE WEONLYDEALWITHANORALWARNINGINCASES
WHERETHECOURTRELEASESANACCUSEDONWARNING3ECTIONSPELLSOUTTHECON
SEQUENCESOFANACCUSEDSFAILURETOAPPEAR ORTHEFAILUREOFTHEPERSONINWHOSE
CUSTODYTHEACCUSEDISTOBRINGHIMORHERTOCOURT

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
%842!$)4)/.
!LTHOUGHEXTRADITIONIS STRICTLYSPEAKING NOTAWAYOFSECURINGTHEATTENDANCE
OFANACCUSEDATHISORHERTRIAL ITISNONETHELESS DISCUSSEDHERESINCEITISAWAY
OFENSURINGTHATTHEACCUSEDISHANDEDOVERTOTHEAUTHORITIESOFANOTHERSTATEIN
ORDERTOALLOWTHEMTOTAKETHEACCUSEDTOTHECOURTOFTHATSTATE
4HIS TOPIC WILL BE DISCUSSED ONLY IN ITS BROADEST OUTLINE AVOIDING DETAIL AND
TECHNICALINFORMATION
)N TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES THE GOVERNMENT OF EVERY SOVEREIGN
STATE HAS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER EVERYTHING HAPPENING WITHIN THE BORDERS OF
THATSTATE#ONSEQUENTLY EVERYSTATEHASTHERIGHTTOTRYCRIMESCOMMITTEDWITHIN
ITSAREAOFJURISDICTION'ENERALLYSPEAKING ASTATEHASNOPOWERTOPUNISHPER
SONSWHOHAVECOMMITTEDCRIMESINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFANOTHERFOREIGN
STATE
4HEREFORE WHEREAPERSONCOMMITSACRIMEINONESTATEANDFLEESTOANOTHER
STATEANDTHENFAILSTORETURNOFHISORHEROWNACCORD INANENDEAVOURTOESCAPE
THECONSEQUENCESOFHISORHERACT THESTATEWHERETHECRIMEWASCOMMITTEDIS
POWERLESSTOACT%XTRADITIONMAKESPROVISIONFORSUCHAPERSONTOBEEXTRADITEDTO
THESTATEINWHOSEAREAOFJURISDICTIONTHECRIMEWASCOMMITTED)NTHISMANNER
CRIMINALSAREPREVENTEDFROMESCAPINGLIABILITY
3TATESARENOTOBLIGEDTOEXTRADITECRIMINALS!NOBLIGATIONTOEXTRADITECANONLY
COMEINTOBEINGINTERMSOFANAGREEMENT!STATEMAY HOWEVER IFITDEEMSIT
PROPERBECAUSEOFMUTUALTIESOFFRIENDSHIP FOREXAMPLE EXTRADITEACRIMINALTOA
FOREIGNSTATEONTHATSTATESREQUEST.EVERTHELESS ASTATEWILLNOTEASILYEXTRADITE
ITSOWNCITIZENS EXCEPTINTERMSOFANAGREEMENTTODOSO
%XTRADITION AGREEMENTS OR TREATIES USUALLY HAVE CERTAIN CORRESPONDING
PRINCIPLES
%XTRADITIONISGRANTEDONLYINRESPECTOFSERIOUSCRIMESORACCORDINGTOTHEPRIN
CIPLES OF DOUBLE CRIMINALITY IN TERMS OF WHICH EXTRADITION IS GRANTED ONLY IN
RESPECTOFCRIMESWHICHAREPUNISHABLEINTERMSOFTHELAWOFBOTHSTATES
!PERSONISNOTEXTRADITEDTOAFOREIGNSTATEIFHEORSHEISCHARGEDWITHACRIMEOF
APOLITICALNATURE
!CCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SPECIALITY A PERSON IS TRIED IN THE STATE TO WHICH
HEORSHEISEXTRADITEDONLYFORTHECRIMEINRESPECTOFWHICHHEORSHEHASBEEN
EXTRADITEDEXCEPTIFTHEEXTRADITINGSTATECONSENTSTOAFURTHERNEWCHARGE
%XTRADITIONISREFUSEDIFTHECRIMEFORWHICHEXTRADITIONISSOUGHTISPUNISHABLEBY
THEDEATHSENTENCEINTERMSOFTHELAWOFTHESTATEREQUESTINGEXTRADITIONANDIF
THELAWOFTHESTATETOWHICHTHEREQUESTISMADEDOESNOTMAKEPROVISIONFORTHE
DEATHSENTENCEFORSUCHACRIME
!NEXTRADITIONAGREEMENTUSUALLYCONTAINSANEBISINIDEMRULEWHICHCORRESPONDS
WITHPLEASOFAUTREFOISACQUITANDAUTREFOISCONVICT
)N3OUTH!FRICAEXTRADITIONISREGULATEDBYTHE%XTRADITION!CTOF WHICH
MAKES PROVISION FOR THE ENTERING INTO OF EXTRADITION AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN
STATES4HEPROCEDURETOBEFOLLOWEDFORTHEEXTRADITIONOFAPERSONORPERSONSIN
THE2EPUBLICISSETOUTINSSTOOFTHE!CT
(OWEVER THE %XTRADITION !CT AND AN EXTRADITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
2EPUBLIC AND ANOTHER STATE MUST ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED IN LINE WITH THE SPIRIT
ANDETHOSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION)N-INISTEROF(OME!FFAIRSAND/THERSV4SEBEAND
/THERS 3!## THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTWASTASKEDWITHDECIDING

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THEEXTRADITIONFATEOFTWO"OTSWANANATIONALSWHOWEREFACINGSEPARATECHARGES
OF MURDER IN THEIR HOMELAND )N BOTH INSTANCES THE "OTSWANA AUTHORITIES HAD
REFUSEDTOPROVIDEGUARANTEESTHATTHEACCUSEDWOULDNOTBESENTENCEDTODEATH
ASSOONASTHEYWEREDELIVEREDTOTHE"OTSWANAAUTHORITIES!FFIRMINGTHEPREC
EDENTESTABLISHEDIN-OHAMEDAND!NOTHERV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA
AND/THERS 3!## THECOURTUPHELDTHECONSTITUTIONALPROTECTIONS
CONTAINEDINSS AND ANDTOWHICHTHEDEFENDANTSWEREENTITLED4HE
COURTMAINTAINED INTHISREGARD THENOTIONTHATTHE3OUTH!FRICAN#ONSTITUTION
DOESNOTRECOGNISEEXCEPTIONSTOTHEPROTECTIONOFTHERIGHTTOLIFE THERIGHTTO
HUMANDIGNITYANDTHERIGHTNOTTOBETREATEDORPUNISHEDINACRUEL INHUMANOR
DEGRADINGWAY!CCORDINGTOTHECOURT THEREFORE THE3OUTH!FRICANGOVERNMENT
@HASNOPOWERTOEXTRADITEORDEPORTORINANYWAYREMOVEFROM3OUTH!FRICATO
AREQUESTINGSTATE ANEXTRADITEEIFTHE@KNOWLEDGEEXISTSTHATTHEACCUSED@WILL IF
DEPORTEDOREXTRADITED FACETHE@REALRISKOFTHEDEATHPENALTYBEINGIMPOSEDAND
EXECUTEDAGAINSTHIMORHER4HEREALRISKOFTHEDANGEROFTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHE
DEATHPENALTYISESTABLISHEDWHENTHE3OUTH!FRICANGOVERNMENTSEEKSANDFAILS
TOOBTAINADEFINITIVEGUARANTEEFROMTHEREQUESTINGSTATETHATTHEDEATHPENALTY
WILL NOT BE IMPOSED UPON CONVICTION 7HERE 3OUTH !FRICAN AUTHORITIES KNOW
THATDELIVERYOFTHEEXTRADITEETOTHEREQUESTINGSTATECOULDLEADTOTHEIMPOSI
TIONANDEXECUTIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTYUPONCONVICTION THEACTOFEXTRADITION
ESSENTIALLYFACILITATESTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTY ANDISABREACHOFTHE
STATESOBLIGATIONSCONTAINEDUNDERS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HECOURTHELD IN
ADDITION THAT THE ACCUSED COULD NOT BE EXTRADITED IN SPITE OF A LONG STANDING
EXTRADITIONAGREEMENT ASEXTRADITIONWOULDESSENTIALLYVIOLATESS AND
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION)TISWORTHNOTING THATTHEEXTRADITEEIN-OHAMED SUFFERED
THEUNFORTUNATEFATEOFEXTRADITIONTOASTATEWHICHHADNOTMADESAFETYGUARAN
TEESINRESPECTOFTHEDEATHPENALTY BUTWHOSELAWSNONETHELESS SANCTIONEDITS
IMPOSITION3ADLY THECOURTSJUDGMENTINTHISREGARDWASONLYDELIVEREDAFTERTHE
APPLICANTHADALREADYBEENEXTRADITED
!PERSONWHOSEEXTRADITIONISREQUESTEDHASTOBEBROUGHTBEFOREAMAGISTRATE
WHOTHENCONDUCTSANENQUIRYWITHAVIEWTOTHEPOSSIBLEEXTRADITIONOFSUCHA
PERSONTOTHESTATECONCERNED
)N THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY AN @ASSOCIATED STATE AN !FRICAN STATE WITH
WHICH3OUTH!FRICAHASANEXTRADITIONTREATY THEMAGISTRATEMAYMAKEANEXTRA
DITIONORDERDIRECTLYPROVIDED OFCOURSE THATALLTHEREQUIREMENTSAREPRESENT
)N THE CASE OF A @FOREIGN STATE THE MAGISTRATE REFERS HIS OR HER FINDING TO THE
-INISTEROF*USTICEFORTHELATTERSDECISION
$EPORTATIONANDEXTRADITIONAPPEARREMARKABLYSIMILARBECAUSETHETWOCON
CEPTS REFER TO ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ACT OF REMOVING A PERSON FROM ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER BY THE GOVERNMENT 4HE COURT IN -OHAMED ABOVE NOTED A FEW DIFFER
ENCESBETWEENTHETWOCONCEPTS
$EPORTATIONISPERFORMEDUNILATERALLYBYASTATE WHEREASEXTRADITIONISCON
SENSUAL
$EPORTATION IS AIMED AT THE REMOVAL OF AN UNDESIRABLE PERSON BY THE DE
PORTINGSTATE%XTRADITIONISUSUALLYRELATEDTOACRIMEWHICHTHEEXTRADITED
PERSONALLEGEDLYCOMMITTEDINTHEREQUESTINGCOUNTRY

#(!04%2r3%#52).'4(%!44%.$!.#%/&4(%!##53%$!44(%42)!,
4HE PURPOSE OF DEPORTATION IS ACHIEVED AS SOON AS THE ALIEN LEAVES THE DE
PORTING STATES TERRITORY %XTRADITION ON THE OTHER HAND AIMS TO BRING THE
EXTRADITEDPERSONTOJUSTICE

#(!04%2
)NTERROGATION INTERCEPTIONAND
ESTABLISHINGTHEBODILYFEATURES
OFPERSONS
-4-OKOENA
3DJH
).4%22/'!4)/.
'ENERALPOWERSWITHREGARDTOINTERROGATION
%NTRYTOPREMISESTOINTERROGATEPERSONSSSAND

/BTAININGTHENAMEANDADDRESSOFAPERSONS
$ETENTIONFORTHEPURPOSESOFINTERROGATION
0OWERSRELATINGTOPOSSIBLEWITNESSES
0OWERSRELATINGTOSUSPECTSANDACCUSED
).4%2#%04)/.!.$-/.)4/2).'
!3#%24!).-%.4/&"/$),9&%!452%3/&0%23/.3
3%#4)/.r0/7%23).2%30%#4/&"/$9 02).43!.$"/$),9
!00%!2!.#%/&!##53%$!.$#/.6)#4%$0%23/.3
%VERYONEHASINHERENTDIGNITYANDTHERIGHTTOHAVETHEIRDIGNITYRESPECTEDANDPROTECTED
3EE BELOW
RIGHTr
E NOTTOBEDETAINEDWITHOUTTRIAL
H NOTTOBETREATEDINACRUEL INHUMANORDEGRADINGWAY


#(!04%2r).4%22/'!4)/. ).4%2#%04)/.!.$%34!",)3().'4(%"/$),9&%!452%3
%VERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BODILY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INTEGRITY WHICH INCLUDES THE
RIGHTr
E TOSECURITYINANDCONTROLOVERTHEIRBODY
3EEAND BELOW
3ECTIONr0RIVACY

G THEPRIVACYOFTHEIRCOMMUNICATIONSINFRINGED
3EE BELOW
%VERYONEWHOISARRESTEDFORALLEGEDLYCOMMITTINGANOFFENCEHASTHERIGHTr
D TOREMAINSILENT

F NOTTOBECOMPELLEDTOMAKEANYCONFESSIONORADMISSIONTHATCOULDBEUSEDIN
EVIDENCEAGAINSTTHATPERSON
%VERYACCUSEDPERSONHASARIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr$EFINITIONS
lCHILDmMEANSANYPERSONUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSAND INCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES MEANS
APERSONWHOISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSWHOSEMATTERISDEALT
WITHINTERMSOFSECTION
.ATIONAL)NSTRUCTIONOF#HILDRENIN#ONFLICTWITHTHE,AW
r4REATMENTOF#HILDREN
4REATMENTOFACHILDSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE
D $URINGTHEFIRSTCONTACTWITHACHILDSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCETHE
MEMBERMUST IFCIRCUMSTANCESPERMIT INTRODUCEHIMSELFORHERSELFTOTHECHILDAND
IFAPARENT GUARDIANORANAPPROPRIATEADULTISPRESENT TOSUCHPERSON
E 4HEMEMBERMUSTEXPLAINTOTHECHILDTHATHEORSHEISBEINGSUSPECTEDOFHAVING
COMMITTEDTHEOFFENCE4HEMEMBERMUSTEXPLAINTHISTOTHECHILDINALANGUAGE
THATHEORSHEUNDERSTANDS PREFERABLYINTHEMOTHERTONGUEOFTHECHILD USINGPLAIN
ANDSIMPLEVOCABULARYTOASSISTTHECHILDTOHAVEABETTERUNDERSTANDINGOFTHECHILD
JUSTICESYSTEMANDTHEPROCEDURETHATWILLBEFOLLOWEDINHISORHERCASE4HECHILD
MUSTUNDERSTANDTHATTHISISAVERYSERIOUSMATTER
F 4HE MEMBER MUST REALISE THAT THE CHILD MAY BE OVERWHELMED AND SCARED IN THE
PRESENCEOFTHE0OLICEANDMUSTTHEREFOREPATIENTLYEXPLAINTHENATUREOFTHEOFFENCE
ANDTHEPROCEDURETHATWILLBEFOLLOWEDINHISORHERCASE4HEMEMBERMUSTGIVE
ENOUGHDETAILABOUTTHEMATTERSANDALLOWSUFFICIENTTIMESOTHATTHECHILDCANAB
SORBTHEINFORMATION4HEMEMBERMUSTENCOURAGETHECHILDTOASKQUESTIONSAND
RESPONDTOTHEQUESTIONSANDSATISFYHIMSELFORHERSELFTHATTHECHILDUNDERSTANDSTHE
INFORMATIONANDEXPLANATIONGIVEN4HEMEMBERMAYELICITRESPONSESFROMTHECHILD
BYASKINGQUESTIONSINORDERTOENSURETHATHEORSHEUNDERSTANDSTHEINFORMATION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
G !MEMBERMUSTNOTHUMILIATEORINTIMIDATEACHILDANDMUSTATALLTIMESTREATAND
COMMUNICATEWITHTHECHILDINAMANNERWHICHISAPPROPRIATETOTHEAGE MATURITY
ANDSTAGEOFDEVELOPMENTOFTHECHILD4HEYOUNGERTHECHILD THEMOREPATIENTAND
UNDERSTANDINGTHEMEMBERMUSTBEWHILECOMMUNICATINGWITHTHECHILD4HELEVEL
OFSCHOOLINGOFTHECHILDANDTHECHILDmSABILITYTOREADANDWRITEAREALSORELEVANT
WHENCONSIDERINGWHATWOULDBEANAPPROPRIATEMANNERINWHICHTOTREATANDCOM
MUNICATEWITHTHECHILD
H 4HE MEMBER MUST TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND DIGNITY OF THE CHILD AND
MUSTENSURETHATDISCUSSIONSWITHTHECHILDANDHISORHERPARENTORGUARDIANORAN
APPROPRIATEADULTWHETHERATTHEPOLICESTATIONORATTHECRIMESCENE TAKEPLACEIN
PRIVATE OUTOFSIGHTANDHEARINGOFOTHERPERSONS
I !MEMBERWHOEXPLAINSTOACHILDANDHISORHERPARENT GUARDIANORANAPPROPRIATE
ADULT THECONTENTSOFANOTICEORPROCEDUREMUSTTAKEINTOACCOUNTTHEBACKGROUND
OFTHECHILD THEPARENT GUARDIANORAPPROPRIATEADULTANDTHEFACTTHATTHEYMAY
NOT BE CONVERSANT WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURES 4HE
MEMBER MUST EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE OR PROCEDURE IN SIMPLE UNDER
STANDABLELANGUAGEANDGIVESUFFICIENTDETAILSTOTHECHILDANDPARENT GUARDIANOR
APPROPRIATEADULT4HEMEMBERMUSTALSOENCOURAGETHECHILD PARENT GUARDIANOR
APPROPRIATEADULTTOASKQUESTIONSWITHOUTINTERRUPTINGHIMORHER
).4%22/'!4)/.
)N TERMS OF S OF THE #ONSTITUTION ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE 3OUTH !FRICAN
0OLICE3ERVICEISTOINVESTIGATECRIME
)TSOMETIMESHAPPENSTHATACRIMEISCOMMITTEDINTHEPRESENCEOFTHEPOLICEOR
THATTHEPOLICEARRIVEATTHESCENEOFACRIMEAFTERTHECRIMEHASBEENCOMMITTED
BUTBEFOREITISREPORTEDTOTHEPOLICE.ORMALLY HOWEVER THEPOLICEWILLBECOME
AWARETHATACRIMEHASBEENCOMMITTEDONLYONCETHEVICTIMORANOTHERMEMBER
OFTHEPUBLICREPORTSITTOTHEM
/NCE THE POLICE BECOME AWARE THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AN IMPOR
TANTPARTOFTHEIRINVESTIGATIONWILLCONSISTINASKINGPERSONSQUESTIONSINORDER
TOOBTAININFORMATIONRELATINGTOTHECOMMISSIONORALLEGEDCOMMISSIONOFTHE
OFFENCE
)F THE POLICE BECOME AWARE OF THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE WHEN SOMEONE
REPORTSITTOTHEM THEYWILLRELYONTHATPERSONTOFURNISHTHEMWITHINFORMATION
CONCERNINGEXACTLYWHATHAPPENEDDURINGTHEALLEGEDCOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCE
4HE POLICE WILL ACCORDINGLY ALSO ASK SUCH PERSON QUESTIONS AND IN THE LIGHT OF
HISORHERANSWERS DECIDEHOWTOPROCEEDWITHTHEINVESTIGATION!PERSONWHO
REPORTSACRIMETOTHEPOLICENORMALLYDOESSOVOLUNTARILYANDWILL THEREFORE IN
MOSTCASESBEPREPAREDTOCO OPERATEWITHTHEPOLICEANDTOANSWERTHEIRQUES
TIONSFULLY
)FTHEPOLICEBECOMEAWAREOFTHEALLEGEDCOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCEINSOME
OTHERWAY THEYWILLALSOINTERROGATEANYPERSONTHATMAYPOSSIBLYHAVEINFORMA
TIONRELATINGTOTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCE
4HEPOLICEDONOTNEEDANYSPECIALPOWERTOINTERROGATE.OTHINGPROHIBITSTHE
POLICEORANYONEELSEFROMINTERROGATINGANOTHERPERSON4HEREISNONEED THERE
FORE FORANYPROVISIONPROVIDINGTHEPOLICEWITHSPECIALPOWERSOFINTERROGATION

#(!04%2r).4%22/'!4)/. ).4%2#%04)/.!.$%34!",)3().'4(%"/$),9&%!452%3
4HE NEED FOR SPECIAL POWERS ARISES ONLY WHEN A PERSON REFUSES TO GRANT THE
POLICE ACCESS TO SOMEONE THEY WISH TO INTERROGATE REFUSES TO RESPOND TO POLICE
QUESTIONINGORANSWERSTHEQUESTIONSBUTREFUSESTOFURNISHTHEMWITHHISORHER
NAMEANDADDRESSINORDERTOBESUBPOENAEDTOTESTIFYINCOURT
"EFORE THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE POLICE IN THIS RESPECT ARE DISCUSSED IT IS
NECESSARYTOPOINTOUTTHATTHEREISNOGENERALLEGALDUTYONPERSONSTOFURNISH
INFORMATION THAT THEY MAY HAVE CONCERNING THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE TO
THE POLICE )T IS ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A PERSON WILL BE UNDER
SUCHALEGALDUTY4HEONLYCOMMON LAWOFFENCEINRESPECTOFWHICHSUCHALEGAL
DUTYEXISTSISHIGHTREASON!PERSONWHOISAWARETHATSOMEONEHASCOMMITTED
HIGHTREASONORPLANSTODOSO ANDWHOFAILSTOFURNISHTHISINFORMATIONTOTHE
AUTHORITIES WILLHIMSELFORHERSELFBEGUILTYOFHIGHTREASON)NSOFARASSTATUTORY
OFFENCES ARE CONCERNED THERE ARE SEVERAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE PER
SONSWHOHAVEINFORMATIONRELATINGTOSPECIFIEDSTATUTORYOFFENCESTOPROVIDETHIS
INFORMATIONTOTHEPOLICE%XAMPLESOFSUCHPROVISIONSARESOFTHE$RUGSAND
$RUG4RAFFICKING!CTOFANDSOFTHE0ROTECTIONOF)NFORMATION!CT
OF)FAPERSONHASINFORMATIONRELATINGTOTHEOFFENCESMENTIONEDINTHESE
PROVISIONS AND FAILS TO CONVEY THIS TO THE AUTHORITIES EVEN WITHOUT THE POLICE
REQUESTINGHIMORHERTODOSO SUCHAPERSONWILLBEGUILTYOFANOFFENCE/THER
STATUTORYPROVISIONSPROVIDETHATAPERSONWHO UPONTHEREQUESTOFTHEAUTHORI
TIES FAILSTOFURNISHTHEMWITHANYINFORMATIONTHATHEORSHEMAYHAVERELATING
TOCERTAINOFFENCES WILLBEGUILTYOFANOFFENCE!NEXAMPLEOFSUCHAPROVISIONIS
SOFTHE.ATIONAL2OAD4RAFFIC!CTOF
)NDISCUSSINGTHESPECIALPOWERSOFTHEPOLICEWITHREGARDTOTHEINTERROGATION
OFPERSONS ITISNECESSARYTODISTINGUISHBETWEENTHOSEPOWERSOFTHEPOLICETO
INTERROGATEANYPERSONIRRESPECTIVEOFWHETHERSUCHPERSONISAPOTENTIALWITNESS
ORTHEPERSONSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDTHEOFFENCE ANDTHOSEPOWERSTHAT
MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY WITH REGARD TO POSSIBLE WITNESSES OR ONLY WITH REGARD TO
PERSONSSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDOFFENCES
'ENERALPOWERSWITHREGARDTOINTERROGATION
(QWU\WRSUHPLVHVWRLQWHUURJDWHSHUVRQVVVDQG
!LTHOUGHTHEPOLICEMAYQUESTIONANYPERSONREGARDINGANOFFENCETHATTHEYARE
INVESTIGATING ITOCCASIONALLYHAPPENSTHATTHEPERSONWHOMTHEYWISHTOQUES
TIONISONPRIVATEPREMISESANDTHEPERSONINCHARGEOFTHEPREMISESREFUSESTO
ALLOWTHEPOLICETOENTERTHEPREMISESINORDERTOQUESTIONHIMORHER4HISMAY
EFFECTIVELYPREVENTTHEPOLICEFROMASKINGTHEPERSONANYQUESTIONSANDTHUSFROM
OBTAININGFROMHIMORHERANYINFORMATIONTHATHEORSHEMAYHAVE4OSOLVETHIS
PROBLEM SOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFWASENACTED
)NTERMSOFSAPOLICEOFFICIALMAY INTHEINVESTIGATIONOFANOFFENCEORALLEGED
OFFENCEWHEREHEORSHEREASONABLYSUSPECTSTHATAPERSONWHOMAYFURNISHINFOR
MATIONWITHREGARDTOANYSUCHOFFENCEISONANYPREMISES ENTERSUCHPREMISES
WITHOUTAWARRANTFORTHEPURPOSEOFINTERROGATINGSUCHPERSONANDOBTAININGA
STATEMENTFROMHIMORHER4HEREIS HOWEVER THEPROVISOTHATAPOLICEOFFICIAL
MAYNOTENTERANYPRIVATEDWELLINGWITHOUTTHECONSENTOFTHEOCCUPIERTHEREOF
4HE REASON FOR THE PROVISO IS TO PREVENT A POLICE OFFICIAL FROM ENTERING A PRI
VATEDWELLINGWITHOUTHAVINGREQUESTEDPERMISSIONTODOSO3UCHCONDUCTMAY

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
AMOUNTTOASERIOUSINFRINGEMENTOFTHEPRIVACYOFTHERESIDENTSINSIDESUCHDWELL
INGSEESOFTHE#ONSTITUTION QUOTEDABOVE (OWEVER THISONCEAGAINLEAVES
OPENTHEPOSSIBILITYTHATTHEOCCUPIEROFTHEDWELLINGMAYREFUSETHEPOLICEENTRY
TOTHEPREMISES WHICHMAYALSOHAMPERTHEPOLICEINVESTIGATION
)NTERMSOFS APOLICEOFFICIALWHOMAYLAWFULLYENTERANYPREMISESUNDER
S MAY USE SUCH FORCE AS MAY BE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO OVERCOME ANY RESIS
TANCEAGAINSTSUCHENTRY INCLUDINGTHEBREAKINGOFANYDOORORWINDOWOFSUCH
PREMISES)NTERMSOFAPROVISOTOTHESUBSECTION SUCHAPOLICEOFFICIALSHALLFIRST
AUDIBLYDEMANDADMISSIONTOTHEPREMISESANDSTATETHEPURPOSEFORWHICHHEOR
SHESEEKSTOENTERSUCHPREMISES
)NCONSIDERINGTHEPOWERSPROVIDEDFORINS ITISNECESSARYTODRAWTHEATTEN
TION TO S WHICH CONTAINS A DEFINITION OF THE WORD @PREMISES )N TERMS OF THIS
DEFINITION@PREMISESREFERSNOTONLYTOLANDORBUILDINGSBUTALSOTOVEHICLES SHIPS
ANDAIRCRAFT
2EWDLQLQJWKHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVRIDSHUVRQV
!S WILL APPEAR FROM THE DISCUSSION BELOW PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE TO OBLIGE
PERSONS WHO DESPITE A REQUEST TO THIS EFFECT REFUSE TO FURNISH THE POLICE WITH
INFORMATIONRELATINGTOANOFFENCEORALLEGEDOFFENCE ORTOPROVIDETHECOURTWITH
THISINFORMATION TODOSO!PARTFROMTHIS PROVISIONHASALSOBEENMADEFORPER
SONSWHOARESUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDCERTAINMINOROFFENCES INCERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCESNOTTOBEARRESTED BUTTOBEBROUGHTBEFORETHECOURTBYMEANSOF
ASUMMONS(OWEVER EACHOFTHESEPROVISIONSREQUIRESTHATATLEASTTHENAMEAND
ADDRESSOFTHEPERSONCONCERNEDBEKNOWN)FAPERSONTOWHOMTHEAFOREMEN
TIONEDPROVISIONSAREAPPLICABLEREFUSESTOGIVEHISORHERNAMEANDADDRESSTOTHE
POLICEUPONTHEIRREQUEST SUCHPERSONWILLMAKEITIMPOSSIBLETOAPPLYTHESAID
PROVISIONSTOHIMORHER4OPREVENTTHIS SCONFERSCERTAINPOWERSONPEACEOF
FICERS!LLPOLICEOFFICIALSAREREGARDEDASPEACEOFFICERSS
)NTERMSOFS APEACEOFFICERISGIVENTHEPOWERTOCALLUPON
A ANYPERSONWHOMHEORSHEHASPOWERTOARREST
B ANYPERSONREASONABLYSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANYOFFENCEOROFHAV
ING ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT ANY OFFENCE IE NOT ONLY OFFENCES ENUMERATED IN
3CHEDULETOTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT AND
C ANYPERSONWHOMAY INHISORHEROPINION BEABLETOGIVEEVIDENCEINREGARD
TOTHECOMMISSIONORSUSPECTEDCOMMISSIONOFANYOFFENCE
TOFURNISHHISORHERFULLNAMEANDADDRESS
&URTHERMORE IFSUCHPERSONREFUSESTOFURNISHHISORHERFULLNAMEANDADDRESS
THEPEACEOFFICERMAYFORTHWITHARRESTHIMORHER)FTHEPEACEOFFICERREASONABLY
SUSPECTSTHATAFALSENAMEORADDRESSHASBEENSUPPLIED HEORSHEMAYARRESTSUCH
PERSONANDDETAINHIMORHERFORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGHOURS UNTILTHENAME
ANDADDRESSSOFURNISHEDHAVEBEENVERIFIED
4HEREFUSALBYAPERSONTOFURNISHHISORHERNAMEANDADDRESSINTHEABOVE
MENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FURNISHING OF AN INCORRECT OR FALSE ADDRESS
CONSTITUTE OFFENCES AND ARE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OR IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE
OPTIONOFAFINEFORAPERIODOFTHREEMONTHSS

#(!04%2r).4%22/'!4)/. ).4%2#%04)/.!.$%34!",)3().'4(%"/$),9&%!452%3
'HWHQWLRQIRUWKHSXUSRVHVRILQWHUURJDWLRQ
)NTHECASEOFCERTAINSERIOUSOFFENCES THELEGISLATUREHASEMPOWEREDTHEPOLICETO
ARRESTPERSONSANDTODETAINTHEMFORTHEPURPOSESOFINTERROGATION4HEFOLLOWING
ISANEXAMPLEOFSUCHAPROVISION
3ECTIONOFTHE$RUGSAND$RUG4RAFFICKING!CTOFCONTAINSDRASTIC
POWERSFORTHEDETENTIONOFPERSONSFORINTERROGATIONUNDERAWARRANTISSUEDBYA
MAGISTRATE4HESEPOWERSEXISTWITHREGARDTOPERSONSSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOM
MITTEDDRUGOFFENCESOROFHAVINGINFORMATIONRELATINGTHERETO3UCHPERSONSMAY
BEDETAINEDINDEFINITELY SUBJECTTOBEINGBROUGHTBEFOREAMAGISTRATEWITHIN
HOURSAFTERARRESTANDTHEREAFTERNOTLESSTHANONCEEVERYDAYS7HERESUCHA
DETAINEEAPPEARSBEFOREAMAGISTRATEINTERMSOFS A HEORSHEISENTITLEDTO
LEGALREPRESENTATIONS C AND A II
3ECTION OF THE $RUGS AND $RUG 4RAFFICKING !CT AND ALL SIMILAR PROVISIONS
CONSTITUTELIMITATIONSONTHERIGHTNOTTOBEDETAINEDWITHOUTTRIAL WHICHISCON
TAINEDINSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONQUOTEDABOVE &URTHERMORE THEYCONSTITUTEA
LIMITATIONONTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALSETOUTINS OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONQUOTED
ABOVE 4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASNOTYETHADTHEOPPORTUNITYOFEXPRESSING
ITSELFONTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFANYOFTHESEPROVISIONS(OWEVER ITISDOUBTFUL
WHETHERTHEYWILLWITHSTANDCONSTITUTIONALSCRUTINY
0OWERSRELATINGTOPOSSIBLEWITNESSES
!JUDGEOFTHE(IGH#OURT AREGIONALCOURTMAGISTRATEORAMAGISTRATEMAY UPON
THEREQUESTOFADIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSORPUBLICPROSECUTOR AUTHORISED
THERETOINWRITINGBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS REQUIRETHEATTENDANCEBE
FOREHIMORHER ORBEFOREANYOTHERJUDGE REGIONALCOURTMAGISTRATEORMAGISTRATE
FOREXAMINATIONBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSORTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR
AUTHORISEDTHERETOINWRITINGBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS OFANYPERSON
WHOISLIKELYTOGIVEMATERIALORRELEVANTINFORMATIONASTOANYALLEGEDOFFENCE
WHETHERORNOTITISKNOWNBYWHOMTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDPROVIDEDTHAT
IF SUCH PERSON FURNISHES THAT INFORMATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLICPROSECUTIONSORPUBLICPROSECUTORCONCERNEDPRIORTOTHEDATEONWHICHHE
ORSHEISREQUIREDTOAPPEARBEFORETHEJUDICIALOFFICIALMENTIONED HEORSHESHALL
BEUNDERNOFURTHEROBLIGATIONTOAPPEARBEFORESUCHJUDICIALOFFICIALS
3UCHEXAMINATIONCANBECONDUCTEDPRIVATELYATANYPLACEDESIGNATEDBYTHEJU
DICIALOFFICIALS ANDNEEDNOTBEHELDINCOURT)FSUCHAPERSONSHOULD
HOWEVER REFUSEORFAILTOGIVETHEINFORMATION HEORSHESHALLNOTBESENTENCED
TOIMPRISONMENTASCONTEMPLATEDINS UNLESSTHEJUDICIALOFFICIALCONCERNED
ISALSOOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEFURNISHINGOFSUCHINFORMATIONISNECESSARYFORTHE
ADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEORTHEMAINTENANCEOFLAWANDORDERS
)TISNOTNECESSARYTOSUMMONAPERSONTOAPPEARHEORSHEMAYBEINFORMALLY
REQUESTEDTOAPPEARONADATESPECIFIED4HEADVANTAGESOFASUMMONSTOAPPEAR
SUBPOENA ARESELF EVIDENT-ATISONN 3!!
3ECTIONISSPECIALLYDESIGNEDTOCOMPELAPERSONTOREVEALHISORHERKNOWL
EDGEOFANALLEGEDCRIME WHICHKNOWLEDGEHEORSHEHASREFUSEDTODISCLOSETO
THEPOLICE)FSUCHAWITNESSREFUSESTOGIVETHENECESSARYINFORMATIONORREFUSES
TOANSWERTHEQUESTIONS THECOURTMAY INASUMMARYMANNER ENQUIREINTOSUCH
REFUSALORFAILURES4HEWITNESSISNOTOBLIGEDTOANSWERSELF INCRIMINATING

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
QUESTIONS EXCEPT WHERE HE OR SHE HAS BEEN WARNED IN TERMS OF S "OSMAN
+LEINSCHMIDT 3! ! 3ECTION PROVIDES FOR AN EXAMINATION AND
DOESNOTGRANTTHEPROSECUTORTHERIGHTTOCROSS EXAMINETHEWITNESS4HEWITNESS
ISENTITLEDTOLEGALREPRESENTATION3MITV6AN.IEKERK 3!% (EYMAN
3!!
4HEQUESTIONINGMAYTAKEPLACEINPRIVATE4HEFOLLOWINGSECTIONSWITHREGARD
TOWITNESSESAPPLYMUTATISMUTANDISCF#HAPTER TO TO TO
AND
)N3MITV6AN.IEKERK./ 3!! ATITWASHELDTHATIFAWITNESS
SHOULDREFUSETOANSWERAQUESTIONANDTHUSBEREQUIREDINTERMSOFSTOSHOW
A@JUSTEXCUSEFORHISREFUSAL HEISENTITLEDTOTHEASSISTANCEOFALEGALADVISER)N
THISCASEITWASHELDTHATACLERGYMANDOESNOTHAVEARIGHTTOSILENCE#FALSO.EL
V,E2OUX 3!##
.OWITNESS HOWEVER ISOBLIGEDTOANSWERSELF INCRIMINATINGQUESTIONSS
)N TERMS OF S THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED
INSTANCES ISSUES A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF A POTENTIAL STATE WIT
NESSSEE#HAPTER
)N.ELV,E2OUX 3!## THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHELDTHAT IN
PRINCIPLE S IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE #ONSTITUTION ALTHOUGH THE APPLI
CATION THEREOF IN A PARTICULAR CASE MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE #ONSTITUTION
!CCORDINGTOTHECOURT EVERYCASEWILLHAVETOBECONSIDEREDONITSOWNMERITS
0OWERSRELATINGTOSUSPECTSANDACCUSED
)NPRE TRIALCRIMINALPROCEDURE THERIGHTTOREMAINSILENTSETOUTINS A OF
THE#ONSTITUTION QUOTEDABOVE MUSTBEDISTINGUISHEDFROMTHERIGHTNOTTOBE
QUESTIONED3USPECTSANDACCUSEDPERSONSHAVETHEFORMERRIGHTBUTNOTTHELATTER
)TWASHELDIN'OSSCHALKV2OSSOUW 3!# THATONCETHEPOLICEHAVE
LAWFULLYOBTAINEDACCESSTOASUSPECTEGBYVIRTUEOFLAWFULARRESTORHISORHER
PERMISSION THEYMAYQUESTIONHIMORHERWITHINREASONABLELIMITS4HESUSPECT
ISNOT HOWEVER OBLIGEDTOANSWERTHESEQUESTIONS'OSSCHALKV2OSSOUWABOVE AT
(AND7EYER 3!'7 .OADVERSEINFERENCEMAYBEDRAWNFROM
HISORHERSILENCECF4HEBUS 3!#2##
).4%2#%04)/.!.$-/.)4/2).'
4HEINTERCEPTIONOFPOSTANDPRIVATECONVERSATIONSBETWEENPERSONSCONSTITUTESA
SERIOUSINFRINGEMENTOFTHEPRIVACYOFINDIVIDUALS3TRICTMEASURESWEREACCORDING
LYLAIDDOWNTOMAINTAINTHECONFIDENTIALITYOFTHEPOSTANDPRIVATECONVERSATIONS
ANDTHESEAREREFLECTEDINSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION INTERMSOFWHICHEVERYPERSON
HASTHERIGHTNOTTOBESUBJECTTOTHEVIOLATIONOFPRIVATECOMMUNICATIONS
3INCETHEAFOREMENTIONEDMEASURESTOPROTECTTHECONFIDENTIALITYOFCOMMUNI
CATIONSSENTBYTHEPOST BYTELEGRAMORTELEPHONE MAYHAMPERTHEINVESTIGATION
OFCRIME EXPRESSPROVISIONWASMADEFORCERTAINEXCEPTIONS!CCORDINGLY ALAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY INTERCEPT COMMUNICATIONS IN ORDER TO PREVENT SERIOUS
BODILYHARMORTODETERMINE INACASEOFEMERGENCY THELOCATIONOFSOMEPERSONAT
AGIVENTIMESEESSANDOFTHE2EGULATIONOF)NTERCEPTIONOF#OMMUNICATIONS
AND0ROVISIONOF#OMMUNICATION RELATED)NFORMATION!CTOF

#(!04%2r).4%22/'!4)/. ).4%2#%04)/.!.$%34!",)3().'4(%"/$),9&%!452%3
!3#%24!).-%.4/&"/$),9&%!452%3/&0%23/.3
3ECTION OF !CT OF CHANGED THE HEADING OF #HAPTER OF THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTFROMTHEPREVIOUS@!SCERTAINMENTOF"ODILY&EATURESOFTHE!CCUSED
TOTHEPRESENT@!SCERTAINMENTOF"ODILY&EATURESOF0ERSONS4HECURRENT#HAPTER
INCORPORATESSIXSECTIONS TOWIT
I 3ECTION!INSERTEDBY!CTOF WHICHPROVIDESDEFINITIONSFORPUR
POSESOFTHEINTERPRETATIONOF#HAPTER-ANYOFTHEDEFINITIONSWERESUBSTI
TUTEDORINSERTEDBYTHE#RIMINAL,AW&ORENSIC0ROCEDURES !MENDMENT!CT
OF WHICHCAMEINTOOPERATIONON*ANUARY
II 3ECTION"INSERTEDBY!CTOF 0OWERSINRESPECTOFFINGERPRINTSOF
ACCUSEDANDCONVICTEDPERSONS
III 3ECTION # INSERTED BY !CT OF &INGERPRINTS AND BODY PRINTS FOR
INVESTIGATIONPURPOSES
IV 3ECTION$INSERTEDBY!CTOF 0OWERSINRESPECTOFBUCCALSAM
PLES BODILYSAMPLESANDCRIMESCENESAMPLES
V 3ECTION%INSERTEDBY!CTOF 3AMPLESFORINVESTIGATIONPURPOSES
VI 3ECTIONAMENDEDBY!CTOF 0OWERSINRESPECTOFBODY PRINTSAND
BODILYAPPEARANCEOFACCUSEDANDCONVICTEDPERSONS
#HAPTEROFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMUSTBEAPPROACHEDBEARINGINMIND
SS AND AND OF THE #ONSTITUTION 3ECTION RECOGNISES THE RIGHT TO
RESPECTFORANDPROTECTIONOFTHEDIGNITYOFTHEINDIVIDUAL3ECTION PROTECTS
THEFREEDOMANDSECURITYOFTHEPERSONANDPROSCRIBESDEGRADINGTREATMENTOFTHE
INDIVIDUAL3ECTION PROTECTSTHERIGHTTOSECURITYINANDCONTROLOVERONES
BODY$U4OITETAL#OMMENTARYONTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREITERATETHAT#HAP
TEROFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAKESSERIOUSINROADSUPONANINDIVIDUALS
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTOPRIVACY DIGNITYANDBODILYINTEGRITY4HEIDENTIFICATIONOF
SUSPECTSTHROUGHASCERTAINMENTOFBODILYFEATURESMUSTHOWEVERBEVIEWEDASA
LEGITIMATELIMITATIONOFRIGHTSWHENPROPERLYANDLAWFULLYCONDUCTEDINTHEPURSU
ANCEOFTHEINTERESTOFJUSTICE.ATURALLYTHISDOESNOTGIVETHEPOLICECARTEBLANCHE
INSOFAR AS INVADING THE BODILY INTEGRITY OF A SUSPECT IS CONCERNED BUT IT DOES
CONFERCERTAINPOWERSWHICH WHENEXECUTEDLAWFULLY AREESSENTIALTOOLSWITHIN
ADUEPROCESSSYSTEMOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE2EGARDLESSOFTHEMERITSOFSPECIFIC
CASESITISCLEARTHATTHEASCERTAINMENTOFBODILYFEATURESMUSTOCCURWITHINSTAN
DARDSOFDECENCYANDINAMANNERTHATDOESNOTSUBJECTANYPERSONTODEGRADING
ORHUMILIATINGTREATMENTTOACCEPTOTHERWISEWOULDINDICATEABLATANTDISREGARD
FOR THE "ILL OF 2IGHTS AND RULE OF LAW #HAPTER OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT
PROVIDESJUSTSUCHAFRAMEWORKOFSTANDARDS ORGUIDELINES THROUGHTHEOPERATION
OFITSVARIOUSPROVISIONSWHICHAREDISCUSSEDSEPARATELYBELOW
3
%#4)/.r0/7%23).2%30%#4/&"/$9 02).43!.$"/$),9
!00%!2!.#%/&!##53%$!.$#/.6)#4%$0%23/.3
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREGULATESTHEOBTAININGOFDATATHROUGH
THE FOLLOWING MEANS FINGER PALM AND FOOT PRINTING CONDUCTING IDENTITY PA
RADES ASCERTAINING OF BODILY FEATURES TAKING OF BLOOD SAMPLES AND TAKING OF
PHOTOGRAPHS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEPROVISIONAPPLIESINRESPECTOFAPERSONWHO
I ISARRESTED
II ISCONVICTED
III ISRELEASEDONBAIL
IV ISISSUEDWITHASUMMONSTOAPPEARINCOURTAND
V ISDEEMEDTOBECONVICTEDAFTERPAYINGADMISSIONOFGUILTINTERMSOFS
WITHOUTAPPEARINGINCOURT
! POLICE OFFICER MAY ASCERTAIN ANY MARK CHARACTERISTIC OR OTHER DISTINGUISHING
FEATUREOFTHESUSPECTS C (OWEVER APOLICEOFFICERDOESNOTHAVETHEPOWER
TO TAKE A BLOOD SAMPLE ! MEDICAL PRACTITIONER OR DISTRICT SURGEON OR REGISTERED
NURSEMAY REQUESTEDBYMEMBERSOFTHEPOLICE OBTAINABLOODSAMPLEORASCER
TAINABODILYFEATURES A )NOTHERWORDS ANEXAMINATIONOFTHISNATURE
MAYONLYBECONDUCTEDBYAMEDICALPRACTITIONER4HECIRCUMSTANCESREFERREDTO
ABOVEREFER GENERALLY TOPRE TRIALINSTANCESWHERETHEPOLICEOFFICERISEMPOWERED
TORETRIEVESAMPLESTOCONDUCTFURTHERINVESTIGATIONS)NADDITION ANYCOURTBE
FOREWHICHATRIALISPENDINGMAYORDERTHETAKINGOFBLOODSAMPLES FINGERPRINTS
ORTHEASCERTAINMENTOFOTHERBODILYFEATURESASTHECOURTMAYDEEMFITS
)N-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYANDV'AQA 3!#2## AND-INISTER
OF 3AFETY AND 3ECURITY V 8ABA 3!#2 $ THE APPLICATION OF S C
CAMEFIRMLYTOTHEFORE)NBOTHINSTANCES ABULLETWASLODGEDINTHEACCUSEDS
BODY IN HIS LEG AND THIGH RESPECTIVELY AND THE POLICE SOUGHT PERMISSION FROM
THE COURT TO HAVE THE PROJECTILE SURGICALLY REMOVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BALLISTIC
TESTS4HEPOLICEHADREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHEACCUSEDHADBEENSHOTANDINJURED
IN THE COURSE OF A BOTCHED ROBBERY 4HE BALLISTIC COMPARISON ACCORDING TO THE
POLICE WOULDEFFECTIVELYPLACETHEACCUSEDATTHESCENEOFTHECRIMEASONEOFTHE
PERPETRATORS
4HE TWO COURTS CAME TO DIFFERENT FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION OF
S C )N'AQA THECOURTHELDTHATAREFUSALTOALLOWTHEPOLICETOREQUESTTHE
REMOVALOFTHEPROJECTILEWOULDHAMSTRINGTHEFIGHTAGAINSTCRIME WITHTHERESULT
THATSERIOUSCRIMESWOULDREMAINUNSOLVED4HISWOULDPOTENTIALLYDIMINISHTHE
STATUSOFLAWENFORCEMENTANDJUSTICEINTHEEYESOFTHEPUBLIC4OTHISEXTENT THE
ACCUSEDSINTERESTSSHOULDWEIGHLESSTHANTHOSEOFTHECOMMUNITY)N8ABA ON
THEOTHERHAND THECOURTCONCLUDEDTHATTHATTHEINTENTIONOFTHELEGISLATUREIN
RESPECTOFS C WASPATENTLYNOTTOEMPOWERAPOLICEOFFICIALTOGIVEAMEDICAL
PRACTITIONERINSTRUCTIONSTOPERFORMANOPERATIONONANACCUSEDPERSONINORDER
TOOBTAINEVIDENCE4HECOURTALSOEMPHASISEDTHATTHES C DIDNOTAUTHORISE
APOLICEOFFICERHIMSELFORHERSELFTOEITHERTOPERFORMSURGERYONASUSPECT ORTO
TAKEABLOODSAMPLEFROMHIMORHER
)N(UMA 3!7 THEQUESTIONOFTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHETAK
ING OF FINGERPRINTS CAME TO THE FORE 4HE COURT TABULATED FIVE REASONS WHY THE
TAKINGOFFINGERPRINTSDIDNOTESSENTIALLYVIOLATES OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONOFTHE
2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA
4HE TAKING OF FINGERPRINTS IS A COMMON MODE OF INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WHICH IS FOR THE ISSUING OF IDENTITY DOCUMENTS AND
PASSPORTS 4HEREFORE THE ACT OF MAKING ONES FINGERPRINTS AVAILABLEFORPUR

#(!04%2r).4%22/'!4)/. ).4%2#%04)/.!.$%34!",)3().'4(%"/$),9&%!452%3
POSESOFISSUINGANIDENTITYDOCUMENTORAPASSPORTCANNEVERBEREGARDEDAS
INHUMANORDEGRADINGTREATMENT
)NPRACTICE FINGERPRINTSARETAKENINPRIVATEANDNOTINTHECOURTROOM ORIN
APUBLICPLACE4HUS THETAKINGOFFINGERPRINTSCANNOTBEREGARDEDAS@INHU
MANOR@DEGRADING TOTHEPOINTWHEREAPERSONSSELF ESTEEMISLOWERED ORA
PERSONISDISHONOUREDORDEBASEDINANYMANNER
4HEPROCESSOFOBTAININGFINGERPRINTS DOESNOT INESSENCE CONSTITUTEANIN
TRUSION INTO A PERSONS PHYSICAL INTEGRITY BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY
PHYSICALPAINOFANYKIND4HISISUNLIKETHETAKINGOFABLOODSAMPLE WHICH
CONSTITUTESMOREOFANINTRUSIONINTOAPERSONSPHYSICALINTEGRITYTHANTHE
TAKING OF A PERSONS FINGERPRINTS 4HE TAKING OF FINGERPRINTS IS IN FACT THE
SAMEASTHEMERETAKINGOFAPHOTOGRAPH WHICHDOESNOTVIOLATETHEPHYSICAL
INTEGRITYOFAPERSON
4HE FINGERPRINTS TAKEN IN TERMS OF S ARE EVENTUALLY DESTROYED IF THE AC
CUSED IS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND NOT GUILTY 4HUS THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVI
SIONSOFSPROVIDESANADDITIONALSAFEGUARDFORTHEINDIVIDUALRIGHTSOFTHE
ACCUSED
4HETAKINGOFFINGERPRINTSCANPOTENTIALLYBEADVANTAGEOUSTOTHEACCUSEDIN
PROVINGHISORHERINNOCENCE&OREXAMPLE ACOMPARATIVEANALYSISOFFINGER
PRINTSMAYCONCLUDETHATTHEACCUSEDWASNOTINVOLVEDINTHECOMMISSIONOF
THEOFFENCE
)NCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES AMEDICALEXAMINATIONMAYBECONDUCTEDONA
MINOREVENWITHOUTTHEPERMISSIONOFHISORHERPARENTSORGUARDIANS"
ALSO INTERMSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT THEINVESTIGATINGOFFICERHASTHERESPON
SIBILITYTODETERMINETHEAGEOFACHILD SUSPECTIFHEORSHEISUNCERTAINABOUT
THEAGEOFTHECHILD SUSPECTS
4HE #RIMINAL ,AW &ORENSIC 0ROCEDURES !MENDMENT !CT OF REGULATES
THE TAKING USAGE STORING RETENTION AND DESTRUCTION OF FINGERPRINTS BODY PRINTS
ANDPHOTOGRAPHICIMAGESANDTHEKEEPINGOFDATABASES ANDAUTHORISESCOMPARATIVE
SEARCHESAGAINSTOTHERDATABASESANDSECURITYMEASURESRELATINGTOTHEINTEGRITYOF
INFORMATIONSTOREDONTHEDATABASES
! PERSONS HANDWRITING IS THE CREATION OF A LEARNED ABILITY AND CANNOT BE
DESCRIBEDASABODILYFEATUREORCHARACTERISTIC&RASER;=!LL3!.
)NTERMSOFCOMMON LAWPRINCIPLES APERSONMAYBESUBJECTEDTOA@VOICEIDEN
TIFICATION PARADE 4HE ADMINISTERING OF A SO CALLED @TRUTH SERUM HOWEVER IS
IMPERMISSIBLE4HECOURTSHAVELAIDDOWNEXTENSIVEGUIDELINESFORTHECONDUCTOF
IDENTITYPARADES4HEEVIDENTIARYASPECTSRELATINGTOTHEMATTERSDISCUSSEDHERE
AREDEALTWITHINTEXTBOOKSONTHELAWOFEVIDENCE
&INALLY ASTOUCHEDUPONABOVESPROVIDESFORTHEDESTRUCTIONOFDATAIFAPER
SONISACQUITTEDORCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSARENOTCONTINUED

#(!04%2
3EARCHANDSEIZURE
$!LLY
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
4(%3#/0%!.$#/.4%.4/&4(%2)'(44/02)6!#9
!24)#,%34(!4!2%353#%04)",%4/3%):52%
3%!2#().4%2-3/&!3%!2#(7!22!.4
'ENERALRULE
4HEDISCRETIONOFAJUDICIALOFFICERTOISSUEAWARRANT
'ENERALSEARCHWARRANTS
7ARRANTSTOMAINTAININTERNALSECURITYANDLAWANDORDER
"ACKGROUND
7ARRANTINTERMSOFS
'ENERALINFORMATIONREQUIREMENTSWITHREGARDTO
WARRANTS
3%!2#(7)4(/54!7!22!.4
)NTRODUCTION
0OWERSOFTHEPOLICE
#ONSENTTOSEARCHANDORTOSEIZE
3EARCHANDSEIZUREWHEREADELAYWOULDDEFEATTHE
OBJECTTHEREOF
3EARCHANDSEIZUREFORTHEPURPOSESOFBORDERCONTROL
3EARCHANDSEIZUREINACORDONED OFFAREA
3EARCHANDSEIZUREATAROADBLOCKORCHECKPOINT
3EARCHANDSEIZUREINTERMSOFTHE$RUGSAND$RUG
4RAFFICKING!CTOF
0OWERSOFTHEOCCUPIERSOFPREMISES
3EARCHFORTHEPURPOSEOFEFFECTINGANARREST


#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
2EVIEWOFTHEACTIONSOFTHEPERSONCONDUCTINGTHESEARCH

3%!2#(/&!.!22%34%$0%23/.
4(%53%/&&/2#%)./2$%24/#/.$5#4!3%!2#(
'%.%2!,2%15)2%-%.4/&02/02)%497)4(2%'!2$4/
3%!2#().'
5.,!7&5,3%!2#(
&ORMAL LAWCONSEQUENCESOFUNLAWFULACTIONBYTHE
AUTHORITIES
3UBSTANTIVE LAWCONSEQUENCESOFUNLAWFULACTIONBYTHE
AUTHORITIES
RIGHTr
c
H NOTTOBETREATEDINACRUEL INHUMANORDEGRADINGWAY
%VERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BODILY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INTEGRITY WHICH INCLUDES THE
RIGHTr
c
E TOSECURITYINANDCONTROLOVERTHEIRBODY
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0RIVACY
D THEIRPERSONORHOMESEARCHED
E THEIRPROPERTYSEARCHED
C THEIRPOSSESSIONSSEIZED
3EE BELOW
3ECTION r%XCLUSIONARYRULE
EXCLUDEDIFTHEADMISSIONOFTHATEVIDENCEWOULDRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISE
BEDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr$EFINITIONS
lCHILDmMEANSANYPERSONUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSAND INCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES MEANS
APERSONWHOISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSWHOSEMATTERISDEALT
WITHINTERMSOFSECTION
.ATIONAL)NSTRUCTIONOF#HILDRENIN#ONFLICTWITHTHE,AW
r4REATMENTOF#HILDREN
4REATMENTOFACHILDSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE
D $URINGTHEFIRSTCONTACTWITHACHILDSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE THE
MEMBERMUST IFCIRCUMSTANCESPERMIT INTRODUCEHIMSELFORHERSELFTOTHECHILDAND
IFAPARENT GUARDIANORANAPPROPRIATEADULTISPRESENT TOSUCHPERSON
E 4HEMEMBERMUSTEXPLAINTOTHECHILDTHATHEORSHEISBEINGSUSPECTEDOFHAVING
COMMITTEDTHEOFFENCE4HEMEMBERMUSTEXPLAINTHISTOTHECHILDINALANGUAGE
THATHEORSHEUNDERSTANDS PREFERABLYINTHEMOTHERTONGUEOFTHECHILD USINGPLAIN
ANDSIMPLEVOCABULARYTOASSISTTHECHILDTOHAVEABETTERUNDERSTANDINGOFTHECHILD
JUSTICESYSTEMANDTHEPROCEDURETHATWILLBEFOLLOWEDINHISORHERCASE4HECHILD
MUSTUNDERSTANDTHATTHISISAVERYSERIOUSMATTER
F 4HE MEMBER MUST REALISE THAT THE CHILD MAY BE OVERWHELMED AND SCARED IN THE
PRESENCEOFTHE0OLICEANDMUSTTHEREFOREPATIENTLYEXPLAINTHENATUREOFTHEOFFENCE
ANDTHEPROCEDURETHATWILLBEFOLLOWEDINHISORHERCASE4HEMEMBERMUSTGIVE
ENOUGHDETAILABOUTTHEMATTERSANDALLOWSUFFICIENTTIMESOTHATTHECHILDCANAB
SORBTHEINFORMATION4HEMEMBERMUSTENCOURAGETHECHILDTOASKQUESTIONSAND
RESPONDTOTHEQUESTIONSANDSATISFYHIMSELFORHERSELFTHATTHECHILDUNDERSTANDSTHE
INFORMATIONANDEXPLANATIONGIVEN4HEMEMBERMAYELICITRESPONSESFROMTHECHILD
BYASKINGQUESTIONSINORDERTOENSURETHATHEORSHEUNDERSTANDSTHEINFORMATION
G !MEMBERMUSTNOTHUMILIATEORINTIMIDATEACHILDANDMUSTATALLTIMESTREATAND
COMMUNICATEWITHTHECHILDINAMANNERWHICHISAPPROPRIATETOTHEAGE MATURITY
ANDSTAGEOFDEVELOPMENTOFTHECHILD4HEYOUNGERTHECHILD THEMOREPATIENTAND
UNDERSTANDINGTHEMEMBERMUSTBEWHILECOMMUNICATINGWITHTHECHILD4HELEVEL
OFSCHOOLINGOFTHECHILDANDTHECHILDmSABILITYTOREADANDWRITEAREALSORELEVANT
WHENCONSIDERINGWHATWOULDBEANAPPROPRIATEMANNERINWHICHTOTREATANDCOM
MUNICATEWITHTHECHILD
H 4HE MEMBER MUST TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND DIGNITY OF THE CHILD AND
MUSTENSURETHATDISCUSSIONSWITHTHECHILDANDHISORHERPARENTORGUARDIANORAN
APPROPRIATEADULTWHETHERATTHEPOLICESTATIONORATTHECRIMESCENE TAKEPLACEIN
PRIVATE OUTOFSIGHTANDHEARINGOFOTHERPERSONS
F !MEMBERWHOEXPLAINSTOACHILDANDHISORHERPARENT GUARDIANORANAPPROPRIATE
ADULT THECONTENTSOFANOTICEORPROCEDUREMUSTTAKEINTOACCOUNTTHEBACKGROUND
OFTHECHILD THEPARENT GUARDIANORAPPROPRIATEADULTANDTHEFACTTHATTHEYMAY
NOT BE CONVERSANT WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURES 4HE
MEMBER MUST EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE OR PROCEDURE IN SIMPLE UNDER
STANDABLELANGUAGEANDGIVESUFFICIENTDETAILSTOTHECHILDANDPARENT GUARDIANOR
APPROPRIATEADULT4HEMEMBERMUSTALSOENCOURAGETHECHILD PARENT GUARDIANOR
APPROPRIATEADULTTOASKQUESTIONSWITHOUTINTERRUPTINGHIMORHER
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
).42/$5#4)/.
4HESEARCHOFONESHOME PERSONORVEHICLEWITHORWITHOUTAWARRANTMAY DE
PENDINGONTHECIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTEAVIOLATIONOFTHERIGHTTOPRIVACY/UR
COURTSDETERMINEWHETHERSTATEACTIONPOLICECONDUCT CONSTITUTESAVIOLATIONOFA
COMPLAINANTSRIGHTTOPRIVACYORANYOTHERRIGHTBYAPPLYINGTWOTESTS&IRST THE
COURTSMUSTDETERMINETHESCOPEOFTHERIGHTTOPRIVACYANDCONSIDERWHETHERTHE
POLICECONDUCTBREACHEDTHECOMPLAINANTSRIGHTTOPRIVACYIFNOT THATWOULDBE
THEENDOFTHEMATTER(OWEVER IFTHEPOLICECONDUCTDIDBREACHTHECOMPLAIN
ANTSRIGHTTOPRIVACY THECOURTSWOULDCONTINUEWITHTHESECONDTEST4HESECOND
TESTDETERMINESWHETHERTHEPOLICECONDUCTISJUSTIFIEDBECAUSETHEY FOREXAMPLE
ACTED IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT OF AS
AMENDED 4HIS SECOND TEST IS REFERRED TO AS THE LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS UNDER S
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION)FTHEPOLICECONDUCTCANNOTBEJUSTIFIEDINTERMSOFSBE
CAUSETHEPOLICEOFFICER FOREXAMPLE EXCEEDEDTHEPOWERSGRANTEDTOHIMORHER
INTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT THECOMPLAINANTWOULDHAVESUCCEEDED
INESTABLISHINGTHATHISORHERRIGHTTOPRIVACYHASBEENVIOLATED3ECTIONIS
INCLUDEDINTHEAPPENDICESATTHEENDOFTHISBOOK 3EARCH SEIZURE ANDMATTERS
RELATEDTHERETOAREREGULATEDBY#HAPTERSANDSECTIONSTHATFOLLOW OFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
4HE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT EMBODIES THE GENERAL PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO
SEARCHINGSPECIFICPROVISIONSARECONTAINEDINMANYOTHERACTS)TISIMPOSSIBLE
TOREFERTOALLTHESEACTS3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTSTATESEXPLICITLY
THAT #HAPTER OF THE !CT SHALL NOT DEROGATE FROM ANY POWER CONFERRED BY ANY
OTHER!CTTOENTERANYPREMISESORTOSEARCHANYPERSON CONTAINERORPREMISESOR
TOSEIZEANYMATTER TODECLAREANYMATTERFORFEITEDORTODISPOSEOFANYMATTER
4(%3#/0%!.$#/.4%.4/&4(%2)'(44/02)6!#9
4HERIGHTTOPRIVACYSEEKSTOPROTECTTHERIGHTNOTTOHAVEONESPERSONORHOME
SEARCHED ONESPROPERTYSEARCHED ONESPOSSESSIONSSEIZED ORTHEPRIVACYOFONES
COMMUNICATIONSINFRINGED
4HESCOPEOFTHERIGHTTOPRIVACYISDETERMINEDBYTHECONCEPTOFA@LEGITIMATE
EXPECTATIONOFPRIVACY"ERNSTEINV"ESTER 3!## AT;= /URCOURTS
DONOTDEFINETHERIGHTTOPRIVACYINSTEAD THEYAPPLYTHENOTIONOFA@SPECTRUM
OFPRIVACYPROTECTION CONSISTINGOFASMALLCIRCLE FOLLOWEDBYANUMBEROFBIGGER
CIRCLESSURROUNDINGTHECENTRALCIRCLE4HESMALLCENTRALCIRCLEREPRESENTSTHEINTI
MATECOREOFPRIVACY RELATINGTO FOREXAMPLE WHATONEDOESINONESBEDROOM
ANDWIDERCIRCLESBEYONDTHISCENTRALCOREREPRESENTSOCIALINTERACTIONSOFALESS
PRIVATENATURESUCHAS FOREXAMPLE TRAVELLINGINPUBLICTRANSPORT)NTERFERENCES
WITHTHECENTRALCOREMAYONLYBEJUSTIFIEDINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES WHEREAS
INTERFERENCES WITH THE OUTER CIRCLES WHICH ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE CENTRE OF
PRIVACY ARELESSDEMANDINGTODEFEND-INISTEROF0OLICEV+UNJANA 3!#2
## ;=:!##AT;= )NOTHERWORDS THEMOREASEARCHANDSEIZURE
INTERFERESWITHTHECENTRALCOREOFPRIVACY THEMORECHALLENGINGITWILLBETOJUS
TIFYSUCHINTERFERENCE0RIVACYISALSOINTRINSICALLYLINKEDTOHUMANDIGNITY WHICH
CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT VALUES OUR CONSTITUTION SEEKS TO UPHOLD
)NVESTIGATING $IRECTORATE 3ERIOUS %CONOMIC /FFENCES V (YUNDAI -OTOR $ISTRIBUTORS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
0TY ,TD 3!## AT;=4HINT0TY ,TDV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC

0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2## ;=:!##AT;=
!24)#,%34(!4!2%353#%04)",%4/3%):52%
4HE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT CONFERS POWERS TO SEARCH ONLY WHERE THE OBJECT OF
THESEARCHISTOFINDACERTAINPERSONORTOSEIZEANARTICLEWHICHFALLSINTOONEOF
THREECLASSESOFARTICLES INCLUDINGDOCUMENTS WHICHMAYBESEIZEDBYTHESTATEIN
TERMSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT4HESEARE
ARTICLESWHICHARECONCERNEDINORAREONREASONABLEGROUNDSBELIEVEDTOBE
CONCERNEDINTHECOMMISSIONORSUSPECTEDCOMMISSIONOFANOFFENCE WHETH
ERWITHINTHE2EPUBLICORELSEWHERESA
ARTICLESWHICHMAYAFFORDEVIDENCEOFTHECOMMISSIONORSUSPECTEDCOMMIS
SIONOFANOFFENCE WHETHERWITHINTHE2EPUBLICORELSEWHERESB OR
ARTICLESWHICHAREINTENDEDTOBEUSEDORAREONREASONABLEGROUNDSBELIEVED
TOBEINTENDEDTOBEUSEDINTHECOMMISSIONOFANOFFENCESC
5NDERNORMALCIRCUMSTANCESANARTICLEORDOCUMENTFALLINGINTOONEOFTHEABOVE
MENTIONED CATEGORIES MAY BE SEIZED BY THE STATE 4HE ONLY EXCEPTIONS RELATE TO
DOCUMENTSWHICHAREPRIVILEGEDANDINRESPECTOFWHICHTHEHOLDEROFTHEPRIVI
LEGEHASNOTYETRELINQUISHEDHISORHERPRIVILEGE!NEXAMPLEOFTHISWOULDBE
WHERETHEDOCUMENTCONSISTSOFACOMMUNICATIONBETWEENANATTORNEYANDHIS
ORHERCLIENT3UCHADOCUMENTISSUBJECTTOLEGALPROFESSIONALPRIVILEGEANDMAY
NOTBEHANDEDINTOTHECOURTWITHOUTTHECONSENTOFTHECLIENT)FTHESTATEHAD
THEPOWERTOSEIZESUCHADOCUMENTTHEWHOLEOBJECTOFTHEPRIVILEGEWOULDBE
DEFEATED)N0RINSLOOV.EWMAN 3!! AT&n'AND3!3/,)))%DMS
"PKV-INISTERVAN7ETEN/RDE 3!4 ITWASACCORDINGLYHELDTHATSUCH
ADOCUMENTMAYNOTBESEIZED
3%!2#().4%2-3/&!3%!2#(7!22!.4
'ENERALRULE
3EARCHESANDSEIZURESSHOULD WHENEVERPOSSIBLE BECONDUCTEDONLYINTERMSOF
ASEARCHWARRANT ISSUEDBYAJUDICIALOFFICERSUCHASAMAGISTRATEORJUDGECFTHE
WORDING OF S 4HIS WILL ENSURE THAT AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL OFFICER STANDS
BETWEENTHECITIZENANDTHELAWENFORCEMENTOFFICIALPOLICEOFFICIAL 0ARK 2OSS
V$IRECTOR/FFICEFOR3ERIOUS%CONOMIC/FFENCES 3!# AT&ORTHIS
REASONTHEPROVISIONSGOVERNINGTHEISSUEOFSEARCHWARRANTSREQUIRETHATTHEJU
DICIALOFFICERMUSTHIMSELFORHERSELFDECIDEWHETHERORNOTTHEREARE@REASONABLE
GROUNDSFORTHESEARCH
4HEDISCRETIONOFAJUDICIALOFFICERTOISSUEAWARRANT
)NDECIDINGWHETHERTHEREAREREASONABLEGROUNDSFORTHESEARCH THEJUDICIALOF
FICEREXERCISESADISCRETIONSIMILARTOTHEDISCRETIONHEORSHEEXERCISESINGRANTING
BAIL REMANDING A CASE OR SENTENCING AN ACCUSED AND SO FORTH 4HIS DISCRETION
MUSTBEEXERCISEDINAJUDICIALMANNER4HISSIMPLYMEANSTHATTHEJUDICIALOFFICER
MUSTEXERCISETHEDISCRETIONINAREASONABLEANDREGULARMANNER INACCORDANCE

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
WITHTHELAWANDWHILETAKINGALLRELEVANTFACTSINTOACCOUNT-INISTEROF3AFETY
AND3ECURITYV6ANDER-ERWE 3!## "EFOREISSUINGASEARCHWARRANT
THEJUDICIALOFFICERMUSTTHEREFOREDECIDEWHETHERTHEARTICLETHATWILLBESEARCHED
FORISONEWHICHMAYBESEIZEDINTERMSOFSANDWHETHERITAPPEARSFROMTHE
AFFIDAVITTHATTHEREAREREASONABLEGROUNDSTOBELIEVETHATTHEARTICLEISPRESENTATA
PARTICULARPLACE-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV6ANDER-ERWE ABOVE !SFARASTHE
CONCEPTOF@REASONABLEGROUNDSISCONCERNED SEETHEDISCUSSIONOFTHEREQUIRE
MENTOFREASONABLENESSIN#HAPTER
'OVERNMENT ACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE OBJECTIVELY AND DEMONSTRABLY REASON
ABLE 4HIS LAUDABLE PRINCIPLE WAS UNFORTUNATELY UNDERMINED BY THE DECISION IN
$IVISIONAL#OMMISSIONEROF3!0OLICE 7ITWATERSRAND!REAV3!!SSOCIATED.EWSPAPERS
3!! WHEREITWASHELDTHATTHEMERITSOFTHEDECISIONBYAJUSTICEOF
THEPEACE THATTHEREAREOBJECTIVEGROUNDSUPONWHICHAWARRANTMAYBEISSUED
MAYNOTBECONTESTEDINCOURTCONTRARYTOWHEREASEARCHWITHOUTAWARRANTIS
CONDUCTEDBYTHEPOLICE 4HEDECISIONTOISSUEASEARCHWARRANTMAY INTERMSOF
THISDECISION BESETASIDEONLYONADMINISTRATIVEGROUNDSSUCHASMALAFIDESON
THEPARTOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICER ANDNOTONTHEMERITS4HISDECISIONWASQUOTED
WITH APPROVAL IN #RESTO -ACHINES V $IE !FDELING 3PEUROFFISIER 3! 0OLISIE .OORD
4RANSVAAL 3!! CFFURTHER#INE&ILMS0TY ,TDV#OMMISSIONEROF
0OLICE 3!7
-OGOENG #* IN -INISTER OF 3AFETY AND 3ECURITY V 6AN DER -ERWE 3!
## HELDAT;= THATAJUDICIALOFFICERMUSTENSURETHATTHEFOLLOWINGPREREQUI
SITESARECOMPLIEDWITHBEFOREAUTHORISINGAWARRANT
A THEWARRANTMUSTMENTIONTHESTATUTORYPROVISIONINTERMSOFWHICHITISAU
THORISED
B ITMUSTIDENTIFYTHESEARCHER
C ITMUSTCLEARLYDESCRIBETHESCOPEOFTHEPOWERSGRANTEDTOTHESEARCHER
D ITMUSTIDENTIFYTHEPERSON CONTAINERORPREMISESTOBESEARCHED
E ITMUSTCLEARLYDESCRIBETHEARTICLETOBESEARCHEDFORANDSEIZED
F ITMUSTMENTIONTHEOFFENCEBEINGINVESTIGATED
G ITMUSTSTATETHENAMEOFTHEPERSONBEINGINVESTIGATED
'ENERALSEARCHWARRANTS
4HEPROCEDUREWITHREGARDTOSEARCHWARRANTSISGOVERNEDBYS3UBSECTION
PROVIDESTHAT SUBJECTTOSS ANDSEEBELOW ANARTICLEREFERREDTOINS
SHALLBESEIZEDONLYBYVIRTUEOFASEARCHWARRANTISSUED
A BYAMAGISTRATEORJUSTICE IFITAPPEARSTOSUCHMAGISTRATEORJUSTICEFROM
INFORMATIONONOATHTHATTHEREAREREASONABLEGROUNDSFORBELIEVINGTHAT
ANYSUCHARTICLEISINTHEPOSSESSIONORUNDERTHECONTROLOFANYPERSON OR
UPONORATANYPREMISESWITHINHISAREAOFJURISDICTIONOR
B BY A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING AT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IF IT AP
PEARS TO SUCH JUDGE OR JUDICIAL OFFICER THAT ANY SUCH ARTICLE IN THE POS
SESSIONORUNDERTHECONTROLOFANYPERSONORUPONORATANYPREMISESIS
REQUIREDINEVIDENCEATSUCHPROCEEDINGS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTION STIPULATESTHATAWARRANTMUSTDIRECTAPOLICEOFFICIALTOSEIZETHEAR
TICLEINQUESTIONANDMUSTTOTHATENDAUTHORISESUCHPOLICEOFFICIALTOSEARCHANY
PERSONIDENTIFIEDINTHEWARRANT ORTOENTERANDSEARCHANYPREMISESIDENTIFIEDIN
THEWARRANTANDTOSEARCHANYPERSONFOUNDONORATSUCHPREMISES3EEALSO%XTRA
$IMENSIONV+RUGER./ 3!#24
)N -INISTER OF 3AFETY AND 3ECURITY V 6AN DER -ERWE 3! ## AT ;=
-OGOENG #* SET OUT THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES THAT OUR COURTS MUST TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT WHEN ASSESSING THE VALIDITY OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANTS 4HESE ARE
WHETHER
A THEPERSONWHOAUTHORISEDAWARRANTHASAUTHORITYTODOSO
B THEPERSONMENTIONEDINA HASJURISDICTIONTOAUTHORISEAWARRANT
C THE AFFIDAVIT CONTAINS INFORMATION REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE JURISDIC
TIONALFACTSMEANINGAREASONABLESUSPICIONTHATACRIMEHASBEENCOMMIT
TEDANDREASONABLEGROUNDSTOBELIEVETHATOBJECTSCONNECTEDTOCRIMEMAY
BEFOUNDONTHEPREMISES
D THE SCOPE BOUNDARIES OF THE SEARCH THAT MUST BE CONDUCTED ARE CLEAR AND
NOTOVERBROADORVAGUE
E THE SEARCHED PERSONS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT UNNECESSARILY INTERFERED
WITH
-OGOENG #* ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE TERMS OF A WARRANT MUST BE STRICTLY INTER
PRETED INORDERTOPROTECTTHESEARCHEDPERSONAGAINSTEXCESSIVEINTERFERENCEBY
THE STATE 6AN DER -ERWE ABOVE AT ;= ALSO 4HINT 0TY ,TD V .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF
0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS:UMAV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2
##
4HE DECISION IN 'OQWANA V -INISTER OF 3AFETY AND 3ECURITY 3!#2
3#! EXPLAINED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PREREQUISITES AND GUIDELINES MENTIONED
IN THE 6AN DER -ERWE CASE ABOVE BY HIGHLIGHTING THREE IMPORTANT POINTS FIRST
THEREASONWHYTHEIDENTITYOFTHESEARCHERMUSTBEMENTIONEDINAWARRANTIS
TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY IN CASE THE SEARCHER ABUSES HIS OR HER POWER AT ;=
SECONDLY WHERETHESEARCHISINCONNECTIONWITHASTATUTORYOFFENCE ASOPPOSED
TOACOMMON LAWOFFENCE THERELEVANTSTATUTEANDSECTIONMUSTBEMENTIONED IN
ORDERTOENABLEBOTHTHESEARCHERANDTHESEARCHEDPERSONTOKNOWEXACTLYWHAT
THE WARRANT HAS BEEN AUTHORISED FOR AT ;= AND THIRDLY THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUP
PORTOFTHEWARRANTSHOULDACCOMPANYTHEWARRANTANDSHOULDBEHANDEDTOTHE
SEARCHEDPERSONINCASEHEORSHEWANTSTOCHALLENGETHEVALIDITYOFTHEWARRANT
AT;=
%VENTHOUGHSDOESNOTREQUIRETHATTHESUSPECTEDOFFENCEBESETOUTINTHE
WARRANT ITISDESIRABLETODOSOINORDERTOFACILITATETHEINTERPRETATIONOFTHEWAR
RANT-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITYV6ANDER-ERWEABOVEAT;=
4HEPOWERSCONFERREDBYSCONSTITUTEGRAVEINFRINGEMENTSOFTHEPRIVACYOF
THEINDIVIDUAL4OLIMITTHISINFRINGEMENT S A PROVIDESTHATASEARCHWAR
RANTMUSTBEEXECUTEDIEACTEDUPON BYDAY UNLESSTHEJUDICIALOFFICERWHOISSUES
ITGIVESWRITTENAUTHORISATIONFORITTOBEEXECUTEDBYNIGHT
!WARRANTMAYBEISSUEDANDBEEXECUTEDONA3UNDAY ASONANYOTHERDAY AND
REMAINSINFORCEUNTILITISEXECUTEDORISCANCELLEDBYTHEPERSONWHOISSUEDITOR
IFSUCHPERSONISNOTAVAILABLE BYAPERSONWITHLIKEAUTHORITYS B

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
7ARRANTSTOMAINTAININTERNALSECURITYANDLAWANDORDER
"ACKGROUND
)N 7OLPE V /FFICER #OMMANDING 3OUTH !FRICAN 0OLICE *OHANNESBURG 3!
7 MEMBERSOFTHEPOLICEENTEREDAHALLINWHICHACONFERENCEWASBEINGHELDBY
THE@3OUTH!FRICAN#ONGRESSOF$EMOCRATSINCO OPERATIONWITHOTHERORGANISA
TIONS4HECHAIRMANREQUESTEDTHEPOLICETOLEAVETHEMEETINGANDEXPLAINEDTHAT
ITWASAPRIVATEMEETING4HEPOLICEREFUSEDTODOSO-EMBERSOFTHE#ONGRESSOF
$EMOCRATSTHEREUPONBROUGHTANURGENTAPPLICATIONTOTHECOURTFORANINTERDICT
PROHIBITINGTHEPOLICEFROMATTENDINGTHEMEETING4HEYARGUEDTHATTHEPOLICE
DONOTHAVEGREATERPOWERSTHANANYOTHERINDIVIDUAL EXCEPTINSOFARASTHEYARE
VESTEDWITHWIDERPOWERSBYSTATUTE4HEAPPLICATIONWASREFUSED2UMPFF*HELD
THATTHEBASICDUTIESOFTHEPOLICEARENOTCONFINEDTOTHOSEMENTIONEDINSTATUTES
4HEBASICDUTIESOFTHEPOLICEFLOWFROMTHENATUREOFTHEPOLICEASACIVILFORCEIN
THESTATE!CCORDINGTOHIMITWASNOTTHEINTENTIONOFTHELEGISLATUREBYSOFTHE
PREVIOUS 0OLICE!CTTOREVOKETHEBASICDUTIESOFTHEPOLICEANDTOSUPPLANTTHEM
WITHSTATUTORYDUTIES4HEJUDGEDEALTFULLYWITHTHEDUTIESOFTHEPOLICEANDCAME
TOTHECONCLUSIONTHATIFTHEREWEREASUSPICIONTHATASARESULTOFTHEHOLDINGOF
AMEETING ADISTURBANCEOFPUBLICORDERWOULDOCCURONTHESAMEDAY THEPO
LICEAREENTITLEDTOATTENDTHEMEETINGINORDERTOPREVENTADISTURBANCEOFORDER
EVEN THOUGH THE MEETING WAS PRIVATE )F THE POLICE HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR
SUSPECTINGTHATSEDITIOUSSPEECHESWOULDBEMADEATSUCHMEETING ANDTHATTHEIR
PRESENCEWOULDPREVENTTHEMFROMBEINGMADE ITWOULDBEAREASONABLEEXERCISE
OFTHEIRDUTYFORTHEPOLICETOATTENDTHEMEETING NOTWITHSTANDINGTHEFACTTHAT
THEREWOULDBENOIMMEDIATEDISTURBANCEOFTHEPEACE!CCORDINGTO2UMPFF*THE
LIBERTYOFTHEINDIVIDUALMUSTINSUCHCIRCUMSTANCESGIVEWAYTOTHEINTERESTSOF
THESTATE(ESUGGESTED HOWEVER THATTHELEGISLATURESHOULDDEFINETHEDUTIESAND
POWERS OF THE POLICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMBATING OF WHAT THE STATE FROM
TIMETOTIMECONSIDEREDTOBEDANGEROUS
4HISEVENTUALLYLEDTOTHEINCLUSIONOFSINTHECURRENT#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT
:DUUDQWLQWHUPVRIV
3ECTION STIPULATESTHATIFITAPPEARSTOAMAGISTRATEORJUSTICEFROMINFORMATION
ONOATHTHATTHEREAREREASONABLEGROUNDSFORBELIEVING
A THATTHEINTERNALSECURITYOFTHE2EPUBLICORTHEMAINTENANCEOFLAWANDORDER
ISLIKELYTOBEENDANGEREDBYORINCONSEQUENCEOFANYMEETINGWHICHISBEING
HELDORISTOBEHELDINORUPONANYPREMISESWITHINHISAREAOFJURISDICTION
OR
B THATANOFFENCEHASBEENORISBEINGORISLIKELYTOBECOMMITTEDORTHATPREPA
RATIONSORARRANGEMENTSFORTHECOMMISSIONOFANYOFFENCEAREBEINGORARE
LIKELYTOBEMADEINORUPONANYPREMISESWITHINHISAREAOFJURISDICTION
HE MAY ISSUE A WARRANT AUTHORISING A POLICE OFFICIAL TO ENTER THE PREMISES IN
QUESTIONATANYREASONABLETIMEFORTHEPURPOSE
I OFCARRYINGOUTSUCHINVESTIGATIONSANDOFTAKINGSUCHSTEPSASSUCHPOLICEOF
FICIALMAYCONSIDERNECESSARYFORTHEPRESERVATIONOFTHEINTERNALSECURITYOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THE2EPUBLICORFORTHEMAINTENANCEOFLAWANDORDERORFORTHEPREVENTIONOF
ANYOFFENCE
II OFSEARCHINGTHEPREMISESORANYPERSONINORUPONTHEPREMISESFORANYAR
TICLEREFERREDTOINSANDWHICHSUCHPOLICEOFFICIALONREASONABLEGROUNDS
SUSPECTSTOBEINORUPONORATTHEPREMISESORUPONSUCHPERSONAND
III OFSEIZINGANYSUCHARTICLE
! WARRANT UNDER SUB S MAY BE ISSUED ON ANY DAY AND SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE
UNTILITISEXECUTEDORISCANCELLEDBYTHEPERSONWHOISSUEDITOR IFSUCHPERSONIS
NOTAVAILABLE BYAPERSONWITHLIKEAUTHORITYSUB S
!WARRANTISSUEDINTERMSOFS I CONFERSWIDEPOWERSONTHEPOLICE4HE
FACTTHATAPOLICEOFFICIALWHOACTSINTERMSTHEREOFMAYTAKEANYSTEPSTHATHEOR
SHE@MAYCONSIDERNECESSARYFORTHEPRESERVATIONOFTHEINTERNALSECURITYOFTHE
2EPUBLIC OR FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER OR FOR THE PREVENTION OF ANY
OFFENCEMEANSTHATTHEPOLICEOFFICIALSDISCRETIONINTHISRESPECTWILLHAVETOBE
CONSIDEREDSUBJECTIVELY4HEQUESTIONWILLTHEREFORENOTBEWHETHERTHESTEPSTHE
POLICE OFFICER TOOK WERE REALLY NECESSARY BUT WHETHER SUCH OFFICER SUBJECTIVELY
THOUGHTTHATHEORSHEHADREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHEYWERENECESSARY-OREOVER
THISPROVISIONSETSNOLEGALBOUNDARIESWITHINWHICHSUCHDISCRETIONPOWERSMAY
BEEXERCISED THUSLEAVINGAMPLEROOMFORTHEABUSEOFPOWERSEE-INISTEROF0OLICE
AND/THERSV+UNJANA 3!#2##
'ENERALINFORMATIONREQUIREMENTSWITHREGARDTOWARRANTS
7HENLAWENFORCEMENTOFFICIALSACTINTERMSOFAWARRANT ITISDESIRABLETHATTHE
SUBJECTINVOLVEDHASACCESSTOTHEDOCUMENTWHICHAUTHORISESANINFRINGEMENT
UPONHISORHERPRIVATERIGHTS4HEEFFECTIVEEXECUTIONOFLEGALREMEDIES SUCHAS
ANINTERDICT MANDAMENTVANSPOLIE OREVENTHEINSTITUTIONOFTHEREIVINDICATIO
ISTOALARGEEXTENTDEPENDENTONTHISSEE4SEGEYAV-INISTEROF0OLICEUNREPORTED
-THATHA(IGH#OURTCASENO!UGUST 3ECTION THEREFORE
STIPULATES THAT A POLICE OFFICIAL WHO EXECUTES A WARRANT IN TERMS OF SS OR
MUST ONCETHEWARRANTHASBEENEXECUTEDANDUPONTHEREQUESTOFANYPERSON
WHOSERIGHTSAREAFFECTEDBYTHESEARCHORSEIZUREOFANOBJECTINTERMSOFTHEWAR
RANT PROVIDESUCHAPERSONWITHACOPYOFTHEWARRANTSEE'OQWANAV-INISTEROF
3AFETYAND3ECURITY ABOVE WHICHGOESEVENFURTHERBYREQUIRINGTHATTHESUPPORT
INGAFFIDAVITTOTHEWARRANTBEHANDEDTOTHEPERSONWHOSEPROPERTYFORMSTHE
SUBJECTOFTHESEARCH 7EAREOFTHEOPINIONTHATTWOOBJECTIONSMAYBERAISED
AGAINST THIS SUBSECTION WHICH IS LAUDABLE IN OTHER RESPECTS )N THE FIRST PLACE A
COPYOFTHEWARRANTSHOULD WHENEVERPOSSIBLEIEIFTHESUBJECTISPRESENTATTHE
TIMEOFTHEEXECUTIONOFTHEWARRANT BEPROVIDEDBEFORETHESEARCHANDORSEIZURE
3ECONDLY THEDELIVERYOFACOPYOFTHEWARRANTSHOULDNOTBEDEPENDENTONTHE
REQUESTOFTHESUBJECT-ANYSUBJECTS THROUGHLACKOFKNOWLEDGEOFTHELAW WILL
NOTMAKESUCHAREQUESTANDTHUSACTTOTHEIRPOTENTIALDETRIMENT

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
3%!2#(7)4(/54!7!22!.4
)NTRODUCTION
!LTHOUGHITISPREFERABLE ASMENTIONEDABOVE THATSEARCHESSHOULDONLYBECON
DUCTEDONTHEAUTHORITYOFASEARCHWARRANTISSUEDBYAJUDICIALOFFICER ITISQUITE
CONCEIVABLETHATCIRCUMSTANCESMAYARISEWHERETHEDELAYINOBTAININGSUCHWAR
RANTWOULDDEFEATTHEOBJECTOFTHESEARCH)TISTHEREFORENECESSARYTHATPROVISION
BEMADEFORTHEPOWERTOCONDUCTASEARCHWITHOUTAWARRANT(OWEVER POLICE
OFFICIALSINTENDINGTOCONDUCTASEARCHANDSEIZURESHOULDALWAYSBECONSCIOUSOF
THECAUTIONARYREMARKMADEBY-ADLALA*IN-INISTEROF0OLICEV+UNJANA
3!#2## AT;=)TSHOULDNOTBEFORGOTTENTHATEXCEPTIONSTOTHEWARRANT
REQUIREMENTSHOULDNOTBECOMETHERULE
7HILESEARCHWARRANTSEMPOWERONLYPOLICEOFFICIALSTOCONDUCTSEARCHESANDTO
SEIZEOBJECTS BOTHPRIVATEPERSONSANDPOLICEOFFICIALSAREEMPOWEREDTOCONDUCT
SEARCHESORTOSEIZEOBJECTSWITHOUTAWARRANT
0OWERSOFTHEPOLICE
&RQVHQWWRVHDUFKDQGRUWRVHL]H
)NTERMSOFSA APOLICEOFFICIALMAYSEARCHANYPERSON CONTAINERORPREMISES
FORTHEPURPOSEOFSEIZINGANYARTICLEREFERREDTOINS IFTHEPERSONCONCERNED
CONSENTSTOTHESEARCHFORANDTHESEIZUREOFTHEARTICLEINQUESTION ORIFTHEPER
SONWHOMAYCONSENTTOTHESEARCHOFTHECONTAINERORPREMISESCONSENTSTOSUCH
SEARCHANDTHESEIZUREOFTHEARTICLEINQUESTION
6HDUFKDQGVHL]XUHZKHUHDGHOD\ZRXOGGHIHDWWKHREMHFWWKHUHRI
)N TERMS OF S A A POLICE OFFICIAL MAY SEARCH ANY PERSON CONTAINER OR PREM
ISESFORTHEPURPOSEOFSEIZINGANYARTICLEREFERREDTOINS IFTHEPOLICEOFFICIAL
BELIEVESONREASONABLEGROUNDSTHAT
ASEARCHWARRANTWILLBEISSUEDTOHIMORHERUNDERS A IFHEORSHEAP
PLIESFORSUCHWARRANTAND
THEDELAYINOBTAININGSUCHWARRANTWOULDDEFEATTHEOBJECTOFTHESEARCH
4HEBELIEFOFTHEPOLICEOFFICIALMUSTBEOBJECTIVELYJUSTIFIEDONTHEFACTS.$00V
3TARPLEX##;=!LL3!#
3ECTION ALLOWSAPOLICEOFFICIALTOACTWITHOUTAWARRANTIFHEORSHEBELIEVES
ONREASONABLEGROUNDSTHAT
AWARRANTWILLBEISSUEDTOHIMORHERUNDERS A ORB IFHEAPPLIESFOR
SUCHWARRANTAND
THEDELAYINOBTAININGSUCHWARRANTWOULDDEFEATTHEOBJECTTHEREOF
!POLICEOFFICIALSPOWERSINTERMSOFS ARETHESAMEASTHEPOWERSHEORSHE
WOULDHAVEHADBYVIRTUEOFAWARRANTCFI TOIII ABOVEAND.$00V3TARPLEX
##ABOVE)N3TARPLEXASEARCHWARRANTWASISSUEDTOSEARCHCERTAINPREMISES
UNDERS OFTHE)MMIGRATION!CT ONTHEGROUNDSTHATINFORMATIONHADBEEN
RECEIVED THAT A GROUP OF FOREIGN NATIONALS ISSUED FALSE DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS
$URINGTHESEARCHASIGNIFICANTAMOUNTOFFOREIGNCURRENCYWASDISCOVEREDAND

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CONSEQUENTLY SEIZED 4HE SEIZURE OF THE MONEY WAS CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND
THATTHESEARCHWARRANTDIDNOTAUTHORISEITSSEIZURE4HECOURTREJECTEDTHISCON
TENTIONONTHEBASISTHATSUSPECTSCOULDQUICKLYHIDEAWAYTHEMONEYFROMTHE
AUTHORITIESINORDERTOPREVENTITSSEIZURE ANDTHEMONEYWASREASONABLYSUSPECT
EDASBEINGILLEGALFOREIGNCURRENCY%XPECTINGTHEPOLICETOOBTAINANEWWARRANT
UNDERTHOSECIRCUMSTANCESWOULDDEFEATTHEOBJECTOFTHESEARCH)NTHERESULT
THECOURTHELDTHATTHEMONEYWASLAWFULLYSEIZEDINTERMSOFS
6HDUFKDQGVHL]XUHIRUWKHSXUSRVHVRIERUGHUFRQWURO
3ECTION OFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOFEMPOWERSAPO
LICEOFFICIAL FORTHEPURPOSESOFBORDERCONTROLORTOCONTROLTHEIMPORTOREXPORT
OF ANY GOODS TO SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT ANY PERSON PREMISES OTHER PLACE
VEHICLE VESSEL SHIP AIRCRAFTORANYRECEPTACLEOFWHATEVERNATURE ATANYPLACEIN
THE2EPUBLICWITHINTENKILOMETRESORANYREASONABLEDISTANCEFROMANYBORDER
BETWEENTHE2EPUBLICANDANYFOREIGNSTATE ORFROMANYAIRPORTORATANYPLACEIN
THETERRITORIALWATERSOFTHE2EPUBLICORINSIDETHE2EPUBLICWITHINTENKILOMETRES
FROM SUCH TERRITORIAL WATERS AND TO SEIZE ANYTHING FOUND UPONSUCH PERSON OR
UPONORATORINSUCHPREMISES OTHERPLACE VEHICLE VESSEL SHIP AIRCRAFTORRECEP
TACLEWHICHMAYLAWFULLYBESEIZED
6HDUFKDQGVHL]XUHLQDFRUGRQHGRIIDUHD
4HE.ATIONALORA0ROVINCIAL#OMMISSIONEROFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE
MAY INTERMSOFS OFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOF WHERE
ITISREASONABLEINTHECIRCUMSTANCESINORDERTORESTOREPUBLICORDERORTOENSURE
THESAFETYOFTHEPUBLICINAPARTICULARAREA AUTHORISETHATTHEPARTICULARAREAOR
ANYPARTTHEREOFBECORDONEDOFF4HISISDONEBYISSUINGAWRITTENAUTHORISATION
WHICHMUSTALSOSETOUTTHEPURPOSEOFTHECORDONINGOFF!NYMEMBEROFTHE
3ERVICEMAY INORDERTOACHIEVETHEPURPOSESETOUTINTHEAUTHORISATION WITHOUT
AWARRANT SEARCHANYPERSON PREMISES VEHICLEORANYRECEPTACLEOROBJECTOFWHAT
EVERNATUREINTHATAREAANDSEIZEANYARTICLEREFERREDTOINSOFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTFOUNDBYHIMORHERUPONSUCHPERSONORINTHATAREAPROVIDED
THATAMEMBEREXECUTINGASEARCHINTERMSOFS MUST UPONDEMANDOFANY
PERSONWHOSERIGHTSAREORHAVEBEENAFFECTEDBYTHESEARCHORSEIZURE EXHIBITTO
HIMORHERACOPYOFTHEWRITTENAUTHORISATIONBYSUCHCOMMISSIONER
6HDUFKDQGVHL]XUHDWDURDGEORFNRUFKHFNSRLQW
4HE.ATIONALORA0ROVINCIAL#OMMISSIONEROFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE
MAY INTERMSOFS OFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE!CTOF WHERE
IT IS REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ORDER TO EXERCISE A POWER OR PERFORM A
FUNCTIONOFTHE3ERVICE INWRITINGAUTHORISEAMEMBERUNDERHISORHERCOMMAND
TOSETUPAROADBLOCKORROADBLOCKSONANYPUBLICROADINAPARTICULARAREAORTO
SETUPACHECKPOINTORCHECKPOINTSATANYPUBLICPLACEINAPARTICULARAREA!NY
MEMBEROFTHE3ERVICEMAY WITHOUTAWARRANT SEARCHANYVEHICLEANDANYPER
SONINORONSUCHVEHICLEATSUCHAROADBLOCKORCHECKPOINTANDSEIZEANYARTICLE
REFERREDTOINSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTFOUNDBYHIMORHERUPONSUCH
PERSONORINORONSUCHVEHICLE!MEMBEREXECUTINGASEARCHINTERMSOFS

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
MUST UPONDEMANDBYANYPERSONWHOSERIGHTSAREORHAVEBEENAFFECTEDBYTHE
SEARCH OR SEIZURE EXHIBIT TO HIM OR HER A COPY OF THE WRITTEN AUTHORISATION BY
SUCHCOMMISSIONER
3ECTION D AUTHORISESANYMEMBEROFTHE3ERVICETOSETUPAROADBLOCKON
APUBLICROADWITHOUTAWRITTENAUTHORISATIONINCERTAINSPECIFIEDCIRCUMSTANCES
WHERETHEDELAYINOBTAININGAWRITTENAUTHORISATIONWOULDDEFEATTHEOBJECTOF
THESETTINGUPOFTHEROADBLOCK
6 HDUFKDQGVHL]XUHLQWHUPVRIWKH'UXJVDQG'UXJ7UDIILFNLQJ$FWRI
3EARCHFORANDSEIZUREOFSUBSTANCESINTERMSOFTHE$RUGAND$RUG4RAFFICKING
!CTWAS UNTILRECENTLY CONTROLLEDBYSOFTHE!CT0RIORTOTHEDECLARATIONOF
CONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYIN-INISTEROF0OLICEV+UNJANA 3!#2##
S OFTHE!CTREADASFOLLOWS
!POLICEOFFICIALMAY
A IFHEHASREASONABLEGROUNDSTOSUSPECTTHATANOFFENCEUNDERTHIS!CTHASBEENOR
ISABOUTTOBECOMMITTEDBYMEANSORINRESPECTOFANYSCHEDULEDSUBSTANCE DRUG
ORPROPERTY ATANYTIME
I ENTERORBOARDANDSEARCHANYPREMISES VEHICLE VESSELORAIRCRAFTONORIN
WHICHANYSUCHSUBSTANCE DRUGORPROPERTYISSUSPECTEDTOBEFOUND
II SEARCHANYCONTAINEROROTHERTHINGINWHICHANYSUCHSUBSTANCE DRUGOR
PROPERTYISSUSPECTEDTOBEFOUND
B IFHEHASREASONABLEGROUNDSTOSUSPECTTHATANYPERSONHASCOMMITTEDORISABOUT
TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE UNDER THIS !CT BY MEANS OR IN RESPECT OF ANY SCHEDULED
SUBSTANCE DRUG OR PROPERTY SEARCH OR CAUSE TO BE SEARCHED ANY SUCH PERSON
OR ANYTHING IN HIS POSSESSION OR CUSTODY OR UNDER HIS CONTROL 0ROVIDED THAT A
WOMANSHALLBESEARCHEDBYAWOMANONLY
C IFHEHASREASONABLEGROUNDSTOSUSPECTTHATANYARTICLEWHICHHASBEENORISBEING
TRANSMITTEDTHROUGHTHEPOSTCONTAINSANYSCHEDULEDSUBSTANCE DRUGORPROPERTY
BYMEANSORINRESPECTOFWHICHANOFFENCEUNDERTHIS!CTHASBEENCOMMITTED
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN ANY LAW CONTAINED INTERCEPT OR
CAUSE TO BE INTERCEPTED EITHER DURING TRANSIT OR OTHERWISE ANY SUCH ARTICLE AND
OPENANDEXAMINEITINTHEPRESENCEOFANYSUITABLEPERSON
D QUESTIONANYPERSONWHOINHISOPINIONMAYBECAPABLEOFFURNISHINGANYINFOR
MATIONASTOANYOFFENCEORALLEGEDOFFENCEUNDERTHIS!CT
E SUBJECTTOSOFTHE2EGULATIONOF)NTERCEPTIONOF#OMMUNICATIONSAND0ROVISION
OF#OMMUNICATION RELATED)NFORMATION!CT REQUIREFROMANYPERSONWHO
HASINHISORHERPOSSESSIONORCUSTODYORUNDERHISORHERCONTROLANYREGISTER
RECORDOROTHERDOCUMENTWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHEPOLICEOFFICIALMAYHAVE
ABEARINGONANYOFFENCEORALLEGEDOFFENCEUNDERTHIS!CT TODELIVERTOHIMOR
HERTHENANDTHERE ORTOSUBMITTOHIMORHERATSUCHTIMEANDPLACEASMAYBE
DETERMINEDBYTHEPOLICEOFFICIAL ANYSUCHREGISTER RECORDORDOCUMENT
F EXAMINEANYSUCHREGISTER RECORDORDOCUMENTORMAKEANEXTRACTTHEREFROMORA
COPYTHEREOF ANDREQUIREFROMANYPERSONANEXPLANATIONOFANENTRYINANYSUCH
REGISTER RECORDORDOCUMENT
G SEIZEANYTHINGWHICHINHISOPINIONISCONNECTEDWITH ORMAYPROVIDEPROOFOF
ACONTRAVENTIONOFAPROVISIONOFTHIS!CT
4HE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE S WAS CHALLENGED BY THE APPLICANT
IN+UNJANAV-INISTEROF0OLICE;=:!7#(#(IGH#OURTJUDGMENT /N
CONSIDERATIONTHE(IGH#OURT PER6ELDHUIZEN* CONCLUDEDTHATTHEAPPLICATION
DIRECTEDATTHEENTIRESWASTOOBROADANDRESTRICTEDTHERELIEFTOS A AND
G 4HE(IGH#OURTDECLAREDTHEPROVISIONSINVALIDANDTHEMATTERWASPLACEDBE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
FORETHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTFORCONFIRMATIONOFTHEORDEROFINVALIDITY-INISTER
OF0OLICEV+UNJANA 3!#2## 4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTAPPLIEDTHE
LIMITATIONCLAUSETOS A ANDG /NCONSIDERATIONOFTHENATUREANDEXTENT
OFTHELIMITATIONTHECOURTREMARKED
4HEIMPUGNEDPROVISIONSAREBROAD3ECTION A ANDG OFTHE$RUGS!CTDOESNOT
CIRCUMSCRIBE THE TIME PLACE NOR MANNER IN WHICH THE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES CAN BE
CONDUCTEDxAT;= &URTHER SECTION A GRANTSPOLICEOFFICERSTHEPOWERTOSEARCH
WARRANTLESSAT@ANYTIME@ANYPREMISES VEHICLE VESSELORAIRCRAFTAND@ANYCONTAINERIN
WHICHSUBSTANCESORDRUGSARESUSPECTEDTOBEFOUNDAT;= )AGREEWITHTHEAPPLICANTS
CONTENTIONTHATTHEIMPUGNEDPROVISIONSLEAVEPOLICEOFFICIALSWITHOUTSUFFICIENTGUIDE
LINESWITHWHICHTOCONDUCTTHEINSPECTIONWITHINLEGALLIMITSAT;=
4HECOURTNEXTCONSIDEREDWHETHERTHEREARELESSRESTRICTIVEMEANSTOACHIEVETHE
PURPOSEOFS A ANDG ANDREASONEDTHATÚ
;S=ECTION A IMPLIESTHATWARRANTLESSSEARCHESOFPRIVATEHOMESMAYBECONDUCTED
PURSUANTTOIT4HEMOREASEARCHINTRUDESINTOTHE@INNERSANCTUMOFAPERSONSUCHAS
THEIRHOME THEMORETHESEARCHINFRINGESTHEIRPRIVACYRIGHT4HEPROVISIONSAREALSO
PROBLEMATICASTHEYDONOTPRECLUDETHEPOSSIBILITYOFAGREATERLIMITATIONOFTHERIGHT
TOPRIVACYTHANISNECESSITATEDBYTHECIRCUMSTANCES WITHTHERESULTTHATPOLICEOFFICIALS
MAYINTRUDEININSTANCESWHEREANINDIVIDUALSREASONABLEEXPECTATIONOFPRIVACYISAT
ITSAPEX
4HE COURT CONTENDED THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS MUST EXIST TO
JUSTIFYCIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHLEGISLATIONALLOWSFORWARRANTLESSSEARCHES4HESE
SAFEGUARDS ARE CLEARLY PROVIDED BY S OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT WHICH
PROVIDESLESSRESTRICTIVEMEANSTORESTRICTTHERIGHTTOPRIVACYDURINGSEARCHAND
SEIZUREPROCEDURES4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTACCORDINGLYCONFIRMEDTHECONSTI
TUTIONALINVALIDITYOFSS A ANDG
7ARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE SHOULD NOT BE A NORM OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE VARIOUS COURT INTERVENTIONS IN FOR EXAMPLE THE
#USTOMS AND %XCISE !CT OF %STATE !GENCY !FFAIRS !CT OF AND
&INANCIAL)NTELLIGENCE#ENTRE!CTOF WHEREINTHEVALIDITYOFWARRANTLESS
SEARCHANDSEIZUREPROVISIONSWERECHALLENGEDSEEALSO%STATE!GENCY!FFAIRS"OARD
V!UCTION!LLIANCE0TY ,TD 3!## AND'AERTNERV-INISTEROF&INANCE
3!## 3EARCHANDSEIZUREUNDERTHEPROVISIONSOFAWARRANTSHOULD
FORMTHEBASISOFANYSUCHACTIONBECAUSE
;A= WARRANT IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY )T IS A MECHANISM EMPLOYED TO BALANCE AN INDI
VIDUALSRIGHTTOPRIVACYWITHTHEPUBLICINTERESTINCOMPLIANCEWITHANDENFORCEMENT
OFREGULATORYPROVISIONS!WARRANTGUARANTEESTHATTHE3TATEMUSTBEABLE PRIORTOAN
INTRUSION TOJUSTIFYANDSUPPORTINTRUSIONSUPONINDIVIDUALSPRIVACYUNDEROATHBEFORE
AJUDICIALOFFICER&URTHER ITGOVERNSTHETIME PLACEANDSCOPEOFTHESEARCH4HISSOFTENS
THEINTRUSIONONTHERIGHTTOPRIVACY GUIDESTHECONDUCTOFTHEINSPECTION ANDINFORMS
THEINDIVIDUALOFTHELEGALITYANDLIMITSOFTHESEARCH/URHISTORYPROVIDESEVIDENCEOF
THENEEDTOADHERESTRICTLYTOTHEWARRANTREQUIREMENTUNLESSTHEREARECLEARANDJUSTIFI
ABLEREASONSFORDEVIATION'AERTNERAT;=
4HE ABOVE NOTWITHSTANDING THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND
SEIZUREISCLEARLYINDICATED BUTTHEYMUSTBECONDUCTEDUNDERTHEPRESCRIPTIONSOF
SOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTWHERETHEREISANEEDFORSWIFTACTION

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
0OWERSOFTHEOCCUPIERSOFPREMISES
)N TERMS OF S OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT ANY PERSON WHO IS LAWFULLY IN
CHARGEOROCCUPATIONOFANYPREMISESANDWHOREASONABLYSUSPECTSTHAT
STOLENSTOCKORPRODUCE ASDEFINEDINANYLAWRELATINGTOTHETHEFTOFSTOCKOR
PRODUCE ISONORINTHEPREMISESCONCERNED ORTHAT
ANY ARTICLE HAS BEEN PLACED THEREON OR THEREIN OR IS IN THE CUSTODY OR POS
SESSIONOFANYPERSONUPONORINSUCHPREMISESINCONTRAVENTIONOFANYLAW
RELATINGTO
A INTOXICATINGLIQUOR
B DEPENDENCE PRODUCINGDRUGS
C ARMSANDAMMUNITION OR
D EXPLOSIVES
MAYATANYTIME IFAPOLICEOFFICIALISNOTREADILYAVAILABLE ENTERSUCHPREMISESFOR
THEPURPOSEOFSEARCHINGSUCHPREMISESANDANYPERSONTHEREONORTHEREIN AND
IFANYSUCHSTOCK PRODUCEORARTICLEISFOUND HESHALLTAKEPOSSESSIONTHEREOFAND
FORTHWITHDELIVERITTOAPOLICEOFFICIAL
3EARCHFORTHEPURPOSEOFEFFECTINGANARREST
)NTHEEVENTOFASEARCHOFPREMISESINORDERTOFINDANDARRESTASUSPECT EXACTLY
THESAMEPOWERSARECONFERREDONPOLICEOFFICIALSANDPRIVATEPERSONS
)NTERMSOFS APEACEOFFICERORPRIVATEPERSONWHOISAUTHORISEDBYLAWTO
ARRESTANOTHERINRESPECTOFANYOFFENCEANDWHOKNOWSORREASONABLYSUSPECTS
SUCHOTHERPERSONTOBEONANYPREMISESMAY IFHEORSHEFIRSTAUDIBLYDEMANDS
ENTRYINTOSUCHPREMISESANDSTATESTHEPURPOSEFORWHICHHEORSHESEEKSENTRY
ANDFAILSTOGAINENTRY BREAKOPENANDENTERANDSEARCHSUCHPREMISESFORTHE
PURPOSEOFEFFECTINGTHEARREST
!NUMBEROFCOURTDECISIONSONTHEFORERUNNEROFSSTILLAPPLYTOS4HESE
INCLUDE THEFOLLOWING)N *ACKELSON 40$ITWASHELDTHATPERSONSWHO
HADEJECTEDAPOLICEOFFICIALWHOHADENTEREDPREMISESWITHOUTFIRSTDEMANDING
ANDBEINGREFUSEDADMISSIONCOULDNOTBECONVICTEDOFOBSTRUCTINGSUCHPOLICE
OFFICIALINTHEEXECUTIONOFHISDUTY)N2UDOLF 3!# APOLICEOFFICIAL
HADSEENAMANDRINKINGWINEINAPUBLICPLACEANDWISHEDTOARRESTHIM4HE
MANRANINTOAHOUSEPURSUEDBYTHECONSTABLEANDWASARRESTEDATTHEFOOTOFTHE
STAIRS4HETWOACCUSEDATTEMPTEDTORESCUETHEWINE DRINKERFROMTHECUSTODY
OFTHEPOLICEOFFICIAL)TWASCONTENDED INTERALIA THATTHEWINE DRINKERHADNOT
BEENIN@LAWFULCUSTODYBECAUSETHEPOLICEOFFICIALHADMADEANUNLAWFULENTRY
WHEN HE ENTERED THE PREMISES WITHOUT FIRST DEMANDING ADMISSION IN TERMS OF
THEPREDECESSORTOTHEPRESENTS4HECOURTHELD HOWEVER THATTHECONSTABLE
HAD BEEN JUSTIFIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ENTERING THE HOUSE TO
ARRESTTHEWINE DRINKERANDCONSEQUENTLYTHEARRESTWASALAWFULONE4HECOURT
DISTINGUISHED*ACKELSONMAINLYONTHEGROUNDTHATTHEACCUSEDIN*ACKELSONHAD
EJECTEDTHECONSTABLEBEFOREHEHADEFFECTEDANARREST WHILEIN2UDOLFTHEARREST
HAD BEEN EFFECTED WHEN THE ACCUSED ATTEMPTED TO RESCUE THE WINE DRINKERCF
ALSO!NDRESENV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!7

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
2EVIEWOFTHEACTIONSOFTHEPERSONCONDUCTINGTHESEARCH
)NCASESWHEREACTIONISTAKENWITHOUTAWARRANT THEACTIONSOFTHEPERSONCON
DUCTINGTHESEARCHMAYBEREVIEWEDBYACOURTOFLAWONTHEMERITSCFEG,3$
,TDV6ACHELL7,$
3%!2#(/&!.!22%34%$0%23/.
4HISMATTERISGOVERNEDBYS4HATSECTIONPROVIDESTHATONTHEARRESTOFANY
PERSON THEPERSONMAKINGTHEARRESTMAY PROVIDEDTHATHEORSHEISAPEACEOF
FICER SEARCHTHEPERSONARRESTEDANDSEIZEANYARTICLEREFERREDTOINSWHICHIS
INTHEPOSSESSIONORUNDERTHECONTROLOFTHEARRESTEDPERSON
)FTHEPERSONMAKINGTHEARRESTISNOTAPEACEOFFICER HEORSHEHASNOPOWERTO
SEARCHTHEARRESTEDPERSON4HEPERSONMAKINGTHEARRESTDOES HOWEVER HAVETHE
POWERTOSEIZEANARTICLEREFERREDTOINSWHICHISINTHEPOSSESSIONORUNDER
THECONTROLOFTHEARRESTEDPERSON3UCHAPRIVATEPERSONMUSTFORTHWITHHANDTHE
SEIZEDARTICLETOAPOLICEOFFICIAL4HISALSOAPPLIESTOAPEACEOFFICERWHOISNOTA
POLICEOFFICIAL
/NTHEARRESTOFANYPERSON THEPERSONEFFECTINGTHEARRESTMAYPLACEINSAFE
CUSTODY ANY OBJECT FOUND ON THE ARRESTED PERSON WHICH MAY BE USED TO CAUSE
BODILYHARMTOHIMSELFORHERSELFORTOOTHERSS
4(%53%/&&/2#%)./2$%24/#/.$5#4!3%!2#(
4HEUSEOFFORCEISREGULATEDBYSASFARASTHISCHAPTERISCONCERNED
)NTERMSOFS APOLICEOFFICIALWHOMAYLAWFULLYSEARCHANYPERSONORANY
PREMISES MAY USE SUCH FORCE AS MAY BE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO OVERCOME ANY
RESISTANCE AGAINST SUCH SEARCH OR AGAINST ENTRY OF THE PREMISES INCLUDING THE
BREAKINGOFANYDOORORWINDOWOFSUCHPREMISES
)NTERMSOFAPROVISOTOTHISSUBSECTION SUCHAPOLICEOFFICIALSHALLFIRSTAUDIBLY
DEMAND ADMISSION TO THE PREMISES AND STATE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH HE OR SHE
SEEKSTOENTERSUCHPREMISES4HISPROVISODOESNOTAPPLYWHERETHEPOLICEOFFI
CIALCONCERNEDIS ONREASONABLEGROUNDS OFTHEOPINIONTHATANYARTICLEWHICH
ISTHESUBJECTOFTHESEARCHMAYBEDESTROYEDORDISPOSEDOFIFTHEPROVISOISFIRST
COMPLIEDWITHS 4HELATTERISKNOWNASTHE@NO KNOCKCLAUSEANDISPAR
TICULARLYHELPFULTOTHEPOLICEWHERETHESEARCHWILLBEFORSMALLOBJECTSWHICH
MAYEASILYBESWALLOWEDORFLUSHEDDOWNATOILET
'%.%2!,2%15)2%-%.4/&02/02)%497)4(2%'!2$4/3%!2#().'
3ECTIONSTIPULATESTHATASEARCHOFANYPERSONORPREMISESSHALLBECONDUCTED
WITH STRICT REGARD TO DECENCY AND ORDER AND A WOMAN SHALL BE SEARCHED BY A
WOMANONLY ANDIFNOFEMALEPOLICEOFFICIALISAVAILABLE THESEARCHSHALLBEMADE
BYANYWOMANDESIGNATEDFORTHEPURPOSEBYAPOLICEOFFICIAL
)NORDERTOCOMPLYWITHTHEREQUIREMENTOFPROPRIETYINTERMSOFS ITCAN
CERTAINLYBEASSUMED INTERMSOFTHEGENERALPRINCIPLESOFTHEINTERPRETATIONOF
STATUTES THATAMALEPERSONSHOULDBESEARCHEDBYAMALEONLY7ESUGGESTTHAT
ANYDIVERGENCEFROMTHESEPROVISIONSWOULDBEUNLAWFULANDTHAT@CONSENTBY

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
THEPERSONBEINGSEARCHEDBYTHEOPPOSITESEXWOULDBEINVALIDASITWOULDBE
CONTRABONOSMORES
5.,!7&5,3%!2#(
4HE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHICH REGULATE SEARCHING ARE
@DOUBLE FUNCTIONAL&ROMASUBSTANTIVELAWVIEWPOINTTHEYCONSTITUTEGROUNDSOF
JUSTIFICATION WHILEINFORMALLAWTHEYREGULATETHEPROCEDURALSTEPSWHEREBYAN
EVENTUALLEGALDECISIONMAYVALIDLYBEREACHED)NTHELATTERCASETHEPRINCIPLEOF
LEGALITYCF#HAPTER ANDTHECONCEPTOF@LEGALGUILTAREOFPARAMOUNTIMPOR
TANCEINTHAT UNLESSA@FACTUALLYGUILTYPERSONCANBEBROUGHTTOJUSTICEWITHIN
THEBOUNDSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFTHELAWOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREIEINSTRICTCOMPLI
ANCEWITHTHEPRESCRIBEDRULESANDLIMITATIONS HEORSHEMUST ACCORDINGTOLAW
GOFREESEE#HAPTER
4HE QUESTION NOW ARISES AS TO WHAT THE EFFECT IS OF UNLAWFUL ACTION BY THE
AUTHORITIESWITHREGARDTOTHESEPRE TRIALPROCEDURALRULES!STHESEPROVISIONSARE
DOUBLE FUNCTIONAL IT IS NECESSARY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE SUBSTANTIVE AND
FORMALLAWCONSEQUENCES
&ORMAL LAWCONSEQUENCESOFUNLAWFULACTIONBYTHEAUTHORITIES

)NTERMSOFS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION EVIDENCEOBTAINEDINAMANNERTHATVIO
LATES ANY RIGHT IN THE "ILL OF 2IGHTS MUST BE EXCLUDED IF THE ADMISSION OF THAT
EVIDENCEWOULDRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISEBEDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMIN
ISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
4HISSO CALLED@EXCLUSIONARYRULEGIVESACLEARSIGNALTOALLSTATEOFFICIALSTHATIT
ISFUTILETOGATHEREVIDENCEINANUNLAWFULMANNER SINCEEVIDENCESOOBTAINED
WILLNOTBETAKENINTOACCOUNTBYTHECOURTINREACHINGAVERDICT3EE-OTLOUTSI
3!# AND-AYEKISO 3!#2#
%VIDENCE OBTAINED IN TERMS OF AN INVALID SEARCH WARRANT MAY BE EXCLUDED
UNDERS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION(EANEY*$2'0 ISANAPPEALWHERE
THEACCUSED INHISCAPACITYASAMEMBEROFACLOSECORPORATION CHALLENGEDTHE
VALIDITYOFASEARCHWARRANT4HISCHALLENGEWASBASEDONTHEGROUNDSTHATTHE
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE AUTHORISATION OF THE WARRANT WAS UNSIGNED AND NOT
COMMISSIONED IT AUTHORISED THE STATION COMMANDER AND NOT A SPECIFIC POLICE
OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE SEARCH WITHOUT MENTIONING A POLICE STATION AND THE
OFFENCEANDARTICLEWHICHHADTOBESEIZEDWASNOTCLEARLYIDENTIFIED/NAPPEAL
THECOURTDECLAREDTHEWARRANTINVALID4HECOURTHELDTHATTHEEXECUTIONOFTHIS
INVALIDWARRANTVIOLATEDTHERIGHTTOPRIVACYOFTHEACCUSED4HERIGHTTOPRIVACY
ISARIGHTGUARANTEEDUNDERSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDTHEEVIDENCEWASACCORD
INGLYOBTAINEDINAMANNERTHATVIOLATEDARIGHTGUARANTEEDINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
4HIS THECOURTHELD TRIGGEREDS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION CALLINGUPONACOURTTO
DETERMINEWHETHERTHEADMISSIONOFTHEEVIDENCEOBTAINEDINTHISMANNERWOULD
RENDERTHETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISEBEDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUS
TICE)NTHERESULT THEEVIDENCESEIZEDWASEXCLUDEDUNDERS ANDTHEAPPEAL
WASUPHELDSEEALSO/FORAH*$2'3* 4HEADMISSIBILITYOFEVIDENCE
UNDERS MUST INGENERAL BEDETERMINEDDURINGATRIALWITHINATRIAL4ANDWA
3!#23#!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEEXCLUSIONARYRULEISDISCUSSEDINMOREDETAILINHANDBOOKSDEALINGWITH
THELAWOFEVIDENCEANDWASBRIEFLYDEALTWITHIN#HAPTER
3UBSTANTIVE LAWCONSEQUENCESOFUNLAWFULACTIONBYTHEAUTHORITIES

4HISASPECTISGOVERNEDPARTLYBYS)NTERMSOFSUB S APOLICEOFFICIALCOM
MITS AN OFFENCE AND IS LIABLE ON CONVICTION TO A FINE OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIODNOTEXCEEDINGSIXMONTHS
WHENHEACTSCONTRARYTOTHEAUTHORITYOFASEARCHWARRANTISSUEDUNDERS
ORAWARRANTISSUEDUNDERS OR
WHENHE WITHOUTBEINGAUTHORISEDTHERETO
A S EARCHES ANY PERSON OR CONTAINER OR PREMISES OR SEIZES OR DETAINS ANY
ARTICLEOR
B PERFORMSANYACTCONTEMPLATEDINS
3UBSECTION STIPULATESTHATWHEREANYPERSONFALSELYGIVESINFORMATIONONOATH
FORTHEPURPOSESOFSS OR ANDAWARRANTISISSUEDANDEXECUTEDONSUCH
INFORMATION ANDSUCHPERSONISINCONSEQUENCEOFSUCHFALSEINFORMATIONCON
VICTED OF PERJURY THE COURT CONVICTING SUCH PERSON MAY UPON THE APPLICATION
OF ANY PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED ANY DAMAGE IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL
ENTRY SEARCHORSEIZURE ORUPONTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHEPROSECUTORACTINGONTHE
INSTRUCTIONS OF SUCH A PERSON AWARD COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH DAMAGE
WHEREUPONTHEPROVISIONSOFSSHALLMUTATISMUTANDOOFOWNERSHIP4HEOB
JECTISTHEREFORENOLONGERREGARDEDASSTOLENPROPERTYANDMAYTHENBERESTORED
TOTHEPERSONFROMWHOMITWASFORFEITED IFHEORSHEBOUGHTITFROMANOTHER
4HEFORMERPERSONISTHENCONSIDEREDAS@THEPERSONWHOMAYLAWFULLYPOSSESS
IT-DUNGEV-INISTEROF0OLICE 3!. $ATNIS-OTORS-IDLANDS 0TY
,TDV-INISTEROF,AWAND/RDER 3!.
!FTER THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED THE COURT HAS IN TERMS OFS AND IN
CERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES THEPOWERTOFORFEITTOTHESTATECERTAINOBJECTSWHICHWERE
USEDINTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEPARTICULARCRIME3ECTIONDEALSWITHTHECIRCUM
STANCESUNDERWHICH ANDTHEMANNERINWHICH ARTICLESMAYBEDELIVEREDTOTHE
POLICEOFANOTHERCOUNTRY
4HEREAREALSOVARIOUSOTHERLAWSTHATMAKEPROVISIONFORSEARCH SEIZUREAND
THE FORFEITURE OF ARTICLES EG S OF THE .ATIONAL 0ROSECUTING !UTHORITY !CT
OF CF 4HINT 0TY ,TD V .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS :UMA V
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2## ANDTHE0REVENTION
OF/RGANISED#RIME!CTOF WHICHPROVIDESFORCONFISCATION PRESERVA
TIONANDFORFEITUREORDERS
!CONFISCATIONORDERS CONSISTSTHEREINTHATACOURT CONVICTINGANACCUSED
OFANOFFENCE MAY ONTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR ENQUIREINTOANY
BENEFIT WHICH THE ACCUSED MAY HAVE DERIVED FROM THAT OFFENCE OR ANY OTHER
OFFENCEOFWHICHTHEACCUSEDHASBEENCONVICTEDATTHESAMETRIALORANYCRIMINAL
ACTIVITYSUFFICIENTLYRELATEDTOTHOSEOFFENCES ANDMAY INADDITIONTOANYPUNISH
MENTWHICHITMAYIMPOSEINRESPECTOFTHATOFFENCE MAKEANORDERAGAINSTTHE
ACCUSEDFORTHEPAYMENTTOTHESTATEOFANYAMOUNTITCONSIDERSAPPROPRIATE
!PRESERVATIONORDERS PROHIBITSAPERSONFROMDEALINGINANYMANNERWITH
ANY PROPERTY WHICH IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF AN OFFENCEIE ANY PROPERTY CON

#(!04%2r3%!2#(!.$3%):52%
CERNEDINTHECOMMISSIONORSUSPECTEDCOMMISSIONOFANOFFENCE0ROPERTYONLY
QUALIFIESASANINSTRUMENTALITYIFITISUSEDTOCOMMITTHEOFFENCEANDITSUSEMUST
BESUCHTHATITPLAYSAREALANDSUBSTANTIALPARTINTHEACTUALCOMMISSIONOFTHE
OFFENCE4HEFACTTHATACRIMEISCOMMITTEDATACERTAINPLACEDOESNOTBYITSELF
MAKE THAT PLACE AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE OFFENCE3INGH V .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF
0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#23#!
!FORFEITUREORDERS ISANORDERFORFEITINGTOTHESTATEALLORANYOFTHEPROP
ERTYSUBJECTTOAPRESERVATIONOFPROPERTYORDERANDISAPPLIEDFORBYTHENATIONAL
DIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS!NORDEROFFORFEITUREMAYBEMADEONLYIFTHE
DEPRIVATIONINAPARTICULARCASEISPROPORTIONATETOTHEENDSATWHICHTHELEGISLA
TIONISAIMED ANDDISTINCTIONSBETWEENDIFFERENTCLASSESOFOFFENCEWILLFEATURE
HEAVILYINTHATPARTOFTHEENQUIRY!LTHOUGHANORDEROFFORFEITUREOPERATESAS
BOTH A PENALTY AND A DETERRENT ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS REMEDIAL &ORFEITURE IS
LIKELYTOHAVEITSGREATESTREMEDIALEFFECTWHERECRIMEHASBECOMEABUSINESS4HE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL ACCORDINGLY DIDNOTCONSIDERAMOTORVEHICLEDRIVEN
WHILSTUNDERTHEINFLUENCEOFALCOHOL@ANINSTRUMENTALITYOFANOFFENCEASCON
TEMPLATEDUNDERTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED#RIME!CTOF.ATIONAL
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV6ERMAAK;=!LL3!3#! 3EEALSO3HAIK
3!#2##
2ESTITUTIONSHOULDBEDISTINGUISHEDFROMFORFEITURE2ESTITUTIONISDEALTWITHIN
#HAPTER

#(!04%2
"AILANDOTHERFORMSOFRELEASE
3%VANDER-ERWE
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
4HEEFFECTOFBAIL
4HECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOBAILANDTHENEEDFORANDNATUREOF
BAILASAMETHODOFSECURINGLIBERTYPENDINGTHEOUTCOMEOF
ATRIAL
"AILANDSOMEFUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLESOFCRIMINALJUSTICE
2ELEASEOFCHILDONBAILTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CTOF
"!),'2!.4%$"90/,)#%"%&/2%&)234#/524!00%!2!.#%
/&!.!##53%$
)NTRODUCTION
0ROCEDURECONCERNINGPOLICEBAIL
0OLICEBAILTHELIMITATIONS
4HEDISCRETION
"!),'2!.4%$"902/3%#54)/.
4HEPROVISIONSOFS!
3ECTION!ANDTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
OF
"!),!00,)#!4)/.3).#/524
'ENERALPROVISIONS
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
!PPEALBYACCUSEDTO(IGH#OURTAGAINSTALOWERCOURTmS
DECISIONCONCERNINGBAIL
!PPEALBYDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSAGAINSTDECISION
OFCOURTTORELEASEACCUSEDONBAIL
4HE(IGH#OURTPOWERTOREGULATEBAILMATTERSWHERE
STATUTESARESILENT


#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
4(%2)3+3!.$&!#4/237()#(-534"%#/.3)$%2%$).
$%4%2-).).'!"!),!00,)#!4)/.
4HEPOTENTIALRISKS
7HENISTHEREFUSALOFBAILINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
4HEGROUNDINS D FACTORSWHICHTHECOURT
MAYCONSIDERS
4HEGROUNDINS E FACTORSWHICHTHECOURT
MAYCONSIDERS
4HEGROUNDINS F FACTORSWHICHTHECOURT
MAYCONSIDERS
4HEGROUNDINS G FACTORSWHICHTHECOURT
MAYCONSIDERS
4HEGROUNDINS H FACTORSWHICHTHECOURT
MAYCONSIDERS!
4HEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEANDTHEPERSONALFREEDOMOF
ANDPOSSIBLEPREJUDICETOANACCUSEDS
!DDITIONALFACTORSTOBECONSIDEREDINABAILAPPLICATION
PENDINGANAPPEALAGAINSTCONVICTIONORSENTENCE
4HEAMOUNTOFBAIL
3OMEIRRELEVANTFACTORS
"!),#/.$)4)/.3
$ISCRETIONARYSPECIALCONDITIONSASOPPOSEDTOESSENTIAL
CONDITIONS
0RACTICALEXAMPLESANDGENERALPRINCIPLES
!MENDINGORSUPPLEMENTINGBAILCONDITIONS
3ECTIONOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
0!9-%.4/&"!),-/.%9
0AYMENTOFBAILBYTHIRDPERSON
,EGALREPRESENTATIVENOTTOPAYBAILONBEHALFOFCLIENT
#!.#%,,!4)/./&"!),!.$&/2&%)452%/&"!),-/.%9
&AILURETOOBSERVECONDITIONSOFBAIL
&AILURETOAPPEARPROCEDUREANDCONSEQUENCES
#ANCELLATIONOFBAILWHEREACCUSEDABOUTTOABSCOND
#ANCELLATIONOFBAILATREQUESTOFACCUSED
&ORFEITUREANDREMISSION
#RIMINALLIABILITYONTHEGROUNDOFFAILURETOAPPEARORTO
COMPLYWITHACONDITIONOFBAIL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
02/#%$52!,!.$%6)$%.4)!2925,%32%,!4).'4/"!),
!00,)#!4)/.3
4HEPRO ACTIVEINQUISITORIAL ROLEOFTHECOURT
!PPLICATIONOFAFREESYSTEMOFEVIDENCE
0ROOFOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS
4HESUBSEQUENTTRIALANDTHEADMISSIBILITYOFTHERECORDOF
THEBAILPROCEEDINGS
4HERELATIONSHIPBETWEENS" C ANDS
!CCESSTOINFORMATIONHELDBYTHEPROSECUTION
4HEBURDENANDSTANDARDOFPROOFINBAILAPPLICATIONS
4HEPROVISIONSOFS D AND E
4HEMEANINGOFlEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESmASUSEDIN
S A
.EWFACTSREQUIREDFORARENEWEDBAILAPPLICATION
2%,%!3%/4(%24(!./."!),
4HEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
2ELEASEONWARNING
3%#4)/.2%,%!3%/.7!2.).'/2/."!),/2
!-%.$-%.4/&"!),#/.$)4)/.3 /.!##/5.4/&
02)3/.#/.$)4)/.3
)NTRODUCTION
4HEROLEOFTHEHEADOFPRISON
4HECATEGORYOFACCUSEDINRESPECTOFWHOMAHEADOF
PRISONCANBRINGAS! APPLICATION
2OLEOFTHEMAGISTRATE
"!),!00,)#!4)/.3"97!9/&!5$)/6)35!,,).+
3ECTION F
4HISSECTIONISQUOTEDINFULLINBELOW
3ECTIONr2ELEASEOFCHILDONBAIL
#HAPTEROFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTAPPLIESTOANAPPLICATIONFORTHERELEASEOFA
CHILDONBAIL EXCEPTFORSECTIONANDSECTION! TOTHEEXTENTSETOUTINSECTION
B
!NAPPLICATIONFORTHERELEASEOFACHILD REFERREDTOINSECTION C ONBAIL MUST
BECONSIDEREDINTHEFOLLOWINGTHREESTAGES
D 7HETHERTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMITTHERELEASEOFTHECHILDONBAILAND

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
E IFSO ASEPARATEINQUIRYMUSTBEHELDINTOTHEABILITYOFTHECHILDANDHISORHER
PARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANTOPAYTHEAMOUNTOFMONEYBEING
CONSIDEREDORANYOTHERAPPROPRIATEAMOUNTAND
F IFAFTERANINQUIRYREFERREDTOINPARAGRAPHB ITISFOUNDTHATTHECHILDANDHIS
ORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANAREr
I UNABLETOPAYANYAMOUNTOFMONEY THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTSETAPPRO
PRIATECONDITIONSTHATDONOTINCLUDEANAMOUNTOFMONEYFORTHERELEASE
OFTHECHILDONBAILOR
II ABLETOPAYANAMOUNTOFMONEY THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTSETCONDITIONS
FORTHERELEASEOFTHECHILDONBAILANDANAMOUNTWHICHISAPPROPRIATEIN
THECIRCUMSTANCES
3EEANDBELOW
3EEALSOBELOW
).42/$5#4)/.
4HEEFFECTOFBAIL
7HENBAILISGRANTED ANACCUSEDWHOISINCUSTODYSHALLBERELEASEDFROMCUS
TODYUPONPAYMENTOF ORTHEFURNISHINGOFAGUARANTEETOPAY THESUMOFMONEY
DETERMINEDFORHISORHERBAILS4HEACCUSEDMUSTTHENAPPEARATTHEPLACE
ANDONTHEDATEANDATTHETIMEAPPOINTEDFORHISORHERTRIAL ORTOWHICHTHE
PROCEEDINGSRELATINGTOTHEOFFENCEINRESPECTOFWHICHTHEACCUSEDISRELEASEDON
BAIL ARE ADJOURNEDS 4HE ACCUSEDS RELEASE SHALL UNLESS SOONER TERMINATED
UNDERCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES ENDUREUNTILAVERDICTISGIVENBYACOURTINRESPECT
OFTHECHARGETOWHICHTHEOFFENCEINQUESTIONRELATES OR WHERESENTENCEISNOT
IMPOSEDFORTHWITHAFTERCONVICTIONANDTHECOURTINQUESTIONEXTENDSBAIL UNTIL
SENTENCE IS IMPOSEDS (OWEVER S CONTAINS A PROVISO TO THE EFFECT THAT
WHEREACOURTCONVICTSANACCUSEDOFANOFFENCECONTEMPLATEDIN3CHEDULEOR
THECOURTSHALL INCONSIDERINGWHETHERTHEACCUSEDSBAILSHOULDBEEXTENDED
PENDINGIMPOSITIONOFSENTENCE APPLYTHEPROVISIONSOFS A ORS B
ASTHECASEMAYBE ANDTHECOURTSHALLTAKEINTOACCOUNTA THEFACTTHATTHEAC
CUSEDHASBEENCONVICTEDOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOR ANDB THE
LIKELYSENTENCEWHICHTHECOURTMIGHTIMPOSE4HEPROVISIONSOFS A AND
S B AREDISCUSSEDINPARAS ANDBELOW
!NACCUSEDSFAILURETOAPPEARINCOURTORTOCOMPLYWITHANYOFTHEOTHERCON
DITIONSOFHISORHERBAILMAYULTIMATELYRESULTINCANCELLATIONOFBAIL FORFEITUREOF
BAILMONEYTOTHESTATEANDTHERE ARRESTOFTHEACCUSED&AILURETOAPPEARINCOURT
ORTOCOMPLYWITHASPECIFICCONDITIONOFBAILISALSOACRIMINALOFFENCEPUNISH
ABLEBYAFINEORIMPRISONMENTNOTEXCEEDINGONEYEARS!3EEFURTHERPARA
BELOW
4
HECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOBAILANDTHENEEDFORANDNATUREOFBAILASA
METHODOFSECURINGLIBERTYPENDINGTHEOUTCOMEOFATRIAL
4HENEEDFORA@MECHANISMSUCHASBAILMUSTBEUNDERSTOODINTHELIGHTOFTHE
FOLLOWING

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
%VERYONEWHOISARRESTEDFORALLEGEDLYCOMMITTINGANOFFENCEHASTHERIGHTTO
BERELEASEDFROMDETENTIONIFTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMIT SUBJECTTOREASON
ABLECONDITIONSS F OFTHE#ONSTITUTION)NTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
CASE $LAMINI $LADLA AND /THERS *OUBERT 3CHIETEKAT 3!#2 ##
HEREAFTERCITEDAS@$LAMINIETCTHEFOLLOWINGOBSERVATIONWASMADEINPARA
;=OFTHEJUDGMENT
; 3ECTION= F POSTULATESAJUDICIALEVALUATIONOFDIFFERENTFACTORSTHATMAKEUP
THECRITERIONOFINTERESTSOFJUSTICE ANDxTHEBASICOBJECTIVETRADITIONALLYASCRIBED
TOTHEINSTITUTIONOFBAIL NAMELYTOMAXIMISEPERSONALLIBERTY FITSSNUGLYINTOTHE
NORMATIVESYSTEMOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
!NACCUSEDIS INTHEABSENCEOFACONVICTIONBYACOURTOFLAW ALSOCONSTI

TUTIONALLYPRESUMEDTOBEINNOCENT3EES H OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HERE
ISANOBVIOUSAREAOFTENSIONBETWEENTHISPRESUMPTIONANDDEPRIVATIONOF
LIBERTYPENDINGTHEVERDICTOFACOURTOFLAW"AILISAMETHODOFSECURINGA
COMPROMISE)N!CHESON 3!.M AT!n"-AHOMED*SAID
!
N ACCUSED CANNOT BE KEPT IN DETENTION PENDING HIS TRIAL AS A FORM OF ANTICIPA
TORYPUNISHMENT4HEPRESUMPTIONOFTHELAWISTHATHEISINNOCENTUNTILHIS
GUILTHASBEENESTABLISHEDIN#OURT4HE#OURTWILLTHEREFOREORDINARILYGRANTBAIL
TOANACCUSEDPERSONUNLESSTHISISLIKELYTOPREJUDICETHEENDSOFJUSTICE
)T HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE PURPOSE OF BAIL IS TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE
INTERESTSOFSOCIETYTHEACCUSEDSHOULDSTANDHISORHERTRIALANDTHERESHOULD
BENOINTERFERENCEWITHTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE ANDTHELIBERTYOFAN
ACCUSEDWHO PENDINGTHEOUTCOMEOFHISORHERTRIAL ISPRESUMEDTOBEIN
NOCENT $U4OITETALn-OKOENA!'UIDETO"AIL!PPLICATIONSED AT
3EEALSO# 3!#2# WHERE#ONRADIE*REFERREDTOTHERELEVANCE
OFS A OFTHE#ONSTITUTION WHICHPROVIDES
%
VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOFREEDOMANDSECURITYOFTHEPERSON WHICHINCLUDESTHE
RIGHTxNOTTOBEDEPRIVEDOFFREEDOMARBITRARILYORWITHOUTJUSTCAUSEx
4HELEGISLATUREHASDETERMINEDTHATREFUSALTOGRANTBAILSHALLBEINTHEINTER
ESTSOFJUSTICEWHEREONEORMOREOFTHEGROUNDSREFERREDTOINS A nD ARE
ESTABLISHEDSEETHEDISCUSSIONOFS INPARABELOW
4HEWHOLEISSUETURNSONWHATISINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFJUSTICE/BVIOUSLY IT
ISNOTINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFJUSTICETOGRANTBAILTOANACCUSEDWHOWILLNOT
STANDHISORHERTRIALORWHOMIGHTOTHERWISEABUSEHISORHERLIBERTYPENDING
VERDICT FOREXAMPLE BYINTIMIDATING3TATEWITNESSES(OWEVER ITMUSTBEAP
PRECIATEDTHATITISALSONOTINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFJUSTICETOREFUSEBAILTOAN
ACCUSEDWHOWILLSTANDHISORHERTRIALANDWHOWILLNOTOTHERWISEINTERFERE
WITHTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
)NPARA;=IN$LAMINIETCASREFERREDTOINPARA ABOVE THE#ON
STITUTIONAL#OURTSAID
"
AIL SERVES NOT ONLY THE LIBERTY INTEREST OF THE ACCUSED BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY
REDUCING THE HIGH NUMBER OF AWAITING TRIAL PRISONERS CLOGGING OUR ALREADY OVER
CROWDEDCORRECTIONALSYSTEM ANDBYREDUCINGTHENUMBEROFFAMILIESDEPRIVEDOF
ABREADWINNER
)NANYFURTHERDEVELOPMENTANDINTERPRETATIONOFRULESANDPRINCIPLESGOVERN
INGBAIL ALLCOURTSAREOBLIGEDTOTAKEFULLACCOUNTOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
OF THE #ONSTITUTION IE THAT A COURT MUST PROMOTE THE SPIRIT PURPORT AND
OBJECTSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION3EE,ETAOANA "#,27 %AND
0ORTHEN 3!#2# AT;=!LLRIGHTSCONTAINEDINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
MUSTBECONSIDERED7HEREABAILAPPLICANTISTHEPRIMARYCAREGIVEROFACHILD
THECONSTITUTIONALLYPROTECTEDBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDSEESOFTHE#ON
STITUTION MUSTBECONSIDEREDINTHECONTEXTOFALLTHEOTHERCIRCUMSTANCES)N
0ETERSEN 3!#2# ONEOFTHEGROUNDSFORREFUSINGBAILINTHECASE
OFAMOTHEROFAYOUNGCHILDWASTHEFACTTHATAPPROPRIATEALTERNATIVECARE AS
ENVISAGEDBYS B OFTHE#ONSTITUTION WASAVAILABLE
)N#ARMICHELEV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!## AT;=ATTEN
TIONWASDRAWNTOTHECONSTITUTIONALRESPONSIBILITIESOFTHEPROSECUTORINABAIL
APPLICATION
"
AILANDSOMEFUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLESOFCRIMINALJUSTICE
"AILAPPLICATIONSANDBAILAPPEALSSHOULDBETREATEDANDHEARDASMATTERSOFUR
GENCY3EE4WAYIEV-INISTERVAN*USTISIE 3!/ AND"ANGER
3!#23#! AT;=
"AILISNON PENALINCHARACTER!CHESON 3!.M 3EEALSOGENER
ALLY3TANFIELD 3!#2# GnI# 3!#2# AND6ANDER
"ERG"AIL!0RACTITIONERS'UIDEED .EITHERTHEAMOUNTDETERMINED
FORBAILNORTHEREFUSALOFBAILMAYTHEREFOREBEINFLUENCEDBYPUNITIVENOTIONS
FOREXAMPLE TOPUNISHTHEALLEGEDOFFENDERORTODETEROTHERPOSSIBLEOFFENDERS
6ISSER 3!# )NTERMSOFS F THECOURTMAY HOWEVER CONSIDER
THEPREVALENCEOFAPARTICULARTYPEOFOFFENCE
4HE FACT THAT BAIL IS NON PENAL IN CHARACTER DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN ACCUSEDS
PRIORUNLAWFULCONDUCTPENDINGTRIALMUSTBEIGNORED3EEGENERALLY2UDOLPH
3!#23#! CnE
)TISUNDESIRABLETHATANACCUSEDPERSONSHOULDBEDEPRIVEDOFPRE TRIALLIBERTYIF
THESENTENCELIKELYTOBEIMPOSEDWILLBEINTHEFORMOFAFINEORONEOTHERTHAN
IMPRISONMENT-OETI 3!#2" AT(
%ACH CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS 4HE PROSECUTOR MUST MAKE AN
INDEPENDENTASSESSMENTOFTHECASEANDOUGHTNOTBLINDLYTOFOLLOWTHEPOLICES
RECOMMENDATIONTHATBAILSHOULDBEREFUSED(LOPANE 3!/ AT
4HECOURT TOO SHOULDNOTACTASAMERE@RUBBERSTAMPINCONFIRMINGTHEVIEW
POINTOFTHEPOLICEANDPROSECUTION6ISSER 3!#
2ELEASEONBAILISNOTASUBSTITUTEFORANACCUSEDSRIGHTTOBEBROUGHTTOTRIAL
WITHINAREASONABLEPERIOD$U4OITETALn
$ELAYSCAUSEDBYPROSECUTORIALDECISIONSAREINTHEABSENCEOFMALEFIDESNOTIN
THEMSELVESGOODREASONSFORACONCLUSIONTHATBAILMUSTBEGRANTED!LI
3!#2%#0
4HE ISSUE CONCERNING RELEASE ON OR REFUSAL OF BAIL SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN
INDUCEMENTTOOBTAINASTATEMENTFROMANACCUSED*OONE 3!# AT
(
!COURTMUSTINFORMANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDOFHISORHERRIGHTTOAPPLYFOR
BAIL AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED.GWENYA
3!#24 3TEYTLER3!##n3EEALSOS C

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
2
ELEASEOFCHILDONBAILTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
OF
3ECTION OF!CTOFPROVIDESTHAT#HAPTEROF!CTOFTHATIS
THEBAILCHAPTER APPLIESTOANAPPLICATIONFORTHERELEASEOFACHILDONBAIL EXCEPT
FORSSAND! TOTHEEXTENTSETOUTINS B OF!CTOF3EEFURTHER
THEDISCUSSIONSOFSSAND!BELOW3ECTION OF!CTOFPROVIDES
ASFOLLOWS
!NAPPLICATIONFORTHERELEASEOFACHILD REFERREDTOINSECTION C ONBAIL MUSTBE

CONSIDEREDINTHEFOLLOWINGTHREESTAGES
A 7HETHERTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMITTHERELEASEOFTHECHILDONBAILAND
B IFSO ASEPARATEINQUIREMUSTBEHELDINTOTHEABILITYOFTHECHILDANDHISORHER
PARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANTOPAYTHEAMOUNTOFMONEYBEINGCON
SIDEREDORANYOTHERAPPROPRIATEAMOUNTAND
C IFAFTERANINQUIRYREFERREDTOINPARAGRAPHB ITISFOUNDTHATTHECHILDANDHISOR
HERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANARE
I UNABLETOPAYANYAMOUNTOFMONEY THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTSETAPPROPRI
ATECONDITIONSTHATDONOTINCLUDEANAMOUNTOFMONEYFORTHERELEASEOFTHE
CHILDONBAILOR
II ABLETOPAYANAMOUNTOFMONEY THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTSETCONDITIONS
FORTHERELEASEOFTHECHILDONBAILANDANAMOUNTWHICHISAPPROPRIATEIN
THECIRCUMSTANCES
4HEABOVEPROVISIONSOFSOF!CTOFAREREFERREDTOINTHEPRESENTCHAP
TERWHEREAPPROPRIATE3EE FOREXAMPLE PARABELOW
"
!),'2!.4%$"90/,)#%"%&/2%&)234#/524!00%!2!.#%/&!.
!##53%$
)NTRODUCTION
4HEQUESTIONWHETHERBAILSHOULDBEREFUSEDORGRANTEDISESSENTIALLYAJUDICIAL
ONE THATIS ONETHATMUSTINPRINCIPLEBEDETERMINEDBYACOURTOFLAW2AMGOBIN
3!. (OWEVER BAILMAYINCERTAINLIMITEDCIRCUMSTANCESBEGRANT
EDBYTHEPOLICES4HISKINDOFBAILISINPRACTICEANDHEREINAFTER REFERRED
TOAS@POLICEBAIL)TSPURPOSEISNOTTOOUSTAJUDICIALDECISIONBUTTOENSURETHAT
PRE TRIALRELEASEONBAILCANINRESPECTOFRELATIVELYTRIVIALOFFENCESBESECUREDAS
SOONASPOSSIBLETHATIS EVENBEFORETHEFIRSTAPPEARANCEINALOWERCOURT!TANY
RATE IFPOLICEBAILCANNOTBEGRANTEDINTERMSOFSORIFITCANBEGRANTEDBUTIS
REFUSED ANACCUSEDHASEVERYRIGHTTOAPPLYTOALOWERCOURTFORBAILATHISORHER
FIRSTCOMPULSORYAPPEARANCEASREQUIREDINTERMSOFSSEEPARA BELOWAND
THEDISCUSSIONOFSIN#HAPTER"AILGRANTEDBYTHEPROSECUTIONPENDINGAN
ACCUSEDSFIRSTAPPEARANCEINCOURTISALSOPOSSIBLE3EEFURTHERTHEDISCUSSIONOF
S!INPARABELOW
0ROCEDURECONCERNINGPOLICEBAIL
!N ACCUSED WHO IS IN CUSTODY IN RESPECT OF ANY OFFENCE OTHER THAN AN OFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN0ART))OR0ART)))OF3CHEDULE MAYBERELEASEDONBAILINRESPECTOF
SUCHOFFENCEBYANYPOLICEOFFICIALOFORABOVETHERANKOFNON COMMISSIONEDOF
FICER IFTHEACCUSEDDEPOSITSATTHEPOLICESTATIONTHESUMOFMONEYDETERMINEDBY

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
SUCHPOLICEOFFICIALS A 3CHEDULEISREPRODUCEDINTHEAPPENDIXTOTHIS
WORK4HEPOLICEOFFICIALWHOHASTHEPOWERTODETERMINEPOLICEBAILIS HOWEVER
STATUTORILYREQUIREDTOCONSULTWITHTHEPOLICEOFFICIALCHARGEDWITHTHEINVESTIGA
TION IE THESO CALLED@INVESTIGATINGOFFICERSA 4HEPOLICEOFFICIALCONCERNED
MUST AT THE TIME OF RELEASING THE ACCUSED ON BAIL COMPLETE AND HAND TO THE
ACCUSEDARECOGNISANCEONWHICHARECEIPTSHALLBEGIVENFORTHESUMOFMONEY
DEPOSITEDASBAILANDONWHICHTHEOFFENCEINRESPECTOFWHICHTHEBAILISGRANTED
ANDTHEPLACE DATEANDTIMEOFTHETRIALOFTHEACCUSEDAREENTEREDS B 4HE
POLICEOFFICIALMUSTFORTHWITHFORWARDADUPLICATEORIGINALOFSUCHRECOGNISANCETO
THECLERKOFTHECOURTWHICHHASJURISDICTIONS C
4HE POLICE MUST GRANT AN ACCUSED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE
WITH HIS OR HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FAMILY OR FRIENDS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE
AMOUNTFIXEDASPOLICEBAIL
0OLICEBAILTHELIMITATIONS
/NLYCASHPAYMENTSCANBERECEIVEDINPAYMENTOFPOLICEBAIL3URETIESCANNOT
BEACCEPTED
2ELEASEONPOLICEBAILCANONLYTAKEPLACEBEFOREANACCUSEDSFIRSTAPPEARANCE
INALOWERCOURTS A -OKOENA!'UIDETO"AIL!PPLICATIONSED AT
4HISLIMITATIONISESSENTIALINORDERTOENSURETHATCOURTSREMAININDIRECTAND
EXCLUSIVECONTROLOVERRELEASEONBAILONCETHECASEISONTHEROLL
$ISCRETIONARYSPECIALCONDITIONSTHESEARECONDITIONSOTHERTHANTHEESSENTIAL
BAILCONDITIONSCONCERNINGAPPEARANCEINCOURTONASPECIFICTIMEANDDATEAND
ATASPECIFICVENUE ASPROVIDEDFORINS CANNOTBEADDEDBYTHEPOLICEWHEN
RELEASINGANACCUSEDONPOLICEBAIL(OWEVER ACOURTOFLAWMAYUPONAPROSECU
TORSAPPLICATIONADDSPECIALCONDITIONSTOPOLICEBAILS ASREADWITHS
WHICHISDISCUSSEDINPARABELOW)NOTHERRESPECTS POLICEBAILSHALL IFITISIN
FORCEATTHETIMEOFTHEFIRSTAPPEARANCEOFTHEACCUSEDINALOWERCOURT REMAIN
INFORCEAFTERSUCHAPPEARANCEINTHESAMEMANNERASBAILGRANTEDBYACOURTS

0OLICEBAILISNOTPOSSIBLEINRESPECTOFOFFENCESREFERREDTOIN0ART))OR0ART)))
OF3CHEDULEOF!CTOF0ARTS))AND)))INCLUDEVIRTUALLYALLSERIOUSCOM
MON LAWCRIMES FOREXAMPLE TREASON SEDITION MURDER RAPE ARSON KIDNAPPING
ROBBERY THEFT FRAUD ANDASSAULTWHENADANGEROUSWOUNDHASBEENINFLICTED
0ART))ALSOREFERSTOCERTAINSERIOUSSTATUTORYOFFENCES FOREXAMPLE DRUGOFFENCES
ANDOFFENCESRELATINGTOCOINAGE3EEFURTHER0ARTS))AND)))OF3CHEDULEASCITED
INTHEAPPENDIXTOTHISWORK FORTHEOTHERCRIMESINRESPECTOFWHICHPOLICEBAIL
ISNOTPOSSIBLE
0OLICE BAIL MAY NOT BE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF @ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED
OFFENCES3EESASREADWITHSOFTHE#RIMINAL-ATTERS!MENDMENT!CTOF

4
HEDISCRETION
)THASBEENHELDTHAT SINCEINPRINCIPLEATHEORETICALLYINNOCENTPERSONSHOULD
NOTBEDEPRIVEDOFHISORHERLIBERTY ANAPPLICATIONFORPOLICEBAILSHOULDLIKEAN
ORDINARYBAILAPPLICATIONNEITHERBEFRUSTRATEDBYANEXCESSIVEAMOUNTNORBE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
REFUSEDINTHEABSENCEOFSUBSTANTIALCAUSEFORSUCHREFUSAL-AC$ONALDV+UMALO
%$,)THASBEENSUGGESTEDTHATANACTIONFORDAMAGESWILLLIESHOULD
POLICEBAILBEREFUSEDONMALICIOUSGROUNDS ORWHERETHEPROPERLYAUTHORISEDOF
FICIALHADSIMPLYREFUSEDTOEXERCISEHISORHERDISCRETION3HAWV#OLLINS
3#
)N%&V-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#23#! ONEOFTHEREASONS
FOR AWARDING DAMAGES WAS THE FAILURE OF THE POLICE TO SECURE A SITUATION WHERE
POLICEBAILWHICHWASLAWFULLYRECOMMENDEDBYAPOLICEOFFICIALOFTHEREQUIRED
STANDING COULDBEPAIDBYTHESPOUSEOFTHEDETAINEDPERSON
"
!),'2!.4%$"902/3%#54)/.
4HEPROVISIONSOFS!
! DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS HEREAFTER @$00 OR A PROSECUTOR AUTHORISED
THERETOINWRITINGBYTHE$00CONCERNED MAY INRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCESREFERREDTO
IN3CHEDULEANDINCONSULTATIONWITHTHEPOLICEINVESTIGATINGOFFICER AUTHORISE
THERELEASEOFANACCUSEDONBAILS! 4HISKINDOFBAILISHEREAFTERREFERRED
TOAS@PROSECUTORIALBAIL3ECTION! PROVIDESTHATTHEEFFECTOFPROSECUTORIAL
BAILISTHATTHEPERSONWHOISINCUSTODYSHALLBERELEASEDFROMCUSTODY
A UPONPAYMENTOF ORTHEFURNISHINGOFAGUARANTEETOPAY THESUMOFMONEYDETER
MINEDFORHISORHERBAILATHISORHERPLACEOFDETENTIONCONTEMPLATEDINSECTION
A
B SUBJECTTOREASONABLECONDITIONSIMPOSEDBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSOR
PROSECUTORCONCERNEDOR
C THEPAYMENTOFSUCHSUMOFMONEYORTHEFURNISHINGOFSUCHGUARANTEETOPAYAND
THEIMPOSITIONOFSUCHCONDITIONS
&ORPURPOSESOFEXERCISINGTHEFUNCTIONSASCONTEMPLATEDINS! AND!
A$00MAYAFTERCONSULTATIONWITHTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEISSUEDIRECTIVES3EE
ALSOGENERALLY-OKOENA!'UIDETO"AIL!PPLICATIONSED
0ROSECUTORIAL BAIL MAY NOT BE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF @ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
RELATEDOFFENCES3EESASREADWITHSOFTHE#RIMINAL-ATTERS!MENDMENT!CT
OF
!NACCUSEDWHOISRELEASEDONPROSECUTORIALBAILMUSTAPPEARONTHEFIRSTCOURT
DAYATTHECOURTANDATTHETIMEDETERMINEDBYTHEPROSECUTIONANDTHERELEASE
OFTHEACCUSEDSHALLENDUREUNTILHEORSHEAPPEARSBEFORETHECOURTONTHEFIRST
DAYS! 0ROSECUTORIALBAILPROCEEDINGSMUSTBERECORDEDINFULL INCLUDING
THECONDITIONSIMPOSEDS! ASREADWITHS)NTERMSOFS! PROSECU
TORIALBAILSHALLBEREGARDEDASBAILGRANTEDBYACOURTINTERMSOFS3EEPARA
BELOW(OWEVER ITMUSTBEPOINTEDOUTTHATPROSECUTORIALBAILONLYLASTSUNTIL
THE ACCUSEDS APPEARANCE ON THE FIRST COURT DAY !T THIS FIRST COURT APPEARANCE
JUDICIALINTERVENTIONORAPPROVALISREQUIRED3ECTION! PROVIDESTHATATTHE
FIRSTAPPEARANCEINCOURTOFAPERSONRELEASEDONPROSECUTORIALBAIL THECOURT
A MAY EXTEND THE BAIL ON THE SAME CONDITIONS OR AMEND SUCH CONDITIONS OR ADD
FURTHERCONDITIONSASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTIONOR
B SHALL IFTHECOURTDOESNOTDEEMITAPPROPRIATETOEXERCISETHEPOWERSCONTEMPLATED
IN PARAGRAPH A CONSIDER THE BAIL APPLICATION AND IN CONSIDERING SUCH APPLICA
TION THECOURTHASTHEJURISDICTIONRELATINGTOTHEPOWERS FUNCTIONSANDDUTIESIN
RESPECTOFBAILPROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFSECTION

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
3ECTION!ANDTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
! PROSECUTOR MAY PRIOR TO A CHILDS FIRST APPEARANCE AT A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY
AUTHORISETHERELEASEOFACHILDINTERMSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTASREAD
WITHS!OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT3EES OF!CTOF(OWEVER
SUCHARELEASEONBAILCANONLYBEAUTHORISEDINRESPECTOFOFFENCESREFERREDTOIN
3CHEDULEOROF!CTOF ANDTHEREFERENCETO3CHEDULEINS! OF
THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMUSTBEREGARDEDASAREFERENCETO3CHEDULEOF!CT
OF0REFERENCEMUSTBEGIVENTORELEASINGTHECHILD3EES OF!CT
OF
"!),!00,)#!4)/.3).#/524
'ENERALPROVISIONS
!NACCUSEDWHOISINCUSTODYINRESPECTOFANOFFENCESHALL SUBJECTTOTHEPROVI
SIONSOFS BEENTITLEDTOBERELEASEDONBAILATANYSTAGEPRECEDINGHISORHER
CONVICTIONINRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCE UNLESSTHECOURTFINDSTHATITISINTHEINTER
ESTSOFJUSTICETHATHEORSHEBEDETAINEDINCUSTODYS A )FACOURTREFERSAN
ACCUSEDTOANOTHERCOURTFORTRIALORSENTENCING THECOURTREFERRINGTHEACCUSED
RETAINSJURISDICTIONRELATINGTOTHEPOWERS FUNCTIONSANDDUTIESINRESPECTOFBAIL
UNTILTHEACCUSEDAPPEARSINSUCHOTHERCOURTFORTHEFIRSTTIMES B
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
4HE PROCEDURE WHICH FOLLOWS AN ARREST WAS DISCUSSED IN PARA OF #HAPTER
ABOVE4HISPROCEDUREISGOVERNEDBYS(OWEVER CERTAINIMPORTANTPROVISIONS
WHICHRELATETOBAILARECONTAINEDINS
!NACCUSEDISATHISORHERFIRSTAPPEARANCEINCOURTENTITLEDTOAPPLYFORRELEASE
ONBAILS A I BB (EORSHEISNOTENTITLEDTOBRINGABAILAPPLICATIONOUT
SIDEORDINARYCOURTHOURSS B
4HE BAIL APPLICATION OF A PERSON CHARGED WITH A 3CHEDULE OFFENCE MUST BE
CONSIDEREDBYAMAGISTRATESCOURTS C (OWEVER INTERMSOFAPROVISOIN
S C A$00ORPROSECUTORAUTHORISEDTHERETOBYTHE$00MAYWHEREHEORSHE
DEEMSITEXPEDIENTORNECESSARYFORTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEINAPARTICULAR
CASEDIRECTINWRITINGTHATTHEAPPLICATIONMUSTBECONSIDEREDBYTHEREGIONAL
COURT
!NYLOWERCOURTBEFOREWHICHAPERSONISBROUGHTINTERMSOFS MAYIN
TERMSOFS D POSTPONEANYBAILPROCEEDINGSORBAILAPPLICATIONTOANYDATE
ORCOURT FORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGSEVENDAYSATATIME ONTHETERMSWHICHTHE
COURTMAYDEEMPROPERANDWHICHARENOTINCONSISTENTWITHANYPROVISIONOFTHE
!CT IF
I THECOURTISOFTHEOPINIONTHATITHASINSUFFICIENTINFORMATIONOREVIDENCEAT
ITSDISPOSALTOREACHADECISIONONTHEBAILAPPLICATION
II THEPROSECUTORINFORMSTHECOURTTHATTHEMATTERHASBEENORISGOINGTOBE
REFERREDTOADIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSFORTHEISSUINGOFAWRITTENCONFIR
MATIONREFERREDTOINSECTION!
III x;3UB PARAIII DELETEDBYS C OF!CTOF=

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
IV ITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTTHATITISNECESSARYTOPROVIDETHE3TATEWITHAREASON
ABLEOPPORTUNITYTO
AA PROCUREMATERIALEVIDENCETHATMAYBELOSTIFBAILISGRANTEDOR
BB PERFORMTHEFUNCTIONSREFERREDTOINSECTIONOR
V ITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTTHATITISNECESSARYINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETODOSO
4HE REQUIREMENT @INTERESTS OF JUSTICE IN S D V DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE
MUSTBEEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES"LOCK 3!#2.#+
3ECTION D APPLIESTOACHILDWHOSEBAILAPPLICATIONHASNOTBEENFINALISED
3EES OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
!PPEALBYACCUSEDTO(IGH#OURTAGAINSTALOWERCOURTmSDECISION
CONCERNINGBAIL
!NACCUSEDWHOCONSIDERSHIMSELFORHERSELFAGGRIEVEDBYTHEREFUSALOFALOWER
COURTTOADMITHIMORHERTOBAILORBYTHEIMPOSITIONBYSUCHCOURTOFACONDI
TION OF BAIL INCLUDING A CONDITION RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF BAIL MONEY AND
INCLUDINGANAMENDMENTORSUPPLEMENTATIONOFACONDITIONOFBAIL MAYAPPEAL
AGAINSTSUCHREFUSALORTHEIMPOSITIONOFSUCHCONDITIONTOTHE(IGH#OURTHAV
INGJURISDICTIONORTOANYJUDGEOFTHATCOURTIFTHECOURTISNOTTHENSITTINGS
A 4HEAPPEALMAYBEHEARDBYASINGLEJUDGES B !LOCALDIVISION
OFTHE(IGH#OURTSHALLHAVEJURISDICTIONTOHEARANAPPEALINTERMSOFS A
IFTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFTHELOWERCOURTINQUESTIONORANYPARTTHEREOFFALLS
WITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFSUCHLOCALDIVISIONS C
4HEACCUSEDMUSTSERVEACOPYOFTHENOTICEOFAPPEALONTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLIC
PROSECUTIONSANDONTHEMAGISTRATEORTHEREGIONALMAGISTRATE ASTHECASEMAYBE
3EE3HEFERV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAAL;=!LL3!4 AT;=
4HENOTICEOFAPPEALMUSTSETOUTTHESPECIFICGROUNDSUPONWHICHTHEAPPEALIS
LODGED(O 3!7 AT"n#4HEMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATE
CONCERNEDMUSTFORTHWITHFURNISHTHEREASONSFORHISORHERDECISIONTOTHECOURT
ORJUDGE ASTHECASEMAYBES 4HEMEREFACTTHATACOURTGAVEBRIEFREASONS
FORDISMISSINGABAILAPPLICATIONISNOTINITSELFASUFFICIENTGROUNDFORTHECOURT
OFAPPEALTOINFERTHATINSUFFICIENTWEIGHTWASGIVENTOTHECONSIDERATIONSSETOUT
INS3EE!LI 3!#2%#0 AT;=)NTHISCASETHEREASONSWERE@SCANT
BUTCLEARAT;=
!N APPEAL SHALL NOT LIE IN RESPECT OF NEW FACTS WHICH ARISE OR ARE DISCOVERED
AFTERTHEDECISIONAGAINSTWHICHTHEAPPEALISBROUGHT UNLESSSUCHNEWFACTSARE
FIRSTPLACEDBEFORETHEMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATEAGAINSTWHOSEDECISION
THEAPPEALISBROUGHTANDSUCHMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATEGIVESADECISION
AGAINSTTHEACCUSEDONSUCHNEWFACTSS 9ANTA 3!#24K(
/NTHEMEANINGOF@NEWFACTSFORPURPOSESOFARENEWEDBAILAPPLICATION SEEPARA
BELOW
4HECOURTORJUDGEHEARINGTHEAPPEALSHALLNOTSETASIDETHEDECISIONAGAINST
WHICHTHEAPPEALISBROUGHTUNLESSSUCHCOURTORJUDGEISSATISFIEDTHATTHEDECI
SIONWASWRONG INWHICHEVENTTHECOURTORJUDGESHALLGIVETHEDECISIONWHICH
INITSOPINIONTHELOWERCOURTSHOULDHAVEGIVENS "ARBER 3!
$ $E!BREU 3!7 AT(n!.EL 3!#2'* AT;=)N
0ORTHEN 3!#2# AT;=ITWASSAID WITHREFERENCETOS OFTHE

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
#ONSTITUTION THATS OFTHE!CT@SHOULDBECONSTRUEDINAMANNERWHICHDOES

NOTUNDULYRESTRICTTHEAMBITOFANAPPEALCOURTSCOMPETENCETODECIDETHATTHE
LOWERCOURTSDECISIONTOREFUSEBAILWAS@@WRONG!COURTOFAPPEALMAYCONSIDER
THEISSUEOFBAILAFRESHIFTHEBAILCOURTHADMISDIRECTEDITSELFMATERIALLYONTHE
FACTSORLEGALPRINCIPLESGOVERNINGBAIL%SSOP 3!#2'0 AT;= ;=
!FURTHERAPPEALAGAINSTANORDEROFTHE(IGH#OURTSUSTAININGAMAGISTRATES
REFUSAL OF BAIL IS POSSIBLESEE GENERALLY -OHAMED 3! ! "UT THIS
MAYBEDONEONLYWITHLEAVEOFTHE(IGH#OURTCONCERNEDAND IFSUCHLEAVEIS
REFUSED WITHTHELEAVEOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL4HEAUTOMATICRIGHTOF
APPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINSTREFUSALOFBAILBYA(IGH#OURT
SITTINGASACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEHASBEENABOLISHEDBYSSANDOFTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS!CTOF3EE"ANGER 3!#23#! 4HEACCUSEDSTILLHASA
RIGHTTOAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALBUTISREQUIREDTODOSOWITHLEAVE
OFTHE(IGH#OURTANDIFSUCHLEAVEISREFUSED THELEAVEOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEALITSELFISREQUIREDBEFORETHISCOURTCANENTERTAINTHEAPPEAL
"AIL APPEALS ARE PRIMA FACIE URGENT 0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL 6RYSTAAT V 2AMOKHOSI
3!#2/ "UTTHEURGENCYOFABAILAPPEALDOESNOTENTITLEAPARTYTO
IGNORETHEPROCEDURESPRESCRIBEDBYS3EE3HEFERV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
;=!LL3!4 AT;=
!
PPEALBYDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSAGAINSTDECISIONOFCOURTTO
RELEASEACCUSEDONBAIL
! $00 MAY APPEAL TO THE (IGH #OURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF A LOWER COURT TO
RELEASE AN ACCUSED ON BAIL OR AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF A CONDITION OF BAIL
S! A
!$00MAYALSOAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINSTTHEDECISIONOF
ASUPERIORCOURTTORELEASEANACCUSEDONBAILS! A )NBOTHINSTANCESTHE
COURTHEARINGTHEAPPEALMAYORDERTHATTHESTATESHOULDPAYTHEACCUSEDCON
CERNEDTHEWHOLEORANYPARTOFTHECOSTSWHICHTHEACCUSEDMAYHAVEINCURRED
IN OPPOSING THE APPEAL )N THE EVENT OF A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL AGAINST RELEASE ON
BAIL THECOURTWHICHHEARDTHEAPPEALSHALLISSUEAWARRANTFORTHEARRESTOFTHE
ACCUSEDS!
4
HE(IGH#OURTPOWERTOREGULATEBAILMATTERSWHERESTATUTESARE
SILENT
)N 6EENENDAL V -INISTER OF *USTICE 3!#2 4 AT InJ REFERENCE WAS
MADETOTHE@INHERENTJURISDICTIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTTOGRANTBAILINTHEABSENCE
OFSTATUTORYPROVISIONSAUTHORISINGSUCHACOURSE)NTHISCASEITWASACCORDING
LY HELD THAT A (IGH #OURT HAS INHERENT JURISDICTION TO GRANT BAIL TO A PERSON
COMMITTED BY A MAGISTRATE TO PRISON IN TERMS OF S OF !CT OF 3EE
ALSOGENERALLY4HORNHILL 3!#2# EnG WHERE.GCOBO*STATEDAT
JnA THATS F OFTHE#ONSTITUTION@REAFFIRMSTHECOMMON LAWINHERENT
JURISDICTIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTTOGRANTBAIL3EEFURTHER4SOTSI 3!#2
% AND(LONGWANE 3!4
)TISCLEAR HOWEVER THATAFTERTHEREFUSALOFANAPPEALBYTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF !PPEAL NO COURT HAS ANY STATUTORY OR COMMON LAW POWER TO RELEASE A SEN

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TENCEDPRISONERONBAIL#HUNGUETEV-INISTEROF(OME!FFAIRS 3!7
(LONGWANE 3!4 ANDCFGENERALLY"EEHARIV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .ATAL
3!.
.OCOURTHASTHEPOWERTOORDERTHATAPERSONWHOANTICIPATESARRESTSHOULDBE
RELEASEDONBAILIFARRESTED4ROPEV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL40$
!LOWERCOURTSPOWERCONCERNINGBAILISENTIRELYREGULATEDBYSTATUTE%XPARTE
'RAHAM)NRE5NITED3TATESOF!MERICAV'RAHAM 3!4
4
(%2)3+3!.$&!#4/237()#(-534"%#/.3)$%2%$).
$%4%2-).).'!"!),!00,)#!4)/.
4HEPOTENTIALRISKS
)N0INEIRO 3!#2.M ATCnD&RANK*CITEDTHEFOLLOWINGPASSAGE
IN$U4OITETALn"
)NTHEEXERCISEOFITSDISCRETIONTOGRANTORREFUSEBAIL THECOURTDOESINPRINCIPLE
ADDRESSONLYONEALL EMBRACINGISSUE7ILLTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEBEPREJUDICEDIF
THEACCUSEDISGRANTEDBAIL!NDINTHISCONTEXTITMUSTBEBORNEINMINDTHATIF
ANACCUSEDISREFUSEDBAILINCIRCUMSTANCESWHEREHEORSHEWILLSTANDHISORHER
TRIAL THEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEAREALSOPREJUDICED
&OURSUBSIDIARYQUESTIONSARISE)FRELEASEDONBAIL WILLTHEACCUSEDSTANDHISOR
HERTRIAL7ILLHEORSHEINTERFEREWITH3TATEWITNESSESORTHEPOLICEINVESTIGATION
7ILLHEORSHECOMMITFURTHERCRIMES7ILLHISORHERRELEASEBEPREJUDICIALTOTHE
MAINTENANCEOFLAWANDORDERANDTHESECURITYOFTHESTATE!TTHESAMETIMETHE
COURTSHOULDDETERMINEWHETHERANYOBJECTIONTORELEASEONBAILCANNOTSUITABLY
BEMETBYAPPROPRIATECONDITIONSPERTAININGTORELEASEONBAIL
7HENISTHEREFUSALOFBAILINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
3ECTION PROVIDESTHATTHEREFUSALTOGRANTBAILANDTHEDETENTIONOFANAC
CUSED IN CUSTODY SHALL BE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE WHERE ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWINGGROUNDSAREESTABLISHED
A WHERETHEREISTHELIKELIHOODTHATTHEACCUSED IFRELEASEDONBAIL WILLENDAN
GERTHESAFETYOFTHEPUBLICORANYPARTICULARPERSONORWILLCOMMITA3CHED
ULEOFFENCEOR
B WHERETHEREISTHELIKELIHOODTHATTHEACCUSED IFRELEASEDONBAIL WILLATTEMPT
TOEVADEHISORHERTRIALOR
C WHERETHEREISTHELIKELIHOODTHATTHEACCUSED IFRELEASEDONBAIL WILLATTEMPT
TOINFLUENCEORINTIMIDATEWITNESSESORTOCONCEALORDESTROYEVIDENCEOR
D WHERETHEREISTHELIKELIHOODTHATTHEACCUSED IFRELEASEDONBAIL WILLUNDER
MINEORJEOPARDISETHEOBJECTIVESORTHEPROPERFUNCTIONINGOFTHECRIMINAL
JUSTICESYSTEM INCLUDINGTHEBAILSYSTEMOR
E WHEREINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESTHEREISTHELIKELIHOODTHATTHERELEASEOF
THEACCUSEDWILLDISTURBTHEPUBLICORDERORUNDERMINETHEPUBLICPEACEOR
SECURITY
4HEGROUNDSINSS A TO E ASREFERREDTOABOVEMUSTBEEVALUATEDIN
CONJUNCTIONWITHTHEVARIOUSGUIDELINESFACTORS CONSIDERATIONS WHICHTHELEGIS

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
LATUREHASIDENTIFIEDINS TO ANDWHICHARESETOUTINPARASTO

BELOW)N$LAMINIETCSEEPARA ABOVE THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHADTHEOP
PORTUNITYTOCONSIDERTHECONSTITUTIONALVALIDITYOFS TO 4HESESECTIONS
WEREHELDCONSTITUTIONAL ANDINPARA;=OF$LAMINIETCITWASSAID
3UCHGUIDELINESARENOINTERFERENCEBYTHE,EGISLATUREINTHEEXERCISEOFTHEJUDICIARYS
ADJUDICATIVEFUNCTIONTHEYAREAPROPEREXERCISEBYTHE,EGISLATUREOFITSFUNCTIONS IN
CLUDINGTHEPOWERANDRESPONSIBILITYTOAFFORDTHEJUDICIARYGUIDANCEWHEREITREGARDS
ITASNECESSARY7HATISMORE ITISNOTONLYAPROPEREXERCISEOFLEGISLATIVEPOWER BUT
AVERYWELCOMEONE(ERE INCONVENIENTLYTABULATEDFORM THE#0!NOWFIRSTPROVIDES
INS A TOE ACHECK LISTOFTHEMAINCRITERIATOBECONSIDEREDAGAINSTTHEGRANTOF
BAILANDTHENPROCEEDSINSS;SIC= TO! TOITEMISECONSIDERATIONSTHATMAYGOTO
MAKEUPTHOSECRITERIA4HEN INSS;SIC= ITPROVIDESALISTOFPERSONALCRITERIAPOINTING
TOWARDSTHEGRANTOFBAIL
/NTHEMEANINGOF@INTERESTSOFJUSTICEASUSEDINS ANDOTHERRELATEDSEC
TIONS SEE$LAMINIETC
7
KHJURXQGLQV A IDFWRUVZKLFKWKHFRXUWPD\FRQVLGHU V
)NCONSIDERINGWHETHERTHEGROUNDINS A ASCITEDINPARAABOVEHAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED THE COURT MAY IN TERMS OF S TAKE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS
INTOACCOUNTWHEREAPPLICABLETHEDEGREEOFVIOLENCETOWARDSOTHERSIMPLICITIN
THECHARGEAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDS A ANYTHREATOFVIOLENCEWHICHTHEAC
CUSEDMAYHAVEMADETOANYPERSONS B ANYRESENTMENTTHEACCUSEDIS
ALLEGEDTOHARBOURAGAINSTANYPERSONS C ANYDISPOSITIONTOVIOLENCEON
THEPARTOFTHEACCUSED ASISEVIDENTFROMHISORHERPASTCONDUCTS D
ANYDISPOSITIONOFTHEACCUSEDTOCOMMITOFFENCESREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE ASIS
EVIDENTFROMHISORHERPASTCONDUCTS E THEPREVALENCEOFAPARTICULAR
TYPEOFOFFENCES F ANYEVIDENCETHATTHEACCUSEDPREVIOUSLYCOMMITTED
AN OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN 3CHEDULE WHILE RELEASED ON BAILS G OR ANY
OTHERFACTORWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURTSHOULDBETAKENINTOACCOUNTS
H
"AILCANPROPERLYBEREFUSEDIFTHECOURTISSATISFIEDTHATANACCUSEDHASAPRO
PENSITYTOCOMMITTHECRIMEWITHWHICHHEORSHEISCHARGEDANDMIGHTCONTINUE
TO PERPETRATE SUCH CRIMES IF RELEASED ON BAIL0ATEL 3! 7 4HIS
APPROACHMUSTBEUNDERSTOODINTHELIGHTOFWHATWASSAIDBY#OOPER*IN0ETERSON
3!#2 # AT EnF NAMELY THAT THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING BAIL TO AN
ACCUSED IS TO MINIMISE INTERFERENCE IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND ACCORD
INGLY IFTHEREISARISKOFAREPETITIONOFTHESAMECRIMINALCONDUCTIFTHEACCUSED
WERERELEASEDONBAIL THE@INTERESTSOFSOCIETYOUTWEIGHTHERIGHTSOFTHELAWLESS
INDIVIDUAL
7KHJURXQGLQV B IDFWRUVZKLFKWKHFRXUWPD\FRQVLGHU V

)N,ETAOANA "#,27 ITWASCONFIRMEDTHATS B SHOULDBE
READWITHS
!FURTHERGROUNDTHATTHECOURTMUSTCONSIDERISTHELIKELIHOODOFTHEACCUSED
ATTEMPTINGTOEVADEHISORHERTRIALIFRELEASEDONBAILSEES B ASCITEDIN
PARAABOVE)NCONSIDERINGTHISGROUNDTHECOURTMAY WHEREAPPLICABLE TAKE
INTOACCOUNTTHEFOLLOWINGFACTORS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
A THEEMOTIONAL FAMILY COMMUNITYOROCCUPATIONALTIESOFTHEACCUSEDTOTHE

PLACEATWHICHHEORSHEISTOBETRIEDS A
B THEASSETSHELDBYTHEACCUSEDANDWHERESUCHASSETSARESITUATEDS B
C THEMEANS ANDTRAVELDOCUMENTSHELDBYTHEACCUSED WHICHMAYENABLEHIM
ORHERTOLEAVETHECOUNTRYS C
D THEEXTENT IFANY TOWHICHTHEACCUSEDCANAFFORDTOFORFEITTHEAMOUNTOF
BAILWHICHMAYBESETS D
E THEQUESTIONWHETHERTHEEXTRADITIONOFTHEACCUSEDCOULDREADILYBEEFFECTED
SHOULDHEORSHEFLEEACROSSTHEBORDERSOFTHE2EPUBLICINANATTEMPTTOEVADE
HISORHERTRIALS E
F THENATUREANDTHEGRAVITYOFTHECHARGEONWHICHTHEACCUSEDISTOBETRIED
S F
G THESTRENGTHOFTHECASEAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDANDTHEINCENTIVETHATHEORSHE
MAYINCONSEQUENCEHAVETOATTEMPTTOEVADEHISORHERTRIALS G
H THE NATURE AND GRAVITY OF THE PUNISHMENT WHICH IS LIKELY TO BE IMPOSED
SHOULDTHEACCUSEDBECONVICTEDOFTHECHARGESAGAINSTHIMORHERS
H
I THE BINDING EFFECT AND ENFORCEABILITY OF BAIL CONDITIONS WHICH MAY BE IM
POSEDANDTHEEASEWITHWHICHSUCHCONDITIONSCOULDBEBREACHEDS
I OR
J ANYOTHERFACTORWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURTSHOULDBETAKENINTOAC
COUNTS J
)THASREPEATEDLYBEENHELDTHATINASSESSINGTHERISKOFFLIGHT COURTSMAYPROPERLY
TAKEINTOACCOUNTNOTONLYTHESTRENGTHOFTHECASEFORTHEPROSECUTIONANDTHE
PROBABILITYOFACONVICTION,ULANE 3!. AT#n& BUTALSOTHE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE CHARGED AND THE CONCOMITANT LIKELIHOOD OF A SEVERE
SENTENCE.ICHAS 3!# AT4HEOBVIOUSREASONFORTHISAPPROACH
IS THAT @THE EXPECTATION OF A SUBSTANTIAL SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WOULD UN
DOUBTEDLYPROVIDEANINCENTIVETOTHEAPPELLANTTOABSCOND(UDSON 3!
$ AT(4HERISKOFABSCONDINGINCREASESWHEREASEVERESENTENCEHASIN
FACTBEENIMPOSEDANDABAILAPPLICATIONISLODGEDPENDINGANAPPEAL(O
3!7 AT"4HEMEREFACTTHATACONVICTEDOFFENDERHASBEENGRANTED
LEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTHISORHERCONVICTION ISANINADEQUATEGROUNDFORRELEASE
ONBAILPENDINGTHEOUTCOMEOFTHEAPPEAL0ATAKA 3!#2'* AT;=
AND;=/OSTHUIZEN 3!#23#! AT;=
)N0ETERSEN 3!#2# AFULLBENCHNOTEDTHATTHEEXISTENCEOFTHE
EXTRADITIONARRANGEMENTSBETWEEN3OUTH!FRICAAND.AMIBIAPROVIDEDNOGUAR
ANTEETHATEXTRADITIONWOULDINDEEDTAKEPLACEIFTHEAPPELLANTWERETO@RELOCATE
FORTHEPURPOSEOFEVADINGJUSTICEAT;= 4HISREALITYRENDEREDMEANINGLESSTHE
UNDERTAKINGOFTHEAPPELLANTS.AMIBIANFAMILYTHATTHEYWOULDNOTHAVEPER
MITTEDHERTOBECOMEAFUGITIVEFROMJUSTICE
4HERISKTHATANACCUSEDMAYTAKEFLIGHTSHOULDALSOBEWEIGHEDINTHELIGHTOF
FACTORSSUCHASTHEMOBILITYOFANACCUSEDANDHISORHERACCESSTOOVERSEASTRAVEL
.ICHASABOVE THEFACTTHATANACCUSEDISAFOREIGNNATIONAL(UDSONABOVE
THEABSENCEOFBORDERFORMALITIESATCERTAININTERNATIONALBORDERS-ATABOGE
3!#2" ANDTHEDEPTHOFEMOTIONAL OCCUPATIONAL FINANCIALANDFAM
ILY ROOTS THAT THE ACCUSED HAS WITHIN THE COUNTRY WHERE HE OR SHE IS TO STAND

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
TRIAL!CHESON 3!.M AT4HEFACTTHATTHEACCUSEDISAFOREIGN

NATIONAL CAN NEVER SERVE AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO THE GRANTING OF BAIL 3EE "RANCO
3!#27
)N-ASOANGANYE 3!#23#! AT;=ITWASOBSERVEDTHAT@THEPER
SONALCIRCUMSTANCESOFANACCUSEDMUCHMORETHANASSETSDETERMINEWHETHER
THEACCUSEDISAFLIGHTRISK
7KHJURXQGLQV C IDFWRUVZKLFKWKHFRXUWPD\FRQVLGHU V

4HELIKELIHOODTHATANACCUSED IFRELEASEDONBAIL WILLATTEMPTTOINFLUENCEOR
INTIMIDATEWITNESSESORCONCEALORDESTROYEVIDENCEISAGROUNDFORREFUSINGBAIL
S C ASREFERREDTOINPARAABOVE)NTERMSOFS THECOURTMAY IN
CONSIDERINGWHETHERTHISGROUNDHASBEENESTABLISHED TAKEINTOACCOUNTTHEFOL
LOWINGFACTORSWHEREAPPLICABLE
A THEFACTTHATTHEACCUSEDISFAMILIARWITHTHEIDENTITYOFWITNESSESANDWITH
THEEVIDENCEWHICHTHEYMAYBRINGAGAINSTHIMORHER
B WHETHERTHEWITNESSESHAVEALREADYMADESTATEMENTSANDAGREEDTOTESTIFY
C WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED
SEE$HLAMINI 3!#27
D THERELATIONSHIPOFTHEACCUSEDWITHTHEVARIOUSWITNESSESANDTHEEXTENTTO
WHICHTHEYCOULDBEINFLUENCEDORINTIMIDATED
E HOW EFFECTIVE AND ENFORCEABLE BAIL CONDITIONS PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION
BETWEENTHEACCUSEDANDWITNESSESARELIKELYTOBE
F WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ACCESS TO EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL WHICH IS TO BE PRE
SENTEDATHISORHERTRIAL
G THEEASEWITHWHICHEVIDENTIARYMATERIALCOULDBECONCEALEDORDESTROYEDOR
H ANYOTHERFACTORWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURTSHOULDBETAKENINTOAC
COUNT
)N(LONGWA 3!$ ITWASHELDTHATBAILFORANACCUSEDCANBEREFUSED
@IF ONALLTHEEVIDENCE THEREISAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYTHATHEWOULDTAMPERWITH
ONEORMORE3TATEWITNESSESIFHEWERERELEASED)NASSESSINGTHISRISK THECOURT
MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND PROSECUTION
WITNESSES%XPARTE4ALJAARD/0$ WHETHERORNOTTHEACCUSEDISAWAREOF
THEIDENTITYOF3TATEWITNESSESORTHENATUREOFTHEIRSTATEMENTS!CHESONABOVE
AT WHETHERORNOTANYBAILCONDITIONPREVENTINGCOMMUNICATIONBETWEEN
3TATEWITNESSESANDANACCUSEDCANBEPOLICEDEFFECTIVELY!CHESONABOVE AT
WHETHER OR NOT 3TATE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN THREATENED BY THE ACCUSED %X PARTE
.KETE %$, AND FURTHER THE NATURE OF THE ACCUSEDS CRIMINAL RECORD
@PARTICULARLYIFITINCLUDESACONVICTIONFORDEFEATINGOROBSTRUCTINGTHEENDSOF
JUSTICEBYTAMPERINGWITHA3TATEWITNESS(LONGWAABOVE AT(
)N"ENNETT 3!# 6OS*FORMULATEDTHEFOLLOWINGTESTFORPURPOSES
OFDETERMININGTHEPRESENCEORABSENCEOFAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYOFFUTUREINTER
FERENCEAT'n( EMPHASISINTHEORIGINAL
;!=S ;THE= APPLICANT HAS THUS FAR NOT INTERFERED WITH THE INVESTIGATION THE PROPER AP
PROACHSHOULDBETHAT UNLESSTHESTATECANSAYTHATTHEREISAREALRISKTHATHEWILL NOT
MERELY MAY INTERFERE THEREDOESNOTAPPEARxTOBEAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYOFSUCH
INTERFERENCE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
7KHJURXQGLQV D IDFWRUVZKLFKWKHFRXUWPD\FRQVLGHU V

2EFUSALOFBAILSHALLBEINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEIFITISESTABLISHEDTHATTHEREISA
LIKELIHOODTHATTHEACCUSED IFRELEASEDONBAIL WILLUNDERMINEORJEOPARDISETHE
OBJECTIVES OR PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM INCLUDING THE
BAILSYSTEMS D 3ECTION PROVIDESTHATWHENCONSIDERINGWHETHERTHE
GROUNDINSUB S D HASBEENESTABLISHED THECOURTMAY WHEREAPPLICABLE TAKE
INTOACCOUNTTHEFOLLOWINGFACTORS
A THEFACTTHATTHEACCUSED KNOWINGITTOBEFALSE SUPPLIEDFALSEINFORMATIONAT
THETIMEOFHISORHERARRESTORDURINGTHEBAILPROCEEDINGSSEEALSOS"
B WHETHERTHEACCUSEDISINCUSTODYONANOTHERCHARGEORWHETHERTHEACCUSED
ISONPAROLE
C ANYPREVIOUSFAILUREONTHEPARTOFTHEACCUSEDTOCOMPLYWITHBAILCONDITIONS
ORANYINDICATIONTHATHEORSHEWILLNOTCOMPLYWITHANYBAILCONDITIONSOR
D ANYOTHERFACTORWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURTSHOULDBETAKENINTOAC
COUNT
7KHJURXQGLQV E IDFWRUVZKLFKWKHFRXUWPD\FRQVLGHU V $

3ECTION! PROVIDESTHATACOURTWHENCONSIDERINGTHEPROVISIONSINS E
MAY WHEREAPPLICABLE TAKEINTOACCOUNTTHEFOLLOWINGFACTORS
A WHETHERTHENATUREOFTHEOFFENCEORTHECIRCUMSTANCESUNDERWHICHTHEOF
FENCE WAS COMMITTED IS LIKELY TO INDUCE A SENSE OF SHOCK OR OUTRAGE IN THE
COMMUNITYWHERETHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED
B WHETHERTHESHOCKOROUTRAGEOFTHECOMMUNITYMIGHTLEADTOPUBLICDISORDER
IFTHEACCUSEDISRELEASED
C WHETHERTHESAFETYOFTHEACCUSEDMIGHTBEJEOPARDISEDBYHISORHERRELEASE
D WHETHERTHESENSEOFPEACEANDSECURITYAMONGMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLICWILLBE
UNDERMINEDORJEOPARDISEDBYTHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSED
E WHETHERTHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSEDWILLUNDERMINEORJEOPARDISEPUBLICCON
FIDENCEINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMOR
F ANYOTHERFACTORWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURTSHOULDBETAKENINTOAC
COUNT3EE-ISELO 3!#2#
)N.EL 3!#2'* THEBAILCOURTSREFUSALOFBAILWASSETASIDE)NTHE
APPLICATIONOFTHECONSIDERATIONSIDENTIFIEDINS! THEMAGISTRATEHADFAILED
TOMAKETOMAKEAHOLISTICASSESSMENTOFALLTHEFACTS)NPARA;=ITWASSAIDTHAT
THEMAGISTRATEWASIMPROPERLYINFLUENCED@BYTHEEVENTSWHICHMANIFESTEDTHEM
SELVESINTHESOCIALMEDIA COMMENTSFROMTHE-INISTEROF0OLICEON4WITTER AND
PROTESTERSWHOHADGATHERED OPPOSINGTHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSEDONBAIL
7
KHLQWHUHVWVRIMXVWLFHDQGWKHSHUVRQDOIUHHGRPRIDQGSRVVLEOHSUHMXGLFHWR
DQDFFXVHG V
3ECTION PROVIDESTHATTHECOURTMUSTWEIGHTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEAGAINST
THERIGHTOFANACCUSEDTOHISORHERPERSONALFREEDOMANDINPARTICULARTHEPREJU
DICESUCHANACCUSEDWILLSUFFERIFBAILISREFUSED)NDOINGSO THECOURTISALSOIN
TERMSOFS REQUIREDTOTAKETHEFOLLOWINGFACTORSINTOACCOUNT

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
A THEPERIODFORWHICHTHEACCUSEDHASALREADYBEENINCUSTODYSINCEHISORHER
ARREST
B THEPROBABLEPERIODOFDETENTIONUNTILTHEDISPOSALORCONCLUSIONOFTHETRIAL
IFTHEACCUSEDISNOTRELEASEDONBAIL
C THE REASON FOR ANY DELAY IN THE DISPOSAL OR CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL AND ANY
FAULTONTHEPARTOFTHEACCUSEDWITHREGARDTOSUCHDELAY
D ANYFINANCIALLOSSWHICHTHEACCUSEDMAYSUFFEROWINGTOHISORHERDETEN
TION
E ANYIMPEDIMENTTOTHEPREPARATIONOFTHEACCUSEDSDEFENCEORANYDELAYIN
OBTAININGLEGALREPRESENTATIONWHICHMAYBEBROUGHTABOUTBYTHEDETENTION
OFTHEACCUSED
F THESTATEOFHEALTHOFTHEACCUSEDOR
G ANYOTHERFACTORWHICHINTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURTSHOULDBETAKENINTOAC
COUNT
!CCORDINGTO3TEYTLER#ONSTITUTIONAL#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE S @IMPLIES

APROPORTIONALITYTESTTHELIKELYHARMMUSTBEWEIGHEDAGAINSTTHEDEPRIVATIONOF
LIBERTY#ONTINUEDINCARCERATIONWOULDMANIFESTLYBEPREJUDICIALTOTHEACCUSED
BUTMUSTBEWEIGHEDAGAINSTOTHERFACTORSSUCHASTHELIKELIHOODOFTHEACCUSED
ABSCONDINGANDTHEEASEWITHWHICHSTRINGENTBAILCONDITIONSMIGHTBEEVADED
3EE4HORNHILL 3!#2# ATDnF
!BAILCOURTSFAILURETOCONSIDERTHEPROVISIONSOFS ISANIRREGULARITY.EL
ABOVE AT;=
)F THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO SHOW A LIKELIHOOD THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE
GROUNDSCONTEMPLATEDINS A TOE AREPRESENT THEPROVISIONSOFS WILL
RARELYBEOFASSISTANCETOTHEPROSECUTIONBECAUSETHELATTERSECTIONMENTIONSFAC
TORSFAVOURINGTHEACCUSED4SHABALALA 3!#2#
$
GGLWLRQDOIDFWRUVWREHFRQVLGHUHGLQDEDLODSSOLFDWLRQSHQGLQJDQDSSHDO
DJDLQVWFRQYLFWLRQRUVHQWHQFH
)N AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION OR SENTENCE THE
ABSENCEOFREASONABLEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSONAPPEALMAYJUSTIFYREFUSALOFBAIL
"EER 3!3% (OWEVER BAILOUGHTNOTTOBEREFUSEDLIGHTLYONTHE
SOLEGROUNDOFABSENCEOFPROSPECTSOFASUCCESSFULAPPEAL.DLOVU 3!#2
7 )THASBEENSUGGESTEDTHATWHERETHEREISNORISKOFANACCUSEDABSCOND
INGANDTHEAPPEALISAGAINSTSENTENCEONLY THETESTSHOULDMERELYBEWHETHER
@THEAPPEALAGAINSTSENTENCEISREASONABLYARGUABLEANDNOTMANIFESTLYDOOMED
TOFAILURE!NDERSON 3!#2# E4HEREISMERITINTHISSUGGESTED
LESSER TEST WHERE SENTENCE IS CONCERNED AS SUCCESS ON APPEAL CAN BE A HOLLOW
VICTORYIFTHEACCUSEDHASSTARTEDSERVINGAPRISONSENTENCEWHICHISEVENTUALLY
REDUCEDORWHOLLYSUSPENDEDONAPPEAL)N-AKAULA 3!#24K ITWAS
HELDTHATANAPPLICATIONFORBAILPENDINGANAPPEALAGAINSTSENTENCESHOULDGEN
ERALLYBEGRANTEDWHERETHEACCUSEDHASBEENSENTENCEDTOLESSTHANONEYEARS
IMPRISONMENT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
7KHDPRXQWRIEDLO
!NEXCESSIVESUMWHICHPRACTICALLYSPEAKINGAMOUNTSTOAREFUSALOFBAILSHOULD
NOTBEFIXED3HABAN 3!7 3EEALSO&HETANI 3!#2
3#! 4HEGUIDELINEISTOFIXBAILATANAMOUNTTHATCANNOTONLYBEPAIDBUTWILL
MAKEITMOREADVANTAGEOUSTOTHEACCUSEDTOSTANDHISORHERTRIALRATHERTHAN
FLEEANDFORFEITHISORHERMONEY$U0LESSIS 3!7 !CCORDINGLY
THEREMUSTBEACAREFULINVESTIGATIONOFTHEMEANSANDRESOURCESOFTHEACCUSED
ESPECIALLYINTHEABSENCEOFLEGALREPRESENTATION-OHAMED 3!!
)NDIVIDUALISATIONISIMPORTANT6ISSER 3!# 4HECOURTISENTITLED
TOFIXAHIGHAMOUNTOFBAILWHERETHEACCUSEDISCLEARLYAMANOFVASTFINANCIAL
RESOURCES3TANFIELD 3!#2# F
)F THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE PERMIT THE RELEASE OF AN
ACCUSEDONBAILASPROVIDEDFORINS ANDIFTHEPAYMENTOFASUMOFMONEY
ISTOBECONSIDEREDASACONDITIONOFBAIL THECOURTMUSTHOLDASEPARATEINQUIRY
INTOTHEABILITYOFTHEACCUSEDTOPAYTHESUMOFMONEYBEINGCONSIDEREDORANY
OTHERAPPROPRIATESUM3EES" A ASINSERTEDBYSOFTHE*UDICIAL-ATTERS
!MENDMENT!CTOF)FTHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDISUNABLETOPAY
ANYSUMOFMONEY THECOURTISREQUIREDTOCONSIDERSETTINGAPPROPRIATEBAILCON
DITIONS NOT INVOLVING THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY AND MUST AS AN ALTERNATIVE
CONSIDERRELEASEOFTHEACCUSEDINTERMSOFS B THATIS INTERMSOFAGUAR
ANTEEASDISCUSSEDINPARABELOW3EES" B I AND*ACOBS 3!#2
%#0 )FTHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDISABLETOPAYASUMOFMONEY THECOURT
MUSTCONSIDERSETTINGCONDITIONSFORTHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSEDONBAILANDASUM
OFMONEYWHICHISAPPROPRIATEINTHECIRCUMSTANCES3EES" B II 3ECTION
" MUSTBEREADWITHS B ANDC OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF AS
CITEDATTHEBEGINNINGOFTHEPRESENTCHAPTER3EEPARAABOVE
4HE #HILD *USTICE !CT OF ALSO DETERMINES THAT WHERE THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICEPERMITTHERELEASEOFACHILDONBAIL THECOURTMUSTHOLDANINQUIRYINTO
THEABILITYOFTHECHILD APARENT AGUARDIANOROTHERAPPROPRIATEADULTTOPAYBAIL
MONEY3EESOF!CTOFASWELLASPARABELOW
6RPHLUUHOHYDQWIDFWRUV
)NDECIDINGABAILAPPLICATION ACOURTSHOULDIGNOREANACCUSEDSTHREATTOCON
TINUEHISORHERHUNGERSTRIKEIFBAILISREFUSED6EENENDALV-INISTEROF*USTICE
3!#24 4HEFACTTHATANACCUSEDMAYRECEIVEINDEMNITYFROMPROSECU
TIONONTHEBASISOFANAGREEMENTBETWEENTHEGOVERNMENTANDPOLITICALBODIESIS
ALSOIRRELEVANTINDETERMININGBAIL,UKAS 3!#2%
"!),#/.$)4)/.3
$ISCRETIONARYSPECIALCONDITIONSASOPPOSEDTOESSENTIALCONDITIONS
4HECOURTMAYMAKETHERELEASEOFANACCUSEDONBAILSUBJECTTOCONDITIONSWHICH
INTHECOURTSOPINION AREINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICES 4HESECONDITIONS
MAYBEREFERREDTOASDISCRETIONARYSPECIALCONDITIONS
4HEDISTINCTIONBETWEENDISCRETIONARYSPECIALCONDITIONSOFBAILASPROVIDED
FORINTERMSOFS ANDTHEESSENTIALCONDITIONSOFBAILASDETERMINEDBYS

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
WAS NOTED IN PARA ABOVE 4HE COURT MUST ESTABLISH WHETHER ANY POSSIBLE
OBJECTIONTORELEASEONBAILCANSUITABLYBEMETBYSETTINGONEORMORESPECIAL
CONDITIONSWHICHCAN INCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEESSENTIALCONDITIONS GOVERNAN
ACCUSEDSRELEASEONBAIL)NTERMSOFSANYCOURTBEFOREWHICHACHARGEISPEND
INGINRESPECTOFWHICHBAILHASBEENGRANTEDMAYATANYSTAGE WHETHERTHEBAIL
WASGRANTEDBYTHATCOURTORANYOTHERCOURT ONAPPLICATIONBYTHEPROSECUTOR
ADDANYFURTHERCONDITIONOFBAIL
WITHREGARDTOTHEREPORTINGINPERSONBYTHEACCUSEDATANYSPECIFIEDTIME
ANDPLACETOANYSPECIFIEDPERSONORAUTHORITY
WITHREGARDTOANYPLACETOWHICHTHEACCUSEDISFORBIDDENTOGO
WITHREGARDTOTHEPROHIBITIONOFORCONTROLOVERCOMMUNICATIONBYTHEAC
CUSEDWITHWITNESSESFORTHEPROSECUTION
WITHREGARDTOTHEPLACEATWHICHANYDOCUMENTMAYBESERVEDONHIMORHER
UNDERTHE!CT
WHICH INTHEOPINIONOFTHECOURT WILLENSURETHATTHEPROPERADMINISTRA
TIONOFJUSTICEISNOTPLACEDINJEOPARDYBYTHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSED
ԙ0RACTICALEXAMPLESANDGENERALPRINCIPLES
0RACTICALEXAMPLESOFDISCRETIONARYSPECIALBAILCONDITIONSARETHATTHEACCUSED
MUSTREPORTTOASPECIFIEDPOLICESTATIONONCEORTWICEADAY ORMUSTHANDHISOR
HERPASSPORTOVERTOTHEPOLICE ORMAYNOTLEAVEASPECIFIEDMAGISTERIALDISTRICT
WITHOUTINFORMINGTHEPOLICEOFFICIALCHARGEDWITHTHEINVESTIGATIONOFTHECASE
'OODEXAMPLESOFSUCHCONDITIONSCANBEFOUNDIN2AMGOBIN 3!.
AT $E!BREU 3!7 ATAND0INEIRO 3!#2.M
AT)N-ATHONSI 3!#2'0 ONEOFTHEBAILCONDITIONSPROHIBITED
THEAPPELLANTFROMCONTACTING INTERFERINGWITHORINTIMIDATINGANYPROSECUTION
WITNESS BY MEANS OF @EMAIL 7HATSAPP 3-3 4WITTER &ACEBOOK OR ANY FORM OF
COMMUNICATIONAT;=
)N*ACOBS 3!#2%#0 ITWASSAIDTHATAPPROPRIATECONDITIONSCAN
BE AS EFFECTIVE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS PAYMENT OF MONEY 3EE ALSO
S" OFTHE!CT
)NTERMSOFSF ACOURTMAYALSOADDACONDITIONTHATTHEACCUSEDBEPLACED
UNDERTHESUPERVISIONOFAPROBATIONOFFICERORACORRECTIONALOFFICIAL
"AILCONDITIONSADDEDINTERMSOFSMUSTBEPRACTICALLYFEASIBLE&OURIE
3! / AT AND SHOULD BE NEITHER VAGUE NOR AMBIGUOUS "UDLENDER
3!# AT! NORULTRAVIRES2USSELL 3!# AT%
3UCHCONDITIONSMAYALSONOTBECONTRABONOSMORES!BAILCONDITIONPROHIBITING
AHUSBANDFROMCOMMUNICATINGWITHHISWIFEWHOHAPPENSTOBETHECOMPLAIN
ANTISNOTCONTRABONOSMORES$E*AGERV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL .ATAL 3!
$ )N,OUW 3!#24 THEPOSSIBLEISSUEWHETHERABAILCONDITION
PREVENTING AN APPLICANT FROM MARRYING A STATE WITNESS WOULD BE IMMORAL AND
UNCONSTITUTIONALAROSEBUTWASNOTDECIDED
)NTHEORDINARYCOURSEOFEVENTSACONDITIONWHICHPROHIBITSCOMMUNICATION
WITHA3TATEWITNESSSHOULDBETAKENTOINCLUDEAPOTENTIAL3TATEWITNESS$OCKRAT
3!$ AT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ԙ!MENDINGORSUPPLEMENTINGBAILCONDITIONS
!NY COURT BEFORE WHICH A CHARGE IS PENDING IN RESPECT OF WHICH BAIL HAS BEEN
GRANTEDMAY UPONTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHEPROSECUTORORTHEACCUSED INCREASEOR
REDUCETHEAMOUNTOFBAILDETERMINEDUNDERSSANDORAMENDORSUPPLE
MENTANYCONDITIONSIMPOSEDUNDERSORS WHETHERIMPOSEDBYTHATCOURT
ORBYANYOTHERCOURT7HERETHEAPPLICATIONISMADEBYTHEPROSECUTORANDTHE
ACCUSEDISNOTPRESENTWHENTHEAPPLICATIONISMADETHECOURTMAYISSUEAWARRANT
FORTHEARRESTOFTHEACCUSEDAND WHENTHEACCUSEDISPRESENTINCOURT DETERMINE
THEAPPLICATIONS
ԙ3ECTIONOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
3ECTION C I OF THE #HILD *USTICE !CT OF PROVIDES THAT IF AFTER AN
INQUIRYREFERREDTOINS B OFTHESAME!CT ITISFOUNDTHATACHILDANDHIS
ORHERPARENTORAPPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIAN AREUNABLETOPAYANYAMOUNTOF
MONEY THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTSETAPPROPRIATECONDITIONSTHATDONOTINCLUDE
ANAMOUNTOFMONEYFORTHERELEASEONBAILOFTHECHILDCONCERNED
0
!9-%.4/&"!),-/.%9
!PREREQUISITEFORRELEASEONBAILGRANTEDBYACOURTISTHATTHEACCUSEDMUSTDE
POSITTHESUMOFMONEYASDETERMINEDBYTHECOURT4HEDEPOSITMUSTBEMADE
WITHTHECLERKOFANYMAGISTRATESCOURTORWITHTHEREGISTRAROFANY(IGH#OURT
ASTHECASEMAYBE ORWITHAMEMBEROFTHECORRECTIONALSERVICESATTHEPRISON
WHERETHEACCUSEDISINCUSTODY ORWITHANYPOLICEOFFICIALATTHEPLACEWHERETHE
ACCUSEDISINCUSTODYS A )NTERMSOFS B THECOURTMAYORDERAN
ACCUSEDTOFURNISHAGUARANTEE WITHORWITHOUTSURETIES THATHEORSHEWILLUPON
BREACHOFTHERELEVANTBAILPAYANDFORFEITTOTHESTATETHESUMOFMONEYASDETER
MINEDORASINCREASEDORREDUCEDUNDERS
ԙ0AYMENTOFBAILBYTHIRDPERSON
! THIRD PERSON MAY PAY BAIL MONEY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ACCUSEDS
(OWEVER NOPERSONSHALLBEALLOWEDTODEPOSITFORTHEBENEFITOFANACCUSEDANY
BAILMONEYIFTHEOFFICIALCONCERNEDHASREASONTOBELIEVETHATSUCHPERSON ATANY
TIMEBEFOREORAFTERDEPOSITINGSUCHBAILMONEY HASBEENINDEMNIFIEDORWILLBE
INDEMNIFIEDBYANYPERSONINANYMANNERAGAINSTLOSSOFSUCHBAILMONEY ORTHAT
HEORSHEHASRECEIVEDORWILLRECEIVEANYFINANCIALBENEFITINCONNECTIONWITHTHE
DEPOSITOFSUCHBAILMONEYS
"AILMONEY WHETHERDEPOSITEDBYANACCUSEDORBYANYOTHERPERSONFORTHE
BENEFITOFTHEACCUSED MUST NOTWITHSTANDINGTHATSUCHBAILMONEYORANYPART
THEREOFMAYHAVEBEENCEDEDTOANYPERSON BEREFUNDEDONLYTOTHEACCUSEDOR
THEDEPOSITOR ASTHECASEMAYBES
,
EGALREPRESENTATIVENOTTOPAYBAILONBEHALFOFCLIENT
!DVOCATES ATTORNEYS AND CANDIDATE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS SHOULD NOT PAY BAIL FOR
THEIR CLIENTS 3EE PARA OF THE #ODE OF #ONDUCT FOR !LL ,EGAL 0RACTITIONERS

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
#ANDIDATE,EGAL0RACTITIONERSAND*URISTIC%NTITIES4HISCODECAMEINTOEFFECTON
-ARCHWHENITWASPUBLISHEDINTHE'OVERNMENT'AZETTE3EES OF
THE,EGAL0RACTICE!CTOFAND''OF-ARCHASREADWITH''
OFTHESAMEDATE0ARAGRAPHOFTHE#ODEISANETHICALRULEANDNOTA
LEGALONE3EE-OKOENA!'UIDETO"AIL!PPLICATIONSED ATÚ
#
!.#%,,!4)/./&"!),!.$&/2&%)452%/&"!),-/.%9
&
AILURETOOBSERVECONDITIONSOFBAIL
)FTHEPROSECUTORAPPLIESTOLEADEVIDENCETOPROVETHATTHEACCUSEDHASFAILEDTO
COMPLYWITHACONDITIONOFBAIL THECOURTBEFOREWHICHTHECHARGEISPENDING
MUST IFTHEACCUSEDISPRESENTANDDENIESTHATHEORSHEFAILEDTOCOMPLYWITH
THECONDITION ORDENIESTHATHISORHERFAILURETOCOMPLYWASDUETOFAULTONHIS
ORHERPART PROCEEDTOHEARSUCHEVIDENCEASTHEPROSECUTORANDTHEACCUSEDMAY
PLACEBEFOREITS )FTHEACCUSEDISNOTPRESENTWHENTHEPROSECUTORAPPLIES
TOTHECOURT THECOURTMAYISSUEAWARRANTFORTHEACCUSEDSARRESTINORDERTOHEAR
EVIDENCEINHISORHERPRESENCES 4HECOURTMAY IFITFINDSTHATTHEFAILURE
BYTHEACCUSEDWASDUETOFAULTONHISORHERPART CANCELTHEBAILANDDECLARETHE
BAILMONEYFORFEITEDTOTHESTATES
&
AILURETOAPPEARPROCEDUREANDCONSEQUENCES
)FANACCUSEDWHOISRELEASEDONBAILFAILS TOAPPEARATTHEPLACEANDONTHE
DATEANDATTHETIMEAPPOINTEDFORHISORHERTRIALORTOWHICHTHEPROCEEDINGS
WEREADJOURNED OR TOREMAININATTENDANCE THECOURTMUSTCANCELTHEBAIL
PROVISIONALLY DECLARETHEBAILMONEYPROVISIONALLYFORFEITEDTOTHESTATEANDISSUE
AWARRANTFORTHEARRESTOFTHEACCUSEDS 3ECTION B DOESNOTCOMPELA
COURTTOORDERTHEIMMEDIATEEXECUTIONOFTHEWARRANT3ULANIV-ASHIYI
3!#2%#0 AT;=4HEPRACTICEISTOSTAYTHEEXECUTIONOFTHEWARRANTAND
TOREMANDFINALISATIONOFTHEMATTERTOASPECIFIEDDATEONWHICHFURTHERINFORMA
TIONREGARDINGTHEACCUSEDSFAILURETOATTEND ORTOREMAININATTENDANCE MIGHT
BEAVAILABLE$U4OIT 3EEFURTHER-OKOENA!'UIDETO"AIL!PPLICATIONSED
ATÚ
)FTHEACCUSEDDOESNOTAPPEARWITHINDAYSOFTHEISSUEOFTHEWARRANTFOR
HISORHERARRESTORWITHINSUCHEXTENDEDPERIODASTHECOURTMAYONGOODCAUSE
DETERMINE ORIFTHEACCUSEDDOESAPPEARBUTFAILSTOSATISFYTHECOURTTHATHISOR
HERFAILURETOAPPEARORTOREMAININATTENDANCEWASNOTDUETOFAULTONHISORHER
PART THEPROVISIONALCANCELLATIONOFTHEBAILANDPROVISIONALFORFEITUREOFTHEBAIL
MONEYBECOMEFINAL(OWEVER IFTHEACCUSEDSATISFIESTHECOURTTHATHISORHER
FAILUREWASNOTDUETOFAULTONHISORHERPART THEPROVISIONALCANCELLATIONAND
FORFEITURELAPSES 3IBUYA 3!4 $YANTYI 3!!
4HEREISNOBURDENOFPROOFONTHEACCUSEDHEORSHEMERELYHASTOSHOWTHAT
THEREISAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYTHATHISORHERFAILUREWASNOTDUETOHISORHER
FAULT$U4OITETAL
! WITHDRAWAL OF BAIL AND FORFEITURE OF BAIL MONEY IN TERMS OF S DO NOT
PRECLUDE A NEW APPLICATION FOR BAIL IN TERMS OF S 4HE FACT THAT THE BAIL WAS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
WITHDRAWNWILL HOWEVER BEARELEVANTFACTWHICHMAYBETAKENINTOACCOUNTIN

THECONSIDERATIONOFTHENEWAPPLICATIONFORBAIL.KOSI 3!4
#ANCELLATIONOFBAILWHEREACCUSEDABOUTTOABSCOND
#ANCELLATION OF BAIL MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S OF THE !CT AND
WITHDUEREGARDTOCOMMON LAWANDCONSTITUTIONALREQUIREMENTSGOVERNINGAFAIR
HEARING-ATITWANE 3!#2.7- )NTHISCASETHECOURTSFAILURETO
GIVETHEACCUSEDANOPPORTUNITYTORESPONDTOTHEINTENDEDCANCELLATIONOFBAIL
WASFOUNDANIRREGULARITY4HEORDERCANCELLINGBAILWASSETASIDE
!NYCOURTBEFOREWHICHACHARGEISPENDINGINRESPECTOFWHICHTHEACCUSEDHAS
BEENRELEASEDONBAILMAY UPONINFORMATIONONOATHTHATTHEACCUSEDISABOUTTO
EVADEJUSTICEORISABOUTTOABSCONDINORDERTOEVADEJUSTICE ORTHATTHEACCUSED
INTERFERESORTHREATENSORATTEMPTSTOINTERFEREWITHWITNESSES ORTHATTHEACCUSED
DEFEATSTHEENDSOFJUSTICEORPOSESATHREATTOTHESAFETYOFTHEPUBLICORAPARTICU
LARPERSON ORTHATITISINTHEPUBLICINTERESTTODOSO ISSUEAWARRANTFORTHEARREST
OFTHEACCUSEDANDMAKESUCHORDERASITMAYSEEMPROPER INCLUDINGANORDER
THATTHEBAILBECANCELLEDANDTHATTHEACCUSEDBECOMMITTEDTOPRISONUNTILTHE
CONCLUSIONOFTHERELEVANTCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSS A TOD !NACCUSEDS
BAILMAYBECANCELLEDIFHEORSHE AFTERBAILHADBEENGRANTED INDULGEDINFURTHER
CRIMINALCONDUCT+YRIACOU 3!#2/ )NTERMSOFS E TOG A
SIMILARPROCEDUREMAYBEFOLLOWEDWHERETHEACCUSEDHASNOTDISCLOSEDORHASNOT
CORRECTLYDISCLOSEDALLHISORHERPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSINTHEBAILPROCEEDINGSOR
WHEREHISORHERTRUELISTOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSHASCOMETOLIGHTAFTERHISORHER
RELEASEONBAILORWHEREFURTHEREVIDENCEHASSINCEBECOMEAVAILABLEORFACTORS
HAVEARISEN INCLUDINGTHEFACTTHATTHEACCUSEDFURNISHEDFALSEINFORMATIONIN
THEBAILPROCEEDINGS WHICHMIGHTHAVEAFFECTEDTHEDECISIONTOGRANTBAILORITIS
INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETODOSO
3UCHAWARRANTMAYALSOBEISSUEDBYANYMAGISTRATEUPONTHEAPPLICATIONOFA
PEACEOFFICER WHEREITISNOTPRACTICABLETOAPPROACHTHERELEVANTCOURT3EES
4HECOMMITTALTOPRISONINTHISINSTANCEREMAINSINFORCEUNTILTHECONCLUSION
OFTHETRIALUNLESSTHECOURTBEFOREWHICHPROCEEDINGSAREPENDINGREINSTATESTHE
BAILATANEARLIERSTAGES 4HEDECISIONOFAMAGISTRATEUNDERSISSUBJECT
TOAPPEAL-C)NNES7,$#ASKER 3!. 4HISISSOBECAUSE
THECANCELLATIONOFBAILAMOUNTSTOREFUSALOFBAIL3EEGENERALLY0ORRITT
3!#2'* AT;=
#ANCELLATIONOFBAILATREQUESTOFACCUSED
!NYCOURTBEFOREWHICHACHARGEISPENDINGINRESPECTOFWHICHTHEACCUSEDHAS
BEENRELEASEDONBAILMAY UPONAPPLICATIONBYTHEACCUSED CANCELTHEBAILAND
REFUNDTHEBAILMONEYIFTHEACCUSEDISINCUSTODYONANYOTHERCHARGEORISSERV
INGASENTENCES!
&ORFEITUREANDREMISSION
&ORFEITUREHASTHESAMEEFFECTASACIVILJUDGMENTUPONTHEACCUSEDANDCANBE
EXECUTEDINTHEORDINARYWAY)TSHOULDBENOTED HOWEVER THATSUCHFORFEITUREIS

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
NOTALWAYSORDERED FOREXAMPLEWHENSUCHANORDERWOULDSUBJECTTHESURETIESTO
UNDESERVEDORUNDUEHARDSHIP
!PARTFROMTHECOURTCONCERNED THE-INISTEROF*USTICEORANYOFFICERACTING
UNDER HIS OR HER AUTHORITY MAY REMIT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF BAIL MONEYS
)N,UZIL 3!#27## AT;=ITWASSAIDTHATTHE@FINALLOSSOF
BAILMONEYREQUIRESAPROCESSTHATISSUBSTANTIVELYANDPROCEDURALLYFAIRTOTHE
ACCUSEDANDTHEDEPOSITORANDTHESTATE)NTHEEVENTOFSUICIDEBAILMONEYSHOULD
BE RETURNED TO THE ACCUSEDS ESTATE OR THE DEPOSITOR%NGELBRECHT 3!#2
'3*
#
RIMINALLIABILITYONTHEGROUNDOFFAILURETOAPPEARORTOCOMPLYWITH
ACONDITIONOFBAIL
!NYPERSONWHOHASBEENRELEASEDONBAILANDWHOFAILSWITHOUTGOODCAUSETO
APPEARONTHEDATEANDATTHEPLACEDETERMINEDFORHISORHERAPPEARANCE ORTO
REMAININATTENDANCEUNTILTHEPROCEEDINGSINWHICHHEORSHEMUSTAPPEARHAVE
BEENDISPOSEDOF ORWHOFAILSWITHOUTGOODCAUSETOCOMPLYWITHACONDITIONOF
BAILIMPOSEDBYTHECOURTINTERMSOFSORS INCLUDINGANAMENDMENTOR
SUPPLEMENTATIONTHEREOFINTERMSOFS SHALLBEGUILTYOFANOFFENCEANDSHALL
ONCONVICTIONBELIABLETOAFINEORTOIMPRISONMENTNOTEXCEEDINGONEYEAR
S!&ORPURPOSESOFS!ACHARGESHEETMUSTBEDRAWNUPANDAPROPERTRIAL
HELD-ABUZA 3!#24 ,UZIL 3!#27## AT;=
0
2/#%$52!,!.$%6)$%.4)!2925,%32%,!4).'4/"!),
!00,)#!4)/.3
4HEPRO ACTIVEINQUISITORIAL ROLEOFTHECOURT
!COURTHEARINGABAILAPPLICATIONSHOULDNOTACTASA@PASSIVEUMPIRE3EEPARA
;= OF THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT DECISION IN $LAMINI ETC AS CITED IN PARA
ABOVE 3EEALSO-ATHONSI 3!#2'0 AT;=
)FTHEQUESTIONOFTHEPOSSIBLERELEASEOFANACCUSEDONBAILISNOTRAISEDBYTHE
ACCUSEDORTHEPROSECUTOR THECOURTSHOULDMEROMOTUASCERTAINFROMTHEACCUSED
WHETHERHEORSHEWISHESBAILTOBECONSIDEREDBYTHECOURTS C 3EEALSO
GENERALLY.GWENYA 3!#24 -OKOENA!'UIDETO"AIL!PPLICATIONS
ED AT
!PARTFROMPOSTPONINGBAILPROCEEDINGSASPROVIDEDFORINS ANDEXPLAINED
INPARAABOVE THECOURTMAYINRESPECTOFMATTERSWHICHARENOTINDISPUTE
BETWEENTHEACCUSEDANDTHEPROSECUTIONACQUIREINANINFORMALMANNERTHE
INFORMATIONTHATISNEEDEDFORITSDECISIONORORDERREGARDINGBAILS A AND
B )FMATTERSAREINDISPUTE THECOURTMAYREQUIRETHEPROSECUTORORTHEACCUSED
ASTHECASEMAYBE TOADDUCEEVIDENCES C 4HECOURT ITSEEMS HASTHE
POWERTODECIDEWHOSHOULDLEADEVIDENCEFIRST
7HERETHEPROSECUTORDOESNOTOPPOSEBAILINRESPECTOFMATTERSREFERREDTOIN
S A ANDB THECOURTMUSTREQUIREOFTHEPROSECUTORTOPLACEONRECORDTHE
REASONSFORNOTOPPOSINGTHEBAILAPPLICATIONS D 4HISISANOTHERINQUISI
TORIALFEATUREOFBAILPROCEEDINGS4HEPROVISIONSOFS AREDISCUSSEDINPARAS
ANDBELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)NBAILPROCEEDINGSTHECOURTSHOULDNOTPLAYAPASSIVEROLEINTHEPRESENTATION
OFEVIDENCE4HISMUCHISCLEARFROMS WHICHPROVIDESTHATIFTHECOURTISOF
THEOPINIONTHATITDOESNOTHAVERELIABLEORSUFFICIENTINFORMATIONOREVIDENCEAT
ITSDISPOSALORTHATITLACKSCERTAINIMPORTANTINFORMATIONTOREACHADECISIONON
THEBAILAPPLICATION THEPRESIDINGOFFICERSHALLORDERTHATSUCHINFORMATIONOREVI
DENCEBEPLACEDBEFORETHECOURTS 4HETRADITIONALADVERSARIALRIGHTOFTHE
PARTIESTOBESELECTIVEINTHEIRPRESENTATIONOFFACTSINSUPPORTOFTHEIRRESPECTIVE
CASESHASBEENCURTAILEDBYS !FURTHERACTIVEROLEISGIVENTOTHECOURTBY
S 4HISSECTIONPROVIDESTHATTHECOURT@xHASTHEDUTYxTOWEIGHUPTHE
PERSONALINTERESTSOFTHEACCUSEDAGAINSTTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICExDESPITETHEFACT
THATTHEPROSECUTIONDOESNOTOPPOSETHEGRANTINGOFBAIL3EEFURTHER0ROKUREUR
GENERAAL 6RYSTAATV2AMOKHOZI 3!#2/
(OWEVER THEFACTTHATTHECOURTISREQUIREDTOPLAYANINQUISITORIALROLEINABAIL
APPLICATIONDOESNOTENTITLEITTORESORTTOUNFAIRANDEXCESSIVELYROBUSTQUESTION
INGOFWITNESSES INCLUDINGABAILAPPLICANTWHOELECTEDTOTESTIFYORALLYINSUPPORT
OFHISORHERAPPLICATION3EE'ADE;=!LL3!.#
!PPLICATIONOFAFREESYSTEMOFEVIDENCE
4HE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE RELAXED FOR PURPOSES OF A BAIL APPLICATION
(EARSAYMAYBERECEIVEDMOREREADILYTHANATATRIAL-AHARAJ 3!
$ (OWEVER ACAREFULASSESSMENTOFSUCHEVIDENCEISNECESSARY)N-AQUNGUV
!SSISTANT-AGISTRATE 7HITTLESEA 3!% THECOURTREFUSEDTORELYONA
YOUNG CONSTABLES EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ACCUSED
WEREPLANNINGTOFLEE4HESOURCEOFTHECONSTABLESINFORMATIONWASANINFORMER
WHOMHEHADLAWFULLYDECLINEDTOIDENTIFYINTERMSOFTHEINFORMERSPRIVILEGE
AS EXPLAINED IN PARA IN #HAPTER 4HERE ARE OBVIOUS RISKS IN RELYING UPON
HEARSAYOFTHISNATURE
%XPARTESTATEMENTSORALSTATEMENTSMADEBYTHEDEFENCEANDPROSECUTIONFROM
THE BAR MAY BE RECEIVED AS @IT IS DESIRABLE THAT x ;BAIL= x APPLICATIONS SHOULD
BE DEALT WITH EXPEDITIOUSLYTO PREPARE AFFIDAVITS OR FIND WITNESSES MAY CAUSE
DELAYx;AND=x;T=HEABSENCEOFLEGALREPRESENTATIONMAYALSO TIPTHEBALANCE
INFAVOUROFINFORMALITY.ICHAS 3!# AT!n"(OWEVER THIS
EASY GOINGPROCEDUREHASDISADVANTAGES6ERYLITTLEOFSUBSTANCEISONRECORDIN
THE EVENT OF AN APPEAL AND EX PARTE STATEMENTS ALSO CARRY LESS WEIGHT THAN ORAL
EVIDENCE/RALEVIDENCEONOATHISPREFERABLE.ICHASABOVE AT&n' BECAUSE
THEWITNESSCONCERNEDCANTHENBECROSS EXAMINED4HISADVANTAGE INHERENTIN
ORALEVIDENCE DOESNOTMEANTHATACOURTMAYDISALLOWAFFIDAVITS0IENAAR
3!#27 3EEALSO*ACOBSV3;=!LL3!4 AT;=)N-OEKAZIV
!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE 7ELKOM 3!#2/ ITWASHELDTHATBAILAPPLICA
TIONSCANBEBROUGHTONAFFIDAVITSANDTHATTHE3TATESHOULDITWISHTOOPPOSE
THEAPPLICATIONCANFILEANSWERINGAFFIDAVITSANDADDUCEORALEVIDENCE4HEPRO
BATIVEVALUEOFAFFIDAVITSISLESSTHANTHATOFORALEVIDENCE EVENTHOUGHAFFIDAVITS
DOCARRYMOREWEIGHTTHANASTATEMENTFROMTHEBAR0IENAARABOVE AT(n)
4HE COURT MAY DEPENDING UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE RELY ON THE
OPINIONOFTHEINVESTIGATINGPOLICEOFFICIAL FOREXAMPLE THELATTERSOPINIONTHAT
THE ACCUSED WILL INTERFERE WITH 3TATE WITNESSES(LONGWA 3! $
)N,UKAS 3!#2% ATBnCITWAS HOWEVER WARNEDTHATA@COURT

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
SHOULDxBEASTUTENOTTOSIMPLYACCEPTTHEIPSEDIXITOFTHEINVESTIGATINGOFFICER
OR OTHER POLICEMEN WHO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND SHOULD CONSIDER THE
POSSIBILITYTHATSUCHWITNESSESMAYHAVEANIMPROPERMOTIVEINOPPOSINGBAIL
4HEPERSONALOPINIONOFADIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSASOPPOSEDTOTHAT
OF ANY OF HIS OR HER PROSECUTORS IS A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF A $00S
EXPERIENCEANDTHERESPONSIBILITIESOFA$00SOFFICE+ANTOR 3!7
.ONETHELESS HISORHEROPINIONCANNOTBESUBSTITUTEDFORTHECOURTSDISCRETION
"ENNETT 3!# AT(n!!$00SOPINION MOREOVER BECOMES
IRRELEVANTONCETHECOURTISINASGOODAPOSITIONASTHE$00CONCERNEDTOASSESS
THE LIKELIHOOD OR OTHERWISE OF AN ACCUSED ABSCONDING,ULANE 3!
. AT&n'
$UECONSIDERATIONSHOULDBEGIVENTOANACCUSEDSTESTIMONYTHATHEORSHEHAS
NOINTENTIONOFABSCONDING(UDSON 3!$ AT%3TILL GREATRELI
ANCECANNOTBEPLACEDONANACCUSEDSMEREIPSEDIXITTOTHEEFFECTTHATHEORSHE
WILLNOTABSCOND SINCEANACCUSEDWHOHASSUCHANINTENTIONISHARDLYLIKELYTO
ADMITIT(UDSONABOVE AT%n&
0ROOFOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS
0REVIOUSCONVICTIONSMAYBEPROVEDBYTHESTATEINTHECOURSEOFABAILAPPLICA
TION0ATEL 3!7 AT"n#(O 3!7 !TTORNEY 'ENERAL
:IMBABWEV0HIRI 3!:(#
4HE ACCUSED OR HIS OR HER LEGAL ADVISER IS ALSO COMPELLED TO INFORM THE COURT
WHETHERTHEACCUSEDHASPREVIOUSLYBEENCONVICTEDOFANOFFENCES" A I
!NYCHARGESPENDINGAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDMUSTALSOBEDISCLOSEDBYTHEACCUSEDOR
HISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVE ANDTHEREISALSOADUTYTOINFORMTHECOURTWHETHER
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN RELEASED ON BAIL PENDING THOSE CHARGESS " A II
7HERE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WHETHER IN
WRITINGORORALLY THEACCUSEDSHALLBEREQUIREDBYTHECOURTTODECLAREWHETHERHE
ORSHECONFIRMSSUCHINFORMATIONORNOTS" B !NACCUSEDWHOWILFULLY
FAILSORREFUSESTOCOMPLYWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFS" A COMMITSANOFFENCE
ANDISLIABLEONCONVICTIONTOAFINEORTOIMPRISONMENTFORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDING
TWOYEARSS" D I 4HESAMEAPPLIESTOANACCUSEDWHOWILFULLYFURNISHES
FALSEINFORMATIONS" D II )TISSUBMITTEDTHATTHEOFFENCESREFERREDTOIN
S" D MAYNOTBETRIEDSUMMARILY
4HEFACTTHATANACCUSEDISONPAROLEORKNOWINGLYSUPPLIEDFALSEINFORMATION
AT THE BAIL PROCEEDINGS MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING THE ISSUE OF
RELEASEONBAILS B ANDS C READWITHS A 3EEALSOPARA
ABOVE
4
HESUBSEQUENTTRIALANDTHEADMISSIBILITYOFTHERECORDOFTHEBAIL
PROCEEDINGS
4HERECORDOFTHEBAILPROCEEDINGSEXCLUDINGTHEINFORMATIONRELATINGTOPRE
VIOUS CONVICTIONS PENDING CHARGES AND RELEASE ON BAIL IN RESPECT OF PENDING
CHARGESFORMSPARTOFTHERECORDOFTHETRIALOFTHEACCUSEDFOLLOWINGUPONSUCH
BAILPROCEEDINGSS" C ASREADWITHS" A 4HISMEANSTHATTHETRIAL
COURT WILL AS A RULE HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE EVIDENCE LED AT THE BAIL APPLICATION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
(OWEVER S" C CONTAINS A PROVISO TO THE EFFECT THAT IF THE ACCUSED ELECTS
TOTESTIFYDURINGTHEBAILPROCEEDINGS THECOURTMUSTINFORMSUCHACCUSEDTHAT
ANYTHINGHEORSHESAYSMAYBEUSEDAGAINSTHIMORHERATHISORHERSUBSEQUENT
TRIAL ANDSUCHEVIDENCEBECOMESADMISSIBLEINANYSUBSEQUENTPROCEEDINGS4HE
RESULTISTHATBEFORES" C CANBEINVOKEDTOPROVETHEORALTESTIMONYGIVEN
BYANACCUSEDINTHECOURSEOFHISORHERBAILAPPLICATION ITMUSTBECLEARTHATTHE
ACCUSEDWASPROPERLYINFORMEDATTHEBAILAPPLICATIONOFHISORHERCONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO SILENCE AND PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION#LOETE 3!#2
# 4HECOURTMUSTINFORMTHEBAILAPPLICANT3EJAPHALE 3!#2
4 AND.ZIMA 3!#2# 4HEJUDICIALWARNINGMUSTBEGIVENEVEN
WHERETHEBAILAPPLICANTHASALEGALREPRESENTATIVEANDEVENIFTHEBAILAPPLICANT
SUBMITSANAFFIDAVITASOPPOSEDTOTESTIFYINGORALLY !GLIOTTI 3!#2
'3* AT;=AND;=4HEPROVISOPROTECTSTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
3NYMAN "#,2# )SSUESCONCERNINGRECUSALSEEPARAOF#HAPTER
MAYASARESULTOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS" C ARISEWHEREABAILAPPLICATIONIS
MADEDURINGTHECOURSEOFATRIALTOTHEOFFICERPRESIDINGATTHETRIAL3EEGENERALLY
4HUSI "#,2. AND.HLATI "#,2. 7HEREAFORMAL
BAILHEARINGWASHELD THEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERWOULDORDINARILYBEDISQUALI
FIEDFROMPRESIDINGATTHESUBSEQUENTTRIALTHEREASONABLEAPPREHENSIONOFBIAS
ANOBJECTIVETEST WOULDREQUIRERECUSAL3EE3V"OOYSEN 3!#2%#'
WHERERELIANCEWASPLACEDON"RUINDERS 3!#27## AND.KUNA
3!#2'.0
)NPARA;=OFTHEDECISIONIN$LAMINIETCABOVE THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
MADEITCLEARTHATEVENTHOUGHS" C ISCONSTITUTIONAL THERECORDOFBAILPRO
CEEDINGS@ISNEITHERAUTOMATICALLYEXCLUDEDFROMNORINCLUDEDINTHEEVIDENTIARY
MATERIALATTRIAL7HETHERORNOTITISTOBEEXCLUDEDISGOVERNEDBYTHEPRINCIPLES
OFAFAIRTRIAL)TISSUBMITTEDTHATTHISAPPROACHLEAVESAMPLEROOMFORTHETRIAL
COURTTOEXCLUDEORIGNOREEVIDENCECONTAINEDINTHERECORDOFBAILPROCEEDINGS
WHICHINTERMSOFTHENORMALRULESOFEVIDENCESHOULDBEEXCLUDED SUCHAS
HEARSAY CHARACTERANDOPINIONEVIDENCE4HETRIALCOURTISCONCERNEDWITHGUILT
ORINNOCENCE4HEBAILPROCEEDINGSCONCERNTHEISSUEOFLIBERTYPENDINGTHEOUT
COMEOFTHETRIAL%VIDENCERECEIVEDINTERMSOFTHEFREESYSTEMOFEVIDENCEWHICH
APPLIESINBAILPROCEEDINGSSEEPARAABOVE ANDWHICHBECOMESPARTOFTHE
TRIAL RECORD ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISIONS OF S " C WOULD BE IGNORED BY
THETRIALCOURTIFTHEADMISSIONOFSUCHEVIDENCEWOULDBEINCONFLICTWITHTHE
ORDINARYRULESOFEVIDENCEWHICHGOVERNCRIMINALTRIALS5LTIMATELY THERIGHTTO
AFAIRTRIALMUSTBEUPHELD3EE4HUSI "#,2. )N3V"OOYSEN
3!#2%#' AT;=ITWASEXPLAINEDTHAT@ALTHOUGHPROVISIONISMADETHAT
THEBAILRECORDFORMSPARTOFTHETRIALRECORD THISDOESNOTMEANTHATEVIDENCE
WHICH IS OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL BUT WHICH MAY BE ADMISSIBLE DURING A
BAILHEARINGISTHEREBYRENDEREDADMISSIBLE3UCHEVIDENCEISTOBEEXCLUDEDAT
TRIALINACCORDANCEWITHTHEPRINCIPLESOFAFAIRTRIAL
4
HERELATIONSHIPBETWEENS" C ANDS
"AILPROCEEDINGSMAYALSOBEPROVEDBYRELYINGONS"UTHERE TOO INADMIS
SIBLEEVIDENCECONTAINEDINTHEBAILRECORDSHOULDBEEXCLUDED.OMZAZA

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
3!#2! #HAVULLA 3!#2# -ACHABA 3!#23#!

AT;=
!CCESSTOINFORMATIONHELDBYTHEPROSECUTION
3ECTION PROVIDESASFOLLOWS
.OTWITHSTANDINGANYTHINGTOTHECONTRARYCONTAINEDINANYLAW NOACCUSEDSHALL FOR
THEPURPOSEOFBAILPROCEEDINGS HAVEACCESSTOANYINFORMATION RECORDORDOCUMENT
RELATING TO THE OFFENCE IN QUESTION WHICH IS CONTAINED IN OR FORMS PART OF A POLICE
DOCKET INCLUDINGANYINFORMATION RECORDORDOCUMENTWHICHISHELDBYANYPOLICEOFFI
CIALCHARGEDWITHTHEINVESTIGATIONINQUESTION UNLESSTHEPROSECUTOROTHERWISEDIRECTS
0ROVIDEDTHATTHISSUBSECTIONSHALLNOTBECONSTRUEDASDENYINGANACCUSEDACCESSTO
ANYINFORMATION RECORDORDOCUMENTTOWHICHHEORSHEMAYBEENTITLEDFORPURPOSES
OFHISORHERTRIAL
4HISSECTIONWASHELDCONSTITUTIONALBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTIN$LAMINIETC
ASREFERREDTOINPARA ABOVE)NPARA;=ITWASPOINTEDOUTTHAT3HABALALA
3!#2## ISNOAUTHORITYFORTHEPROPOSITIONTHATBAILAPPLICANTS
ORTHEIRLEGALREPRESENTATIVES AREENTITLEDTOACCESSTOTHEPOLICEDOCKET3HABALALA
WASCONCERNEDWITHACCESSFORPURPOSESOFTHETRIALANDTHEFAIRNESSOFTHETRIAL
(OWEVER CIRCUMSTANCESMAYBEOFSUCHANATURETHATACOURTISONTHEBASISOF
SS AND DUTYBOUNDTOORDERTHESTATETOGRANTTHEBAILAPPLICANTACCESS
TO SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN THE POLICE DOCKET )N 'REEN 3!#2
3#! ITWASFOUNDASFOLLOWSAT;=
)TISCLEARFROMS THATTHECOURTSFUNCTIONINABAILAPPLICATIONISINTENDEDTOBE
MOREPROACTIVETHANINNORMALCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS!SITWASPUTINTHE$LAMINIDECI
SION AT PARA ;= @A BAIL HEARING IS A UNIQUE JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND @THE INQUISITORIAL
POWERS OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER ARE GREATER /N A PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE ON
WHICHTHE3TATERELIED ANYREASONABLECOURTMUSTHAVECONCLUDEDTHATITLACKEDRELIABLE
ANDIMPORTANTINFORMATIONNECESSARYTOREACHADECISION NOTWITHSTANDINGTHATSUCH
INFORMATIONWASAPPARENTLYREADILYAVAILABLE)NSUCHCIRCUMSTANCESTHECOURTHASNO
DISCRETIONBUTTOINVOKES )NMYVIEW THEMAGISTRATESHOULD INSTEADOFREFUSING
BAILWITHOUTMORE HAVEORDEREDTHE3TATETOGRANTTHEDEFENCEACCESSTOTHEVIDEOTAPES
ANDANYSTATEMENTSMADEBYTHEPOLICEFINGERPRINTEXPERTS LINKINGTHEFINGERPRINTSOF
EITHEROFTHEAPPELLANTSWITHTHECRIME WITHTHEDECISIONONWHETHERORNOTTOGRANT
BAILTOBEMADETHEREAFTER
)N *OSEPHS 3!#2 # AT CnD IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH
S VESTSADISCRETIONINTHEPROSECUTORTODISCLOSEINFORMATIONORMATERIAL
INTHEDOCKET ITISNOTANUNFETTEREDDISCRETION3ECTION CANNOTBEUSED
TODEPRIVEABAILAPPLICANTOFTHEREASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTOADDUCEEVIDENCEOR
MAKEAPPROPRIATESUBMISSIONSINSUPPORTOFHISORHERAPPLICATION3EEALSO6AN
DER-ERWE3TELL,2!BAILAPPLICANTISENTITLEDTOACOPYOFHISORHEROWN
STATEMENTMADETOTHEPOLICE3EE6ANDER-ERWE3!#*
4HEBURDENANDSTANDARDOFPROOFINBAILAPPLICATIONS
4HESTANDARDOFPROOFREQUIREDFROMANACCUSEDWHEREHEORSHEBEARSTHEBURDEN
OFPROOFASPROVIDEDFORINS A ANDB ISTHECIVILSTANDARD NAMELYPROOF
ONABALANCEOFPROBABILITIES"OTHTHESEPROVISIONSAREDEALTWITHMOREFULLYIN
PARASANDBELOW!NACCUSEDWHOCARRIESTHEBURDENOFPROOFSHOULD AS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
AGENERALRULE ALSOBEREQUIREDTOLEADEVIDENCEFIRSTINSUPPORTOFHISORHERBAIL
APPLICATION.WABUNWANNE 3!#2.#+ AT;=
)NALLCASESFALLINGOUTSIDETHEAMBITOFS A ANDB THEBURDENOFPROOF
ISONTHEPROSECUTION3EEFURTHER4SHABALALA 3!#2# 4HESTANDARD
OFPROOFISPROOFONABALANCEOFPROBABILITY0ROOFBEYONDAREASONABLEDOUBTIS
NOTNECESSARYBECAUSEGUILTORINNOCENCEINRESPECTOFTHECHARGEISNOTTHEISSUE
4
HEPROVISIONSOFS A ANDB
3ECTION PROVIDESASFOLLOWS
.OTWITHSTANDINGANYPROVISIONOFTHIS!CT WHEREANACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCE
REFERREDTO
A IN3CHEDULE THECOURTSHALLORDERTHATTHEACCUSEDBEDETAINEDINCUSTODYUNTIL
HEORSHEISDEALTWITHINACCORDANCEWITHTHELAW UNLESSTHEACCUSED HAVINGBEEN
GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO ADDUCES EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIES THE
COURTTHATEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESEXISTWHICHINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMIT
HISORHERRELEASE
B IN 3CHEDULE BUT NOT IN 3CHEDULE THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ACCUSED BE
DETAINED IN CUSTODY UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
UNLESSTHEACCUSED HAVINGBEENGIVENAREASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTODOSO ADDUCES
EVIDENCEWHICHSATISFIESTHECOURTTHATTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMITHISORHER
RELEASE
)N-AZIBUKO 3!#2+:0 AT;=THECOURTOBSERVEDASFOLLOWSASRE
GARDSTHEINTERACTIONBETWEENS A ANDB
&ORTHECIRCUMSTANCETOQUALIFYASSUFFICIENTLYEXCEPTIONALTOJUSTIFYTHEACCUSEDSRE
LEASEONBAIL;INTHECASEOFA3CHEDULEOFFENCE DEALTWITHINSUB S A =ITMUSTBE
ONE WHICH WEIGHS EXCEPTIONALLY HEAVILY IN FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED THEREBY RENDERING
THE CASE FOR RELEASE ON BAIL EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG OR COMPELLING 4HE CASE TO BE MADE
OUTMUSTBESTRONGERTHANTHATREQUIREDBYSUB S B BUT PRECISELYHOWSTRONG ITIS
IMPOSSIBLETOSAY-OREPRECISETHANTHATONECANNOTBE!PPLYINGTHISAPPROACH THE
PROCESSOFDECIDINGABAILAPPLICATIONWOULDBETHESAMEASINACASEGOVERNEDBYSUB S
B SAVETHATTHEADDITIONALREQUIREMENTOFEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESMUSTBESATIS
FIED4HISMEANSTHATIFANACCUSEDDOESNOTSATISFYTHESUB S B TEST ITISNOTEVEN
NECESSARYTOCONSIDERWHETHERTHEADDITIONALREQUIREMENTIMPOSEDBYSUB S A HAS
BEENMET
3ECTION A ISCONSTITUTIONALEVENTHOUGHITPLACESAFORMALONUSBURDEN
OFPROOF ONTHEACCUSEDTOADDUCEEVIDENCEWHICHSATISFIESTHECOURTTHATEXCEP
TIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES SEE PARA BELOW EXIST WHICH IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
PERMIT RELEASE$LAMINI ETC AS REFERRED TO IN PARA ABOVE )N PARA ;= OF
THISCASE THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTALSOHELDTHATTHEREQUIREMENTOF@EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES LIMITS THE RIGHT IN S F OF THE #ONSTITUTION BUT THAT IT IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLYPERMISSIBLELIMITATIONINTERMSOFTHELIMITATIONPROVISIONSCON
TAINEDINSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
)N$LAMINIETCTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTWASNOTREQUIREDTODETERMINETHECON
STITUTIONALITYOFS B (OWEVER THEREMARKSMADEBYTHECOURTINPARA;=
OFITSJUDGMENTAREINSTRUCTIVEANDEMPHASISETHEDIFFERENCESBETWEENS A
ANDB )NPARA;=ITWASSAIDTHATTHELATTERSECTION
STIPULATES THAT AN ACCUSED MUST SATISFY A MAGISTRATE THAT THE @INTERESTS OF JUSTICE PER
MITHISORHERRELEASE)TCLEARLYPLACESANONUSUPONTHEACCUSEDTOADDUCEEVIDENCE
(OWEVER APARTFROMTHAT THEEXERCISETODETERMINEWHETHERBAILSHOULDBEGRANTEDIS

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
NODIFFERENTTOTHATPROVIDEDFORINSUBSECS n ORREQUIREDBYS F )TISCLEAR

THAT AN ACCUSED ON A 3CHEDULE OFFENCE WILL BE GRANTED BAIL IF HE OR SHE CAN SHOW
MERELY THATTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMITSUCHGRANT4HEADDITIONALREQUIREMENTOF
@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESIMPOSEDBYS A ISABSENT!BAILAPPLICATIONUNDER
S A IS MORE GRAVELY INVASIVE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS RIGHT TO LIBERTY THAN THAT
UNDERS B 4OTHEEXTENT THEREFORE THATTHETESTFORBAILESTABLISHEDBYS A
ISMORERIGOROUSTHANTHATCONTEMPLATEDBYS F OFTHE#ONSTITUTION ITLIMITSTHE
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHT
)NPARAS;=AND;=THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTREFERREDTOTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHE
WORDS@HAVINGBEENGIVENAREASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTODOSOASUSEDINS A
ANDB 4HESEWORDSIMPLYTHATACOURTMAYDESPITETHEPROVISIONSOFS AS
CITEDINPARAABOVEORDERTHATCERTAININFORMATIONBERELEASEDTOTHEACCUSED
INORDERTOASSISTHIMORHERINTRYINGTOMEETTHEREQUIREMENTSOFS 3EE
ALSO*OSEPHS 3!#2#
3ECTION MUSTBEREADWITHS! 4HELATTERSECTIONFACILITATESPROOF
OFTHESO CALLED@JURISDICTIONALFACT IE THEFACTTHATISNECESSARYTOBRINGABAIL
APPLICANTWITHINTHEAMBITOFS 3EE"OTHA 3!#23#! AT;=
AND6AN7YK 3!#23#! AT;=3ECTION! PROVIDESASFOLLOWS
A )FTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSINTENDSCHARGINGANYPERSONWITHANOFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEORTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMAY IRRESPECTIVE
OFWHATCHARGEISNOTEDONTHECHARGESHEET ATANYTIMEBEFORESUCHPERSONPLEADS
TOTHECHARGE ISSUEAWRITTENCONFIRMATIONTOTHEEFFECTTHATHEORSHEINTENDSTO
CHARGETHEACCUSEDWITHANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOR
B 4HEWRITTENCONFIRMATIONSHALLBEHANDEDINATTHECOURTINQUESTIONBYTHEPROS
ECUTORASSOONASPOSSIBLEAFTERTHEISSUINGTHEREOFANDFORMSPARTOFTHERECORDOF
THATCOURT
C 7HENEVER THE QUESTION ARISES IN A BAIL APPLICATION OR DURING BAIL PROCEEDINGS
WHETHERANYPERSONISCHARGEDORISTOBECHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN
3CHEDULE OR A WRITTEN CONFIRMATION ISSUED BY A DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECU
TIONSUNDERPARAGRAPHA SHALL UPONITSMEREPRODUCTIONATSUCHAPPLICATIONOR
PROCEEDINGS BEPRIMAFACIEPROOFOFTHECHARGETOBEBROUGHTAGAINSTTHATPERSON
)N THE ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN CONFIRMATION AS REFERRED TO IN S ! THE STATE
CANADDUCEEVIDENCETOESTABLISHTHEREQUIREDJURISDICTIONALFACT"OTHA
3!#24
4
HEMEANINGOFlEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESmASUSEDINS A
)NPARA;=OFITSJUDGMENTIN$LAMINIETC THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTOBSERVEDAS
FOLLOWS
)NREQUIRINGTHATTHECIRCUMSTANCESPROVEDMUSTBEEXCEPTIONAL THESUBSECTIONDOES
NOT SAY THEY MUST BE CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE AND BEYOND AND GENERALLY DIFFERENT FROM
THOSEENUMERATED5NDERTHESUBSECTION FORINSTANCE ANACCUSEDCHARGEDWITHA3CH
OFFENCECOULDESTABLISHTHEREQUIREMENTBYPROVINGTHATTHEREAREEXCEPTIONALCIRCUM
STANCESRELATINGTOHISORHEREMOTIONALCONDITIONTHATRENDERITINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
THATRELEASEONBAILBEORDEREDNOTWITHSTANDINGTHEGRAVITYOFTHECASE/THEREXAMPLES
AREREADILYTOHANDINTHESMALLBODYOFCASELAWTHATHASALREADYBEENESTABLISHEDIN
THE SHORT PERIOD SINCE THE AMENDMENT CAME INTO OPERATION ON !UGUST
4HUSANOTHERWISEDEPENDABLEMANCHARGEDWITHCONSENSUALSEXUALINTERCOURSEWITH
A YEAR OLDGIRL ANDWHOHASAMINORPREVIOUSCONVICTIONDATINGBACKMANYYEARS
WOULDTECHNICALLYFALLWITHINTHEAMBITOFS A 9ETAPRUDENTJUDICIALOFFICERCOULD

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
FINDTHOSECIRCUMSTANCESSUFFICIENTLYEXCEPTIONALTOWARRANTBAILPROVIDEDTHEREWERE
NOOTHERFACTORSADVERSETOTHEGRANT
)N0ETERSEN 3!#2# AT;= ;=AFULLBENCHSTATEDEMPHASISADDED

/NTHEMEANINGANDINTERPRETATIONOF@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESINTHISCONTEXTTHERE
HAVEBEENWIDE RANGINGOPINIONS FROMWHICHITAPPEARSTHATITMAYBEUNWISETOAT
TEMPT A DEFINITION OF THIS CONCEPT 'ENERALLY SPEAKING @EXCEPTIONAL IS INDICATIVE OF
SOMETHINGUNUSUAL EXTRAORDINARY REMARKABLE PECULIARORSIMPLYDIFFERENT4HEREARE
OFCOURSE VARYINGDEGREESOFEXCEPTIONALITY UNUSUALNESS EXTRAORDINARINESS REMARKA
BLENESS PECULIARITYORDIFFERENCE4HISDEPENDSONTHEIRCONTEXTANDONTHEPARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCESOFTHECASEUNDERCONSIDERATIONx)NTHECONTEXTOFS A THEEXCEP
TIONALITYOFTHECIRCUMSTANCESMUSTBESUCHASTOPERSUADEACOURTTHATITWOULDBEIN
THEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETOORDERTHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSEDPERSON4HISMAY OFCOURSE
MEANDIFFERENTTHINGSTODIFFERENTPEOPLE SOTHATALLOWANCESHOULDBEMADEFORACER
TAINMEASUREOFFLEXIBILITYINTHEJUDICIALAPPROACHTOTHEQUESTION3EE3V-OHAMMED
3!#2# ;=!LL3! ATFnF)NESSENCETHECOURTWILLBEEXER
CISINGAVALUEJUDGEMENTINACCORDANCEWITHALLTHERELEVANTFACTSANDCIRCUMSTANCES ANDWITH
REFERENCETOALLTHEAPPLICABLELEGALCRITERIA
)N *ONAS 3!#2 3%#,$ THE COURT GAVE THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES OF
WHATWOULDCONSTITUTE@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESFORPURPOSESOFS A A
BAIL APPLICANTS TERMINAL ILLNESS URGENT MEDICAL OPERATION OR CAST IRON ALIBI )N
THIS CASE IT WAS HELD THAT @EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT WHERE AN AC
CUSEDHASADDUCEDACCEPTABLEEVIDENCETHATTHEPROSECUTIONSCASEAGAINSTHIM
ORHERISNON EXISTENTORSUBJECTTOSERIOUSDOUBT)TSHOULDBENOTEDTHATINTHIS
CASETHEPROSECUTIONHADLEDNOEVIDENCETOCONTRADICTTHEACCUSEDSTESTIMONY
3EEALSO(ARTSLIEF 3!#24 %VIDENCEOFANINVESTIGATINGPOLICEOFFICER
THATABAILAPPLICANTWASNOTA@FLIGHTRISKANDWASNOTLIKELYTOINTERFEREWITH
STATEWITNESSESANDTHEINVESTIGATION LEDTHECOURTIN0ORTHEN 3!#2
# AT;=TOTHECONCLUSIONTHATTHEBAILAPPLICANTHADDISCHARGEDTHEBURDENOF
PROOFWHICHRESTEDUPONHIMINTERMSOFS A 0ROOFOFTHEACCUSEDTHATHE
ORSHEWILLPROBABLYBEACQUITTEDCANSERVEAS@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES"OTHA
3!#23#! )N3IWELA 3!#27 ITWASHELDTHATTHE
FOLLOWINGFACTORSTAKENTOGETHERCONSTITUTED@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES4HEFAIL
UREOFTHESTATETOADDUCEEVIDENCECONTRADICTINGTHEACCUSEDSDENIALOFGUILTTHE
LENGTHY PERIOD OF INCARCERATION AND THE GOOD CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED DURING A
PERIODOFRELEASEAFTERANINITIALPERIODOFDETENTION)N*OSEPHS 3!#2
# ATIITWASHELD@3HOWING@@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESFORTHEPURPOSES
OFS xDOESNOTPOSITASTANDARDWHICHWOULDRENDERITIMPOSSIBLEFORAN
EXCEPTIONAL BUTDESERVINGAPPLICANTTOMAKEOUTACASEFORBAIL4HESTANDARDOF
PROOFTHATANACCUSEDMUSTSATISFYINPROVING@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESISPROOF
ONABALANCEOFPROBABILITIES3EE3COTT #ROSSLEY 3!#23#! ASWELLAS
-AUK 3!#27 AND9ANTA 3!#24K HnI7HEREAN
ACCUSEDCARRIESTHEBURDENOFPROOFONACCOUNTOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS A @IT
ISINSUFFICIENTFORANACCUSEDWHOxWISHESTORELYONTHEWEAKNESSOFTHE3TATES
CASETOSIMPLYSHOWTHATTHE3TATESCASEISWEAK4HEACCUSEDMUSTGOFURTHER IE
SHOWTHATTHECASEISEXCEPTIONALLYWEAKANDTHISMUSTBEDONEBYSHOWINGON
ABALANCEOFPROBABILITIESTHAT;THEACCUSED=WILLBEACQUITTED-AZIBUKO
3!#2+:0 AT;= 7HEREANACCUSEDFAILSTOMAKEOUTAPRIMAFACIECASETHAT
EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESAREPRESENT THEREISNODUTYONTHE3TATETOADVANCE

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
EVIDENCEINREBUTTAL6ILJOEN 3!#23#! 4HEREISNOONUSONTHE

3TATETODISPROVETHEPRESENCEOFEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES-PULAMPULA
3!#2%
)T SHOULD FURTHERMORE BE ACCEPTED THAT @;A= CERTAIN MEASURE OF FLEXIBILITY IN
THEJUDICIALAPPROACHTOTHEQUESTIONISREQUIREDPER,EGODI*$6 3!#2
'.0 AT;= )NTHISCASETHECUMULATIVEEFFECTOFTHEFOLLOWINGCONSTITUTED
@EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE FACT THAT THE 3TATES CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SOME
DOUBTTHELOWRISKPERTAININGTOFLIGHTTHEABSENCEOFALIKELIHOODOFINTERFER
ENCEWITHSTATEWITNESSESTHELOWRISKOFREOFFENDINGAT;= ANDTHEFACTTHATON
ACCOUNTOFTHEHIGHNUMBEROFCHARGES THEACCUSEDIFNOTRELEASEDONBAIL WOULD
@REMAININCUSTODYFORMANYYEARSBEFORETHEIRCASEISFINALISEDAT;=
)N# 3!#2# #ONRADIE*TOOKTHEVIEWTHATININTERPRETINGTHE
WORDS@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES ACOURTSHOULDBEARINMINDTHATITCOULDNOT
HAVEBEENTHEINTENTIONOFTHELEGISLATURETHATANALLEGEDOFFENDERMUSTBEKEPTIN
CUSTODYWHENHEORSHEHASESTABLISHEDCONCLUSIVELYTHATHEORSHEWILLATTENDHIS
ORHERTRIAL WILLNOTINTERFEREWITHTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEANDWILLCOMMIT
NOFURTHERWRONGDOINGIE THEUSUALCIRCUMSTANCESTHATARISEFORCONSIDERATION
INABAILAPPLICATION 4OREQUIREMOREOFABAILAPPLICANTWOULDMEANTHATTHE
PROCEDUREBECOMESPUNITIVEANDTHISCANNOTBERECONCILEDWITHCONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONSANDTHEFACTTHATBAILISNON PENALINCHARACTER ASEXPLAINEDINPARA
ABOVE#OMPAREGENERALLY( 3!#27 AND-OKGOJE 3!#2
.# )NTHELATTERCASEITWASHELDTHATTHEFOLLOWINGFACTSDIDNOTCONSTITUTE
@EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESFORPURPOSESOFS A I POSTPONEMENTOFTRIAL
FORFIVEMONTHSII PRIORRELEASEONBAILOFCO ACCUSEDBEFORES A CAMEINTO
OPERATIONIII VALUEOFSTOLENGOODSAPPEARINGFARLESSTHANVALUEINITIALLYALLEGED
BYTHEPROSECUTIONANDIV THEFACTTHATTHEBAILAPPLICANTSBUSINESSWASSUFFER
INGBECAUSEOFHISORHERDETENTION
4HE MERE FACT THAT A SENTENCED PERSON WAS GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL DOES NOT
CONSTITUTEANEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCE3COTT #ROSSLEYABOVE
)N 2UDOLPH 3!#2 3#! 3NYDERS *! HAVING REFERRED TO $LAMINI
ETCABOVE AND"OTHAABOVE CONCLUDEDTHAT@ORDINARYCIRCUMSTANCESPRESENTTO
ANEXCEPTIONALDEGREE MAYLEADTOAFINDINGTHATRELEASEONBAILISJUSTIFIEDAT
H I
.EWFACTSREQUIREDFORARENEWEDBAILAPPLICATION
!NUNSUCCESSFULBAILAPPLICATIONDOESNOTPRECLUDEANACCUSEDFROMBRINGINGARE
NEWEDBAILAPPLICATIONHEREAFTERTHE@SECONDAPPLICATION (OWEVER FORPURPOSES
OFTHESECONDAPPLICATIONTHEACCUSEDMUSTSHOWTHATNEWFACTSHAVEARISEN OR
HAVEONLYCOMETOLIGHT SINCETHEEARLIERBAILREFUSAL$U4OITETAL !DETEN
TIONPERIODOFALMOSTTHREEYEARSBETWEENTHEUNSUCCESSFULAPPLICATIONANDTHE
SECONDAPPLICATION CONSTITUTESA@NEWFACT-OUSSA .2(# AT;=
&ACTSKNOWNANDAVAILABLETOANACCUSEDBUTNOTPRESENTEDBYTHEACCUSEDHIM
ATHISORHERUNSUCCESSFULAPPLICATION SHOULDINPRINCIPLENOTBEVIEWEDASNEW
FACTSFORPURPOSESOFTHESECONDAPPLICATION,E2OUX 3!#27 4HIS
PRINCIPLEAVOIDSABUSEOFCOURTPROCESS(OWEVER ITISNOTANINFLEXIBLEPRINCIPLE
ANDACOURTSHOULDALSOHAVEREGARDTOTHERIGHTTOAFAIRBAILHEARING$U4OITET
AL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!NACCUSEDHASARIGHTTOAREASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTOPRESENTNEWFACTSFORPUR
POSESOFASECONDAPPLICATION.WABUNWANNE 3!#2.#+
2%,%!3%/4(%24(!./."!),
4HEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
4HIS SECTION IS HEADED @0LACEMENT OPTIONS FOR CHILD WHO HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED
BEFOREFIRSTAPPEARANCEATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY)TREADSASFOLLOWS
)F ATANYSTAGEBEFOREACHILDSFIRSTAPPEARANCEATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRY THECHILDHAS
NOTBEENRELEASEDFROMDETENTIONINPOLICECUSTODYANDISCHARGED INTHECASEOFACHILD
WHOIS
A I YEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS WITHANYOFFENCEOR
II YEARSOROLDER WITHANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOR
THE POLICE OFFICIAL MUST GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE DETENTION OF THE CHILD IN AN
APPROPRIATE CHILD AND YOUTH CARE CENTRE IF A CENTRE IS AVAILABLE AND THERE IS A
VACANCY ORIFACENTREORVACANCYISNOTAVAILABLE INAPOLICECELLORLOCK UPOR
B YEARSOROLDER WITHANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE THEPOLICEOFFICIALMUST
CAUSETHECHILDTOBEDETAINEDINAPOLICECELLORLOCK UP
3ECTIONOF!CTOFMUSTALSOBEREADWITHTHEFOLLOWINGSECTIONSOFTHE
SAME!CTSAPPROACHTOBEFOLLOWEDWHENCONSIDERINGPLACEMENTOFCHILD
S PROTECTION OF CHILDREN DETAINED IN POLICE CUSTODY S PLACEMENT OF A
CHILDINACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE SPLACEMENTINAPRISON SERROR
REGARDINGPLACEMENT SFACTORSTOBETAKENINTOACCOUNTBYTHEPRESIDINGOF
FICERREGARDINGFURTHERDETENTIONANDPLACEMENTATPRELIMINARYINQUIRYORCHILD
JUSTICECOURT ANDSCONDITIONSOFDETENTIONATPRELIMINARYENQUIRYORCHILD
JUSTICECOURT
2ELEASEONWARNING
2ELEASEONWARNINGISPROVIDEDFORINTERMSOFS WHICHWASALSOREFERREDTO
IN#HAPTER4HEGISTOFSISTHATANACCUSEDMAYBERELEASEDBYTHECOURTOR
APOLICEOFFICIALANDWARNEDTOAPPEARBEFOREASPECIFIEDCOURTATASPECIFIEDTIME
ANDDATE4HEACCUSEDSRELEASEDOESNOTDEPENDONTHEDEPOSITOFMONEYORCER
TAINCONDITIONS4HISPROCEDUREISFOLLOWEDWITHLESSEROFFENCESWHERETHEREISNO
REASON TO EXPECT THAT THE ACCUSED WILL ABSCOND OR TRY TO EVADE JUSTICE 3ECTION
!MAKESPROVISIONFORTHECANCELLATIONOFRELEASEONWARNING4HEGROUNDSFOR
CANCELLATIONARESIMILARTOTHOSEWHICHAPPLYINRESPECTOFCANCELLATIONOFBAIL
3EES!ASREADWITHS
3ECTIONISSUBJECTTOTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
3
%#4)/.2%,%!3%/.7!2.).'/2/."!),/2!-%.$-%.4
/&"!),#/.$)4)/.3 /.!##/5.4/&02)3/.#/.$)4)/.3
)NTRODUCTION
3OUTH !FRICAN PRISONS ARE HOPELESSLY OVERCROWDED 0RISONERS AWAITING TRIAL ARE
PARTOFTHEPROBLEM!FAIRNUMBEROFTHESEAWAITING TRIALPRISONERS@UNSENTENCED
PRISONERS AREPEOPLEWHOHAVEBEENGRANTEDBUTCANNOTAFFORDTOPAYBAIL

#(!04%2r"!),!.$/4(%2&/2-3/&2%,%!3%
4HESE PEOPLE WERE NEVER REALLY MEANT TO BE IN PRISON PENDING THE OUTCOME OF
THEIRTRIAL"UTTHEIRMEREINABILITYTOPAYTHEREQUIREDBAILMONEYKEEPSTHEMIN
PRISONWHERETHEY INTURN BECOMEPARTOF ORCONTRIBUTETO THEINEVITABLEPROB
LEMSCAUSEDBYOVER POPULATIONOFPRISONS
/VER POPULATIONOFAPRISONPOSESATHREATTOTHEDIGNITY PHYSICALHEALTHAND
SAFETYOFITSINMATES4HISMUCHHASBEENACKNOWLEDGEDBYTHELEGISLATUREBYITS
INSERTIONOFS!INTOTHE!CT
4
HEROLEOFTHEHEADOFPRISON
4HEWHOLEPROCESSASPROVIDEDFORINS!OFTHE!CTISSETINMOTIONBYAHEADOF
PRISONCONTEMPLATEDINTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTHEREAFTERTHE@HEADOFPRIS
ON 3ECTION! PROVIDESTHATIFAHEADOFPRISON@ISSATISFIEDTHATTHEPRISON
POPULATIONOFAPARTICULARPRISONISREACHINGSUCHPROPORTIONSTHATITCONSTITUTES
AMATERIALANDIMMINENTTHREATTOTHEHUMANDIGNITY PHYSICALHEALTHORSAFETY
OFANACCUSEDWHOMEETSALLTHECRITERIASETBYS! A TOC HEORSHEMAY
APPLYTOALOWERCOURTFOREITHERTHERELEASEOFSUCHANACCUSEDONWARNINGINLIEU
OFBAILSEES! AA ORTHEAMENDMENTOFSUCHANACCUSEDSBAILCONDITIONSAS
IMPOSEDBYALOWERCOURTSEES! BB 4HISTYPEOFAPPLICATIONISHEREAFTER
REFERREDTOASA@S! APPLICATION
4
HECATEGORYOFACCUSEDINRESPECTOFWHOMAHEADOFPRISONCAN
BRINGAS! APPLICATION
!HEADOFPRISONCANONLYBRINGAS! APPLICATIONINRESPECTOFANACCUSED
A WHOISCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEFALLINGWITHINTHECATEGORYOFOFFENCES
I FORWHICHAPOLICEOFFICIALMAYGRANTBAILINTERMSOFSECTIONOR
II REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
B WHOHASBEENGRANTEDBAILBYANYLOWERCOURTINRESPECTOFTHATOFFENCE BUTIS
UNABLETOPAYTHEAMOUNTOFBAILCONCERNEDAND
C WHOISNOTALSOINDETENTIONINRESPECTOFANYOTHEROFFENCEFALLINGOUTSIDETHE
CATEGORYOFOFFENCESREFERREDTOINPARAGRAPHA
!NIMPORTANTCRITERIONWHICHMUSTBEMETFORANACCUSEDTOFALLWITHINTHEAMBIT
OF A S! APPLICATION IS THAT THE ACCUSED MUST HAVE BEEN GRANTED BAIL BY A
LOWERCOURTINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCECONCERNEDBUTSHOULDBEUNABLETOPAYTHE
AMOUNTOFBAILCONCERNED3EES! B )TMAYTHEREFOREBESAIDTHATINPRIN
CIPLEAS! APPLICATIONSEEKSTOACHIEVEWHATTHELOWERCOURTBYGRANTING
BAILESSENTIALLYHADINMIND NAMELYLIBERTYPENDINGTHEOUTCOMEOFTHETRIAL
)TMAKESGOODSENSETOHAVEAMECHANISMLIKEAS! APPLICATIONWHENLACKOF
FINANCIALRESOURCESLEADSTOCONTINUEDINCARCERATIONOFANINDIVIDUALINCIRCUM
STANCES WHERE THERE IS A MATERIAL AND IMMINENT THREAT TO THE DIGNITY PHYSICAL
HEALTHORSAFETYOFTHEINDIVIDUALCONCERNED!NIMPORTANTCONTROLMECHANISMIS
THATAS! APPLICATIONMUSTCONTAINAWRITTENCERTIFICATE@TOTHEEFFECTTHATTHE
PROSECUTINGAUTHORITYDOESNOTOPPOSETHEAPPLICATION3EES! A II
2OLEOFTHEMAGISTRATE
)F THE MAGISTRATE OR REGIONAL COURT MAGISTRATE HEREAFTER @THE MAGISTRATE IS
SATISFIED THAT THE S ! APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
INS A HEORSHEMAYEITHERORDERTHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSEDS! A I
ORREDUCETHEAMOUNTOFBAILDETERMINEDUNDERSS! A II
7HERETHERELEASEOFTHEACCUSEDISORDERED THEMAGISTRATEMAY IFHEORSHE
DEEMSITAPPROPRIATE AMENDORSUPPLEMENTANYCONDITIONIMPOSEDUNDERSOR
SS! A III
3ECTION! D PROVIDESTHATAS! APPLICATIONMAYBECONSIDEREDINTHE
PRESENCEOFTHEACCUSEDIFTHEMAGISTRATEDEEMSITNECESSARY)TISSUBMITTEDTHAT
WHEREAMAGISTRATECONTEMPLATESREDUCTIONOFBAILANDSUPPLEMENTINGORAMEND
INGBAILCONDITIONS HEORSHEOUGHTTODOSOINTHEPRESENCEOFTHEACCUSED4HE
SAMESHOULDHAPPENWHEREARELEASEORDERISGIVEN ANDNEWCONDITIONSOFRELEASE
AREIMPOSED)NALLTHESEINSTANCES ITISSUBMITTED THEAUDIALTERAMPARTEMRULE
SHOULDBEAPPLIED
"
!),!00,)#!4)/.3"97!9/&!5$)/6)35!,,).+
4HEPROVISIONSOFSS!TO$MAKETHEABOVEPROCEDUREPOSSIBLEINRESPECT
OF PERSONS OLDER THAN )N CERTAIN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES A COURT MAY HEAR A
BAILAPPLICATIONWHILETHEAPPLICANTISPHYSICALLYINPRISON4HEPROCEDURECAN
NOTBEFOLLOWEDWHERETHEPROSECUTIONOPPOSESBAILOREVIDENCEISREQUIRED4HE
COURTALSOHASTHEPOWERTODIRECTINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETHATTHEAPPLICANTBE
BROUGHTPHYSICALLYBEFOREIT4HEPROCEDUREISONLYPOSSIBLEINCERTAINMAGISTERIAL
DISTRICTSANDINRESPECTOFCERTAINCORRECTIONALFACILITIES THATIS PRISONS

#(!04%2
0RE TRIALEXAMINATIONS
'0+EMP
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
0,%!).-!')342!4%m3#/524/.!#(!2'%*534)#)!",%).
4(%2%')/.!,#/524
0,%!).-!')342!4%m3#/524/.!#(!2'%*534)#)!",%).
4(%()'(#/524
02%0!2!4/29%8!-).!4)/.3
7HATISAPREPARATORYEXAMINATION
7HENISAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONHELD
0OWERSOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSAFTERCONCLUSION
OFTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATION
3ECTIONr.ATUREANDOBJECTIVESOFPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
!PRELIMINARYINQUIRYr
D ISANINFORMALPRE TRIALPROCEDUREWHICHISINQUISITORIALINNATURE
E MAYBEHELDINACOURTORANYOTHERSUITABLEPLACEAND
F MUSTBEPRESIDEDOVERBYAMAGISTRATEOFTHEDISTRICTWITHINWHICHTHECHILDIS
ALLEGEDTOHAVECOMMITTEDTHEOFFENCE
4HEOBJECTIVESOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYARETOr
D CONSIDER THE ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE PROBATION OFFICER WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCETOr
I THEAGEESTIMATIONOFTHECHILD IFTHEAGEISUNCERTAIN
II THE VIEW OF THE PROBATION OFFICER REGARDING THE CRIMINAL CAPACITY OF THE
CHILDIFTHECHILDISYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSANDA
DECISIONWHETHERANEVALUATIONOFTHECRIMINALCAPACITYOFTHECHILDBYA
SUITABLYQUALIFIEDPERSONREFERREDTOINSECTION ISNECESSARYAND
III WHETHERAFURTHERANDMOREDETAILEDASSESSMENTOFTHECHILDISNEEDEDASRE
FERREDTOINSECTION J
E ESTABLISHWHETHERTHEMATTERCANBEDIVERTEDBEFOREPLEA


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
F IDENTIFYASUITABLEDIVERSIONOPTION WHEREAPPLICABLE
G ESTABLISH WHETHER THE MATTER SHOULD BE REFERRED IN TERMS OF SECTION TO A
CHILDRENmSCOURTREFERREDTOINSECTIONOFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT
H ENSURE THAT ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CHILD HIS OR HER CIRCUM
STANCESANDTHEOFFENCEARECONSIDEREDINORDERTOMAKEADECISIONONDIVERSION
ANDPLACEMENTOFTHECHILD
I ENSURETHATTHEVIEWSOFALLPERSONSPRESENTARECONSIDEREDBEFOREADECISIONIS
TAKEN
J ENCOURAGETHEPARTICIPATIONOFTHECHILDANDHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATE
ADULTORAGUARDIANINDECISIONSCONCERNINGTHECHILDAND
K DETERMINETHERELEASEORPLACEMENTOFACHILD PENDINGr
I THECONCLUSIONOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
II THEAPPEARANCEOFTHECHILDINACHILDJUSTICECOURTOR
III THEREFERRALOFTHEMATTERTOACHILDRENmSCOURT WHEREAPPLICABLE
D !PRELIMINARYINQUIRYMUSTBEHELDINRESPECTOFEVERYCHILDWHOISALLEGED
TOHAVECOMMITTEDANOFFENCE EXCEPTWHEREr
I THEMATTERHASBEENDIVERTEDBYAPROSECUTORINTERMSOF#HAPTER
II THECHILDISUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSOR
III THEMATTERHASBEENWITHDRAWN
E !PRELIMINARYINQUIRYREFERREDTOINPARAGRAPH D MUSTBEHELDr
I WITHINHOURSOFARRESTASPROVIDEDFORINSECTION IFACHILDISAR
RESTEDANDREMAINSINDETENTIONOR
II WITHINTHETIMEPERIODSSPECIFIEDINAWRITTENNOTICEINTERMSOFSECTION
ORASUMMONSINTERMSOFSECTION
F !CHILDmSAPPEARANCEATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYISREGARDEDASHISORHERFIRSTAP
PEARANCEBEFOREALOWERCOURT INTERMSOFSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT
3ECTIONOFTHE-AGISTRATESm#OURTS!CT !CTOF APPLIESWITH
THECHANGESREQUIREDBYTHECONTEXTTOSUBSECTION F
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0ERSONSTOATTENDPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
4HEFOLLOWINGPERSONSMUST INADDITIONTOTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEANDPROSECUTOR
ATTENDTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY SUBJECTTOSUBSECTIONS AND
D 4HECHILD
E THECHILDmSPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIANAND
F THEPROBATIONOFFICER
)FADIVERSIONORDERISLIKELYTOBEMADE ADIVERSIONSERVICEPROVIDERIDENTIFIEDBYTHE
PROBATIONOFFICERSHOULDBEPRESENTATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
4HEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAY SUBJECTTOSECTION EXCLUDEANYPERSONFROMATTEND
INGTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYIFTHATPERSONmSPRESENCEISNOTINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHE
CHILDORUNDERMINESTHEINQUISITORIALNATUREANDOBJECTIVESOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
D !PRELIMINARYINQUIRYMAYPROCEEDINTHEABSENCEOFTHECHILDmSPARENT ANAP
PROPRIATEADULT GUARDIANORTHEPROBATIONOFFICERIFTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEISSATISFIED
THATTODOSOWOULDBEINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILD

#(!04%2r02% 42)!,%8!-).!4)/.3
E !NINQUIRYMAGISTRATEWHOPROCEEDSINTHEABSENCEOFTHECHILDmSPARENT ANAP
PROPRIATEADULT GUARDIANORPROBATIONOFFICERINTERMSOFPARAGRAPH D MUST
ENTERTHEREASONSFORTHEDECISIONONTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
4HEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAYPERMITTHEATTENDANCEOFANYOTHERPERSONWHOHASAN
INTERESTINATTENDINGORWHOMAYCONTRIBUTETOTHEPROCEEDINGS
4HEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAYSUBPOENAORCAUSETOBESUBPOENAEDANYPERSONWHOSE
PRESENCEISNECESSARYATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
3ECTIONr#ONFIDENTIALITYOFINFORMATIONFURNISHEDATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTRELATINGTOTHEPUBLICATIONOFINFORMATION
THATREVEALSORMAYREVEALTHEIDENTITYOFACHILDORAWITNESSUNDERTHEAGEOF
YEARSAPPLIESWITHTHECHANGESREQUIREDBYTHECONTEXTTOPROCEEDINGSATAPRELIMI
NARYINQUIRY
.OINFORMATIONFURNISHEDBYANYPERSONATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYINRELATIONTOTHE
CHILDMAYBEUSEDAGAINSTTHATCHILDINANYBAILAPPLICATION PLEA TRIALORSENTENCING
PROCEEDINGS
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr&AILURETOAPPEARATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
!CHILDORHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN WHOHASBEENDIRECTED
TOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYINTERMSOFr
D AWRITTENNOTICEINTERMSOFSECTION
E ASUMMONSINTERMSOFSECTION
F AWRITTENNOTICEBYAPOLICEOFFICIALINTERMSOFSECTION READWITHSECTION
G AWARNINGBYAPRESIDINGOFFICERINTERMSOFSECTION OR
ORISOTHERWISEOBLIGEDTOAPPEARATAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYANDWHOFAILSTOAPPEARATTHE
INQUIRYORTOREMAININATTENDANCEATTHEPROCEEDINGSMUSTBEDEALTWITHINACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION WHICH APPLY WITH THE CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE
CONTEXT
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0ROCEDURERELATINGTOHOLDINGOFPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
4HEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMUSTCONDUCTTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYINANINFORMALMANNER
BYASKINGQUESTIONS INTERVIEWINGPERSONSATTHEINQUIRYANDELICITINGINFORMATION
ANDMUSTKEEPARECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
!TTHESTARTOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMUSTr
D INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNERr
I EXPLAINTHEPURPOSEANDINQUISITORIALNATUREOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYTO
THECHILD
II INFORMTHECHILDOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONAGAINSTHIMORHER
III INFORMTHECHILDOFHISORHERRIGHTSAND
IV EXPLAINTOTHECHILDTHEIMMEDIATEPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOF
THIS!CT
E )N ORDER TO CONSIDER DIVERSION ASCERTAIN FROM THE CHILD WHETHER HE OR SHE
ACKNOWLEDGESRESPONSIBILITYFORTHEALLEGEDOFFENCE ANDIFTHECHILDr

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
I DOESNOTACKNOWLEDGERESPONSIBILITY NOQUESTIONSREGARDINGTHEALLEGED
OFFENCEMAYBEPUTTOTHECHILDANDNOINFORMATIONREGARDINGAPREVIOUS
DIVERSIONORCONVICTIONORCHARGEPENDINGAGAINSTTHECHILDMAYBEPLACED
BEFORE THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY WHEREUPON THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION
F APPLYWITHTHECHANGESREQUIREDBYTHECONTEXTOR
II DOES ACKNOWLEDGE RESPONSIBILITY THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY PROCEEDS IN
TERMSOFTHIS#HAPTERAND
F DETERMINETHEAGEOFACHILDINACCORDANCEWITHSECTION IFNECESSARY
4HEFOLLOWINGINFORMATIONMUSTBEPLACEDBEFORETHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATE
D 4HEPROBATIONOFFICERmSASSESSMENTREPORT IFAVAILABLE
E ANYFORMANDDOCUMENTATIONREQUIREDFORTHEDETERMINATIONOFAGEREFERREDTO
INSECTION D AND E IFAVAILABLE
F ANYDOCUMENTATIONRELATINGTOANYPREVIOUSCONVICTION DIVERSIONORAPENDING
CHARGE
G THEREPORTREGARDINGTHEDETENTIONOFTHECHILDINPOLICECUSTODYPROVIDEDBY
THEINVESTIGATINGPOLICEOFFICIALINTERMSOFSECTION IFAPPLICABLEAND
H ANYOTHERINFORMATIONTHATMAYBERELEVANTTOTHEPROCEEDINGS
)NCONSIDERINGTHEINFORMATIONREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATE
MAYr
D REQUESTANYFURTHERDOCUMENTATIONWHICHMAYBERELEVANTTOTHEPROCEEDINGS
E ELICIT ANY INFORMATION FROM ANY PERSON ATTENDING THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY TO
SUPPLEMENTORCLARIFYTHEAVAILABLEINFORMATIONAND
F TAKEANYSTEPSASMAYBENECESSARYTOESTABLISHTHETRUTHOFANYSTATEMENTOR
THECORRECTNESSOFANYSUBMISSION
D )FTHECHILDHASNOTYETBEENASSESSED THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAYDISPENSEWITH
ASSESSMENTIFITISINTHEBESTINTERESTSOFTHECHILDTODOSO
E !NINQUIRYMAGISTRATEWHODISPENSESWITHANASSESSMENTINTERMSOFPARAGRAPH
D
MUSTENTERTHEREASONSFORTHATDECISIONONTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
)FAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYPROCEEDSINTHEABSENCEOFAPROBATIONOFFICER THEPROBATION
OFFICERmSASSESSMENTREPORTMUSTBEAVAILABLEATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY UNLESSAS
SESSMENTHASBEENDISPENSEDWITHINTERMSOFSUBSECTION
)N ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE VIEWS OF ALL PERSONS PRESENT ARE CONSIDERED BEFORE A
DECISIONREGARDINGTHECHILDISMADE THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMUSTr
D ENCOURAGE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CHILD AND HIS OR HER PARENT APPROPRIATE
ADULTORAGUARDIAN
E ALLOWTHECHILD THECHILDmSPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIANORANY
OTHERPERSONPRESENTTOASKQUESTIONSANDTORAISEISSUESWHICH INTHEOPINION
OFTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATE ARERELEVANTFORTHEPURPOSESOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
D )FTHECHILDISACO ACCUSEDWITHONEORMOREOTHERCHILDREN AJOINTPRELIMINARY
INQUIRYMAYBEHELDIFTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEISSATISFIEDTHATTHISWILLBEINTHE
BESTINTERESTSOFALLTHECHILDRENCONCERNED
E )FAJOINTPRELIMINARYINQUIRYISHELDINTERMSOFPARAGRAPH D DIFFERENTDECISIONS
MAYBEMADEINRESPECTOFEACHCHILD

#(!04%2r02% 42)!,%8!-).!4)/.3
)F THE PROSECUTOR INDICATES THAT THE MATTER MAY NOT BE DIVERTED THE INQUIRY
MAGISTRATEMUSTr
D OBTAINFROMTHEPROSECUTORCONFIRMATIONTHAT BASEDONTHEFACTSOFTHECASEAT
HISORHERDISPOSALANDAFTERCONSIDERATIONOFOTHERRELEVANTFACTORS THEREISSUF
FICIENTEVIDENCEORTHEREISREASONTOBELIEVETHATFURTHERINVESTIGATIONISLIKELY
TORESULTINTHENECESSARYEVIDENCEBEINGOBTAINED FORTHEMATTERTOPROCEED
E ENTERTHEPROSECUTORmSCONFIRMATIONONTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSAND
F INFORMTHECHILDTHATTHEMATTERISBEINGREFERREDTOTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTTOBE
DEALTWITHINACCORDANCEWITH#HAPTER
7HEREANINQUIRYMAGISTRATEHASPRESIDEDOVERAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYANDHASHEARD
ANYINFORMATIONPREJUDICIALTOTHEIMPARTIALDETERMINATIONOFTHEMATTER THEMAG
ISTRATEMAYNOTPRESIDEOVERANYSUBSEQUENTPROCEEDINGS PROCEDUREORTRIALARISING
FROMTHESAMEFACTS
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr/RDERSATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
D !
NINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAY SUBJECTTOPARAGRAPH E MAKEANORDERTHATTHE
MATTERBEDIVERTEDINTERMSOFSECTION
E !NINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAY INTHECASEOFACHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDERBUT
UNDER THE AGE OF YEARS ONLY MAKE AN ORDER THAT THE MATTER BE DIVERTED IN
TERMSOFPARAGRAPH D IFHEORSHEISSATISFIEDTHATTHECHILDHASCRIMINALCAPACITY
!NINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAYMAKEANORDERTHATTHEMATTERBEREFERREDTOACHILDJUS
TICECOURTINTERMSOFSECTION F TOBEDEALTWITHINTERMSOF#HAPTER INWHICH
CASEr
D IFTHECHILDISNOTLEGALLYREPRESENTED THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMUSTEXPLAINTO
THECHILDANDTHEPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIAN THEPROVISIONSOF
SECTION REGARDINGLEGALREPRESENTATION
E IFTHECHILDISINDETENTION THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMUST AFTERDUECONSIDERATION
OFTHEPROVISIONSOF#HAPTER INFORMTHECHILDOFTHECHARGEAGAINSTHIMORHER
ANDTHEDATE TIMEANDPLACEOFTHENEXTAPPEARANCEINACHILDJUSTICECOURTAND
MUSTWARNTHECHILDmSPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARDIANTOATTENDTHE
PROCEEDINGSONTHESPECIFIEDDATE ANDATTHESPECIFIEDTIMEANDPLACEAND
F IFTHECHILDISNOTINDETENTION THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEr
I MAYALTEROREXTENDANYCONDITIONIMPOSEDINTERMSOFSECTION AND
II MUSTWARNTHECHILDANDHISORHERPARENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULTORAGUARD
IAN TO APPEAR IN A CHILD JUSTICE COURT ON THE SPECIFIED DATE AND AT THE
SPECIFIEDTIMEANDPLACE
3EE BELOW
).42/$5#4)/.
/RDINARILY ONCETHEINVESTIGATIONINTOANOFFENCEHASBEENCOMPLETEDANDSTEPS
HAVEBEENTAKENTOENSURETHEPRESENCEOFTHEACCUSEDATTHETRIALTHECHARGES
AGAINSTTHEACCUSEDWILLBEFORMULATEDANDTHETRIALWILLCOMMENCE
)FHOWEVER THEDECISIONHASBEENTAKENTOCHARGETHEACCUSEDINTHEREGIONAL
COURTORTOINDICTHIMORHERBEFORETHE(IGH#OURT CERTAINPROCEDURESMAYBE
FOLLOWED BEFORE THE TRIAL ACTUALLY STARTS 4HESE ARE THAT THE ACCUSED BE BROUGHT
BEFOREAMAGISTRATESCOURTANDBEREQUIREDTOPLEADTOTHECHARGESORTHATAPREPA
RATORYEXAMINATIONBEHELD

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)N ORDER TO DRAW A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SUMMARY TRIAL AND A PRE TRIAL
EXAMINATION THE FORMER WILL BE DISCUSSED BRIEFLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT IS
REPEATEDLYREFERREDTOFURTHERONINTHISCHAPTER
!TRIALISREFERREDTOASASUMMARYTRIALWHENITWASNOTPRECEDEDBYAPREPARA
TORYEXAMINATION4HEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSORANYPERSONAUTHORISED
THERETOBYHIMORHER EGTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR MAYDESIGNATEANYCOURTWHICH
HAS JURISDICTION AS THE FORUM FOR A SUMMARY TRIALS C OF THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTOF4HISMAYORMAYNOTBETHESAMECOURTINWHICHTHE
ACCUSEDHASAPPEAREDFORTHEFIRSTTIME)NDECIDINGWHERETOHOLDTHESUMMARY
TRIAL NOCOURTISCONSULTED/NCETHECOURTHASBEENDESIGNATED THEACCUSEDWILL
BEBROUGHTBEFORETHATCOURTANDTHETRIALWILLCOMMENCE
7HENTHEACCUSEDISINCUSTODYHEORSHEMUSTFIRSTBEBROUGHTBEFOREALOWER
COURTEVENTHOUGHTHATCOURTMAYNOTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOTRYHIMORHER7HEN
THIS OCCURS S B READ WITH S APPLIES !T THE PROSECUTORS REQUEST THE
ACCUSED IS THEN REFERRED FOR A SUMMARY TRIAL TO A COURT WITH JURISDICTION 4HAT
COURTMAYBEAREGIONALCOURTORASUPERIORCOURT
3ECTION IS SUBJECT TO SS ! AND WHICH IN EFFECT MEANS THAT
BEFORETHESUMMARYTRIALCOMMENCESINASUPERIORCOURT THEDIRECTOROFPUBLIC
PROSECUTIONSMAYEITHERORDERTHATAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONBEHELDORTHAT
THE ACCUSED BE REQUIRED TO PLEAD IN A MAGISTRATES COURT TO THE CHARGE AGAINST
HIMORHER ALTHOUGHTHATCOURTDOESNOTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOTRYTHEOFFENCEOR
TOIMPOSEWHATTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSCONSIDERSTOBEANAPPROPRI
ATEPUNISHMENTS3IMILARLY BEFORETHESTARTOFTHESUMMARYTRIALINTHE
REGIONAL COURT THE PROSECUTOR MAY REQUIRE THE ACCUSED TO PLEAD TO A CHARGE
BEFOREAMAGISTRATESCOURTALTHOUGHTHATCOURTDOESNOTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOTRY
THEOFFENCEORDOESNOTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOIMPOSETHEPUNISHMENTWHICH IN
THEOPINIONOFTHEPROSECUTOR WOULDBETHEAPPROPRIATEPUNISHMENTTOIMPOSE
UPONTHEACCUSEDS!
!PREPARATORYEXAMINATIONANDAPRE TRIALEXAMINATIONREFERREDTOHERE MUST
BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY ! PRELIMINARY INQUIRY IS
PROVIDEDFORINTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF!CHILDAPERSONBETWEENTHE
AGESOFAND WHOISSUSPECTEDOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCEMUSTFIRST
APPEARATTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRY4HEPURPOSEOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYISTO
CONSIDERWHETHERTHEMATTERINVOLVINGTHECHILDMAYBEDIVERTEDAWAYFROMTHE
FORMALCRIMINALJUSTICEPROCESS!PRELIMINARYINQUIRYA ISANINFORMALPRE TRIAL
PROCEDUREWHICHISINQUISITORIALINNATURE ANDB MAYBEHELDINACOURTORANY
OTHERSUITABLEPLACES !LTHOUGHAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYMAYBEFOLLOWED
BYASUMMARYTRIALOFTHECHILD THEOBJECTIVEOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYISTO
CONSIDERTHEPOSSIBILITYOFDIVERTINGTHEMATTERINVOLVINGTHECHILDAWAYFROM
THEFORMALCRIMINALJUSTICEPROCESS)FTHEMATTERISDIVERTED NOSUMMARYTRIAL
WILLTAKEPLACEEGTHEMATTERMAYBEREFERREDTOACHILDRENSCOURT )FTHEMATTER
ISNOTDIVERTED THEMATTERWILLBEREFERREDTOACHILDJUSTICECOURT4HECHILDJUS
TICECOURTWILLTRYTHECASEINACCORDANCEWITHTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTWITH
THENECESSARYCHANGESPROVIDEDFORINTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT CF#HAPTERSAND

#(!04%2r02% 42)!,%8!-).!4)/.3
0
,%!).-!')342!4%m3#/524/.!#(!2'%*534)#)!",%).4(%
2%')/.!,#/524
7HEN AN ACCUSED APPEARS IN A MAGISTRATES COURT AND THE ALLEGED OFFENCE MAY
BE TRIED BY A REGIONAL COURT BUT NOT BY A MAGISTRATES COURT OR THE PROSECUTOR
INFORMSTHECOURTTHATHEORSHEISOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEOFFENCEISOFSUCHA
NATUREORMAGNITUDETHATITMERITSPUNISHMENTINEXCESSOFTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHE
MAGISTRATESCOURTBUTNOTOFTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHEREGIONALCOURT THEPROSECUTOR
MAYPUTTHERELEVANTCHARGEANDANYOTHERCHARGETOTHEACCUSED WHOSHALLBE
REQUIREDBYTHEMAGISTRATETOPLEADTOITS!
)FTHEACCUSEDPLEADSNOTGUILTY THEMAGISTRATEMAYQUESTIONHIMORHERINTERMS
OF S AND THEREAFTER COMMIT HIM OR HER FOR A SUMMARY TRIAL TO THE REGIONAL
COURTCONCERNEDS$/NAPLEAOFGUILTYTHEACCUSEDISQUESTIONEDINTERMS
OFSANDTHEMAGISTRATE IFHEORSHEISSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTY REFERS
THEACCUSEDFORSENTENCETOTHEREGIONALCOURTS# )FTHEMAGISTRATEISNOT
SATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTY HEORSHEWILLENTERAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYAND
SUBMITTHEACCUSEDFORASUMMARYTRIALTOTHEREGIONALCOURTS# ANDCF-
3!/ $IMANE 3!4 3EEALSO-EYERS 3!
/
4HEPLEASRECORDEDINTERMSOFS!DIFFERFROMTHEPLEASOF@GUILTYOR@NOT
GUILTYINTERMSOFSINTHATTHEACCUSEDISNOTENTITLEDTODEMANDTHATHEOR
SHEBECONVICTEDORACQUITTED ANDTHEFIRST MENTIONEDPLEAPROCEEDINGSCANNOT
BEREGARDEDASTHECOMMENCEMENTOFORPARTOFTHESUBSEQUENTTRIAL)TFOLLOWS
THEREFORE THATAPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITCONVICTCANNOTBESUSTAINED4HEACCUSED
MUSTACCORDINGLYBEASKEDTOPLEADAFRESHATTHESUBSEQUENTTRIAL IRRESPECTIVEOF
WHATHEORSHEHASPLEADEDINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURT,UBBE 3!4
3INGH 3!! CF(ENDRIX 3!$ 3INGH 3!#
7HEREACHARGETHATWASTEMPORARILYWITHDRAWNAFTERTHEACCUSEDHADALREADY
PLEADEDINTERMSOFS!ISLATERREINSTATED THEACCUSEDMUSTNOTBEASKEDTO
PLEAD AGAIN IN THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE SAME CHARGE BUT MUST BE SUMMARILY
REFERREDTOTHECORRECTCOURTFORTRIALINTERMSOFS)FTHEACCUSEDWERETOBE
ASKED TO PLEAD IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAIN IT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IRREGULARITY
,ETHOPA 3!#2/
0
,%!).-!')342!4%m3#/524/.!#(!2'%*534)#)!",%).4(%
()'(#/524
4HIS PROCEDURE IS SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS THE @CURTAILED PREPARATORY EXAMINA
TION)TISSOMETIMESALSOCALLEDA@MINI PREPARATORYEXAMINATION
4HEPURPOSEOFTHISPROCEDUREISTOEASETHEWORKLOADOFTHE(IGH#OURTANDOF
THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS)TISASIFTINGPROCESSWHEREBYAPREPARATORY
EXAMINATIONORASUPERIORCOURTTRIALMAYBEELIMINATEDINCERTAINCASESWHERE ON
ACCOUNTOFTHEPOSSIBLECO OPERATIONOFTHEACCUSEDATANEARLYSTAGE THECHARGE
PROVESTOBEOFALESSSERIOUSNATURETHANWASINITIALLYTHOUGHT
7HENANACCUSEDAPPEARSINAMAGISTRATESCOURTANDTHEALLEGEDOFFENCEMAY
BE TRIED BY A SUPERIOR COURT ONLY OR IS OF SUCH A SERIOUS NATURE AND MAGNITUDE
THATITMERITSPUNISHMENTINEXCESSOFTHEJURISDICTIONOFAMAGISTRATESCOURT THE
PROSECUTOR MAY ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS PUT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THECHARGETOTHEACCUSEDINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTCF3 3!4 4HE

MAGISTRATE DOES NOT DETERMINE THE CHARGE UPON WHICH THE ACCUSED MUST STAND
TRIAL4HEPROCEEDINGSONLYSERVEASANAIDTOTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
INDETERMININGTHECHARGEAND INTERMSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS DECISIONS
REGARDINGTHEPROSECUTIONRESTWITHHIMORHER-3 3!4 4HE
MAGISTRATE DIRECTS THE ACCUSED TO PLEAD TO THE CHARGES 4HE PROCEEDINGS
COMMENCEBYLODGINGTHECHARGESHEETWITHTHECLERKOFTHECOURTSREAD
WITHS AND
7HEREANACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTY THEMAGISTRATEQUESTIONSHIMORHERINORDER
TOASCERTAINWHETHERHEORSHEADMITSTHEALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGES READ
WITHS B )FTHEMAGISTRATEISSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDADMITSTHEALLEGA
TIONS HE OR SHE STOPS THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLICPROSECUTIONS4HEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMAYDECIDETOARRAIGNTHE
ACCUSEDFORSENTENCEBEFORETHESUPERIORCOURTORANYOTHERCOURTHAVINGJURISDIC
TIONINCLUDING THE COURT IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE STOPPEDS A
AND )FTHEMAGISTRATEISNOTSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDADMITSTHEALLEGATIONS
INTHECHARGESHEET HEORSHEMUST INTERMSOFS B RECORDINWHATRESPECT
HEORSHEISNOTSOSATISFIED ENTERAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYANDDEALWITHTHEMATTER
INTERMSOFS BELOW 4HEMAGISTRATEMUSTADVISETHEACCUSEDOFTHEDECI
SIONOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS)FTHEDECISIONISTHATTHEACCUSEDBE
ARRAIGNEDFORSENTENCE
INTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTCONCERNED THECOURTMUSTDISPOSEOFTHECASEAND
THEPROCEEDINGSCONTINUEASTHOUGHNOINTERRUPTIONOCCURRED
INAREGIONALORSUPERIORCOURT THEMAGISTRATEMUSTADJOURNTHECASEFORSEN
TENCE BY SUCH COURTS 4HIS COURT MAY CONVICT THE ACCUSED ON HIS
OR HER PLEA OF GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE CONCERNED AND IMPOSE ANY COMPETENT
SENTENCES .OTHINGPREVENTSTHEPROSECUTORORACCUSEDFROMPRESENT
INGEVIDENCEONANYASPECTOFTHECHARGE ORTHECOURTFROMQUESTIONINGTHE
ACCUSEDFORTHEPURPOSESOFDETERMININGANAPPROPRIATESENTENCES
)FTHEACCUSEDSATISFIESTHECOURTTHATTHEPLEAOFGUILTYORANADMISSIONWAS
INCORRECTLYRECORDED HOWEVER ORIFTHECOURTISNOTSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSED
ISGUILTYORHASNOVALIDDEFENCETOTHECHARGE ITRECORDSAPLEAOFNOTGUILTY
ANDPROCEEDSWITHTHETRIALASIFITISASUMMARYTRIALINTHATCOURT!NADMIS
SIONBYTHEACCUSED THERECORDINGOFWHICHTOOKPLACEWITHTHEAGREEMENTOF
THEACCUSED STANDSASPROOFOFTHEFACTTHUSADMITTEDS
7HEREANACCUSEDPLEADSNOTGUILTY S PROVIDESTHATTHECOURTMUSTACTIN
TERMSOFSTHEMAGISTRATEASKSTHEACCUSEDWHETHERHEORSHEWISHESTOMAKE
ASTATEMENTINDICATINGTHEBASISOFHISORHERDEFENCE7HERETHEACCUSEDDOESNOT
MAKEASTATEMENT ORDOESSOANDITISNOTCLEARFROMTHESTATEMENTTOWHATEXTENT
HEORSHEDENIESORADMITSTHEALLEGATIONS THECOURTMAYQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDIN
ORDERTOESTABLISHWHICHALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGETHEACCUSEDDISPUTES4HECOURT
MAYINITSDISCRETIONPUTANYQUESTIONTOTHEACCUSEDINORDERTOCLARIFYANYOF
THEABOVE MENTIONEDASPECTSANDMUSTENQUIREFROMTHEACCUSEDWHETHERANAL
LEGATIONWHICHISNOTPLACEDINISSUEBYTHEPLEAOFNOTGUILTYMAYBERECORDEDAS
ANADMISSION7HENSHASBEENCOMPLIEDWITH THEMAGISTRATEMUSTSTOPTHE

#(!04%2r02% 42)!,%8!-).!4)/.3
PROCEEDINGSANDADJOURNTHECASEPENDINGTHEDECISIONOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS4HELATTERMAY
ARRAIGNTHEACCUSEDONANYCHARGEATASUMMARYTRIALBEFOREASUPERIORCOURT
OR ANY OTHER COURT HAVING JURISDICTION INCLUDING THE MAGISTRATES COURT IN
WHICHTHEPROCEEDINGSWEREADJOURNED OR
INSTITUTEAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONAGAINSTTHEACCUSED
4HEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSADVISESTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTCONCERNEDOFHIS
ORHERDECISIONANDTHECOURTNOTIFIESTHEACCUSEDACCORDINGLY
)F THE DECISION IS THAT THE ACCUSED BE ARRAIGNED IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT IN
WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED THE COURT MUST PROCEED FROM THE STAGE
ATWHICHADJOURNMENTTOOKPLACEASIFNOINTERRUPTIONOCCURRED)FTHEACCUSEDIS
ARRAIGNEDONACHARGEDIFFERENTFROMTHECHARGETOWHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADED
HEORSHEMUSTPLEADTOTHATCHARGE4HECOURTMUSTTHENDEALWITHTHEMATTERIN
ACCORDANCEWITHSIFTHEPLEAISONEOFNOTGUILTY ORINTERMSOFSINTHE
CASEOFAPLEAOFGUILTYCFINTHISREGARDTHECHAPTERONARRAIGNMENTANDPLEA
)FTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDECISIONISTHATTHEACCUSEDBEARRAIGNED
INAREGIONALCOURTORASUPERIORCOURT THEMAGISTRATEMUST AFTERHAVINGNOTIFIED
THEACCUSEDOFTHEDECISION COMMITTHEACCUSEDFORASUMMARYTRIALBEFORESUCH
COURTS
!LTHOUGHTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTDOESNOTPROVIDEFORTRANSMISSIONOFTHE
RECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSTOTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSEXPRESSPROVISION
ISMADEINTHECASEOFPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONSS ONEMAYASSUMETHAT
THISWILLACTUALLYHAPPENINPRACTICETHEREISINDEEDNOOTHERWAYFORADIRECTOROF
PUBLICPROSECUTIONSTOREACHTHEDECISIONWHICHISMENTIONEDSEVERALTIMESINSS
AND7ITHREGARDTOTHEEVIDENTIARYVALUEOFTHERECORDOFTHERESPECTIVE
PROCEEDINGS CFSS A! AND ASWELLAS4SANKOBEB 3!!
4HE PLEAS RECORDED IN TERMS OF S DIFFER FROM THE PLEAS OF @GUILTY OR @NOT
GUILTY IN TERMS OF S AND THE FIRST MENTIONED PLEA PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE
REGARDEDASTHECOMMENCEMENTOFORPARTOFTHESUBSEQUENTTRIALASISTHECASE
WITHTHEPLEASRECORDEDINTERMSOFS! ABOVE!PLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITCONVICT
CAN ONCEMORE NOTBESUSTAINEDANDTHEACCUSEDMUSTBEASKEDTOPLEADAFRESH
ATTHESUBSEQUENTTRIAL
! REQUEST FOR FURTHER PARTICULARS IN RELATION TO A CHARGE SUCH AS MURDER MAY
BEENFORCEDBEFORETHEACCUSEDISREQUIREDTOPLEADINTERMSOFS3ECTION
ISALSOAPPLICABLETOPROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFS,EOPENGV-EYER./
3!#24
02%0!2!4/29%8!-).!4)/.3
#HAPTEROFTHE!CTSSn ISAPPLICABLETOPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONS
7HATISAPREPARATORYEXAMINATION
)NTERMSOFSAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONISACRIMINALPROCEEDING!PREPARATORY
EXAMINATIONISNOTATRIALBECAUSETHEFINALDECISIONINTHEPROCEEDINGSRESTSWITH
THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSANDNOTWITHTHECOURT)TISANEXAMINATION
WHICHISHELDBEFOREAMAGISTRATETODETERMINEWHETHERTHEEVIDENCEPRESENTED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
BEFOREHIMORHERJUSTIFIESATRIALBEFOREASUPERIORCOURTORANYOTHERCOURTWHICH
HASJURISDICTION4HEACCUSEDISNOTONTRIAL(EORSHEISNOTREQUESTEDTOPLEADAT
THECOMMENCEMENTOFTHEPROCEEDINGS ASATATRIAL BUTONLYATTHECONCLUSION
AFTERALLTHEEVIDENCETOTHECHARGEORCHARGESHASBEENLEDS4HEMAGISTRATE
OR REGIONAL MAGISTRATE ASKS THE ACCUSED TO PLEAD TO THE CHARGES S 4HE
MAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATE DOESNOTMAKEAFINDINGOFGUILTYORNOTGUILTY
)FATRIALISINSTITUTEDAFTERAPREPARATORYEXAMINATION ITISASEPARATEPROCEEDING
BECAUSETHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGPREPARATORYEXAMINATION ISTERMINATEDWHEN
THEACCUSEDISCOMMITTEDFORTRIAL3WANEPOEL 3!!
!PREPARATORYEXAMINATIONISINHERENTLYIRRECONCILABLEWITHTHESORS!
PROCEDURE ASDISCUSSEDINPARASANDABOVE BECAUSETHEPURPOSEOFTHELATTER
ISTOARRAIGNANACCUSEDASSOONASPOSSIBLEWITHOUTTHEACCUSEDKNOWINGONWHAT
EVIDENCETHE3TATESCASEISFOUNDED4HEPURPOSEOFTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATION
ONTHEOTHERHAND ISTOENABLETHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTODETERMINE
WHETHERTHEPROSECUTIONHASACASEANDWHETHERITISACASEWHICHSHOULDBEPROS
ECUTEDINASUPERIORCOURTORANOTHERCOURT
)F THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS DECIDES ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO
PROSECUTETHEACCUSEDINAPARTICULARCOURT THEACCUSEDISTHENTRIEDBYTHATCOURT
)TISATTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDISCRETIONTOARRAIGNTHEACCUSEDFOR
SENTENCEWHEREHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY ORFORTRIAL IFTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADED
NOTGUILTYINANYCOURTOTHERTHANTHESUPERIORCOURT
)FTHEMAGISTRATEDISCHARGESTHEACCUSEDATTHECONCLUSIONOFTHEEXAMINATION
THISDOESNOTHAVETHEEFFECTOFANACQUITTAL)FHOWEVER THEACCUSEDISINFORMED
BYTHEMAGISTRATETHATTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSHASDECIDEDNOTTOPROS
ECUTEHIMORHER HEORSHEMAY IFCHARGEDWITHTHESAMECRIMEAGAIN PLEADTHAT
HEORSHEHASPREVIOUSLYBEENACQUITTEDAUTREFOISACQUIT S4HISCREATESTHE
IMPRESSIONTHATHEORSHEHASBEENACQUITTEDDURINGATRIAL BUTISONLYASTATUTORY
EXTENSIONOFTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHERULESRELATINGTOAUTREFOISACQUITCFALSO.DOU
3!! AND#HAPTERBELOW
7HENISAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONHELD
"EFORETHECOMINGINTOOPERATIONOFSBISOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF
APREPARATORYEXAMINATIONHADTOPRECEDEEVERYSUPERIORCOURTTRIAL5NDER
S BIS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS WAS GIVEN THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE
WHETHERASUMMARYTRIALSHOULDBEHELDWITHOUTAPRECEDINGPREPARATORYEXAMI
NATION ONLYIFHEWASOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEREWASANYDANGEROFINTERFERENCE
WITHORINTIMIDATIONOFWITNESSESORIFHEDEEMEDITINTHEINTERESTOFTHESAFETY
OF THE STATE OR IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 4HE OPINION WAS HELD AT THAT TIME THAT A
PREPARATORYEXAMINATIONAFFORDEDANACCUSEDANUNFAIRADVANTAGEINTHATHEWAS
ABLETOHEARALLTHE3TATESEVIDENCEWITHOUTHAVINGTOTESTIFYHIMSELFORTOCALL
WITNESSESORTOCROSS EXAMINETHEMANDTHATITWASTIME CONSUMINGANOPINION
WHICH STILL FINDS SUPPORT TODAY 3EE #OMMISSION OF )NQUIRY INTO THE 3TRUCTURE AND
&UNCTIONING OF THE #OURTS (OEXTER #OMMISSION &IFTHAND&INAL2EPORT 0ART)))

3ECTION REGULATES THE PRESENT POSITION )T LAYS DOWN THAT IF A DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IS OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE MORE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE HE MAY DECIDE TO ORDER THE HOLDING OF A PREPARATORY

#(!04%2r02% 42)!,%8!-).!4)/.3
EXAMINATIONBEFORETHEACCUSEDISTRIEDINASUPERIOROROTHERCOURTWITHJURISDIC
TION(EMAYTAKETHISDECISIONATTHEFOLLOWINGSTAGES
FOLLOWING S PROCEDURE IN WHICH THE ACCUSED HAS PLEADED GUILTY IF THE
DIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSISINDOUBTREGARDINGTHEACCUSEDSGUILTORIF
HEORSHEFEELSTHATTHEFACTSDONOTFULLYAPPEARFROMTHERECORDSS C
ANDA
FOLLOWINGSPROCEDUREINWHICHTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTYSS
II ANDA OR
ATANYSTAGEBEFORECONVICTIONDURINGTHECOURSEOFATRIALINAMAGISTRATES
COURTORREGIONALCOURTSB )NSUCHACASETHETRIALWILLBECONVERTED
INTOAPREPARATORYEXAMINATION)N4IETIES 3!! THE!PPELLATE
$IVISIONNOWTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL HELDTHAT NOTWITHSTANDINGTHE
WORDING OF SB IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE FOR A
CONVERSIONOFATRIALINTOAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONONLYBEFORECONVICTION
ANDTHATANYOTHERINTERPRETATIONWOULDBEADEPARTUREFROMEXISTINGPRIN
CIPLESOFLAW3HOULDANACCUSEDPERSONSTRIALBECONVERTEDINTOAPREPARATORY
EXAMINATIONINTERMSOFSB AFTERCONVICTION THEACCUSEDWILLBEENTITLED
TOPLEADAUTREFOISCONVICTIFHEORSHEISREQUIREDTOPLEADONTHESAMECHARGES
ATATRIALSUBSEQUENTTOTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATION
4HEDECISIONTOINSTITUTEAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONISATTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLIC
PROSECUTIONSEXCLUSIVEDISCRETIONANDNEITHERTHEMAGISTRATENORTHEACCUSEDCAN
INTERFEREWITHIT4HEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSWILLINSTITUTEAPREPARATORY
EXAMINATIONIFHEORSHEISOFTHEOPINION
I THATTHECRIMEISTOOSERIOUSTOBETRIEDBYALOWERCOURT INWHICHCASEHEOR
SHEMAY INTERMSOFS REFERTHECASETOTHE(IGH#OURTONANEVENMORE
SERIOUSCHARGEOR
II THATTHEREISAFATALDEFICIENCYINTHE3TATESCASEAFTERTHECLOSUREOFTHE3TATES
CASEATTHEENDOFTHETRIALANDTHATITMIGHTBEREMEDIEDBYCONVERTINGTHE
TRIALINTOAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONCF"HAMV,UTGE./ 3!4
4HE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD IN ANY OF THE INSTANCES REFERRED TO IN
AND ABOVE WHICH HAVE BEEN ADJOURNED AWAITING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONSDECISION FORMSPARTOFTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONWHICHISSUB
SEQUENTLY HELDS A 4HE EXAMINATION PROCEEDS ON THE CHARGE TO WHICH
THEACCUSEDHASPLEADED(OWEVER EVIDENCEMAYBELEDWHICHRELATESTOFURTHER
CRIMESALLEGEDLYCOMMITTEDBYTHEACCUSED OTHERTHANTHECHARGETOWHICHHEOR
SHEHASPLEADEDSB
4HEACCUSEDPLEADSTOTHECHARGES AFTERALLTHEEVIDENCEFORTHE3TATEHASBEEN
LED(EORSHEMAYOBJECTTOTHECHARGEINTERMSOFSORPLEADMENTALILLNESSIN
TERMSOFSS AND7HEREASUMMARYTRIALHASBEENCONVERTEDINTOAPRE
PARATORYEXAMINATIONTHEEVIDENCEALREADYLEDHASTHESAMELEGALFORCEANDEFFECT
ASIFITHADBEENLEDATTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATION!WITNESSWHOHASALREADY
TESTIFIEDMAYBERECALLEDBYTHECOURT.EWWITNESSESMAYBECALLEDTOTESTIFYTO
THECHARGES TOWHICHTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADEDINTHESUMMARYTRIAL ANDALSOTO
ALLEGATIONSOFFURTHERCRIMESCOMMITTEDBYTHEACCUSEDSSAND

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
0OWERSOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSAFTERCONCLUSIONOFTHE
PREPARATORYEXAMINATION
)NTERMSOFSTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMAY AFTERCONSIDERINGTHERE
CORDOFAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONTRANSMITTEDTOHIMORHERUNDERS ARRAIGN
THEACCUSEDFORSENTENCE ARRAIGNHIMORHERFORTRIAL ORDECLINETOPROSECUTE4HE
DIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMUSTADVISETHECOURTINWHICHTHEEXAMINATION
WASHELDOFHISORHERDECISION
7HEREANACCUSEDISARRAIGNEDFORSENTENCE THEMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGIS
TRATEOFTHECOURTINWHICHTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONWASHELDMUSTADVISE
THEACCUSEDOFTHEDECISIONOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSAND IFTHE
DECISIONISTHATTHEACCUSEDBEARRAIGNED
A INTHECOURTCONCERNED DISPOSEOFTHECASEONTHECHARGEONWHICHTHE
ACCUSEDISARRAIGNED OR
B INANOTHERCOURT ADJOURNTHECASEFORSENTENCEBYSUCHOTHERCOURT4HE
LATTERCOURTMAYWITHCERTAINPROVISOSCONVICTTHEACCUSEDONHISOR
HERPLEAOFGUILTYCFS
7HERETHEACCUSEDISARRAIGNEDFORTRIAL HEORSHEISADVISEDBYTHECOURTOF
THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDECISIONASINTHEPRECEDINGPARAGRAPH
ANDIFTHEACCUSEDISTOBEARRAIGNEDINSOMEOTHERCOURT HEORSHEISCOM
MITTEDFORTRIALBYSUCHOTHERCOURT4HECASEISDEALTWITHINALLRESPECTSASA
SUMMARYTRIAL3EESFORFURTHERDETAILS
7HERETHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDECLINESTOPROSECUTEANACCUSED HE
ORSHEADVISESTHEMAGISTRATEOFTHEDISTRICTINWHICHTHEPREPARATORYEXAMI
NATIONWASHELDOFHISORHERDECISIONANDTHEMAGISTRATEMUSTFORTHWITHHAVE
THEACCUSEDRELEASEDFROMCUSTODY ORIFHEORSHEISNOTINCUSTODY ADVISEHIM
ORHERINWRITINGOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDECISION.OCRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS MAY AGAIN BE INSTITUTED AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN RESPECT OF THE
CHARGE IN QUESTIONS 4HE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS DECISION TO
DECLINETOPROSECUTESHOULDFORALLPRACTICALPURPOSESBEEQUATEDTOANACQUIT
TALONTHEMERITSBYACOURTOFLAW IETHEACCUSEDWILLATA@RE TRIALINRESPECT
OFTHESAMESUBJECT MATTERBEABLETORELYONTHEPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUIT$U
4OITETALn

0HASE4WO4HE4RIAL

#(!04%2
)NDICTMENTSANDCHARGESHEETS
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
,/$'%-%.4!.$3%26)#%/&).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%
3(%%43
)NTRODUCTION
)NTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
)NTHELOWERCOURTS
&/2-!.$35"34!.#%/&#(!2'%3!.$).$)#4-%.43
4ERMINOLOGY
.ECESSARYAVERMENTSINTHECHARGESHEET
.EGATIVINGEXCEPTIONS EXEMPTIONS PROVISOS EXCUSESOR
QUALIFICATIONS
)NCLUSIONOFUNNECESSARYAVERMENTS
4HEOBLIGATIONTOPROVIDEPARTICULARS
$%&%#4).).$)#4-%.4/2#(!2'%#52%$"9%6)$%.#%
#/22%#4)/./&%22/23).#(!2'%
30,)44).'/&#(!2'%3/2$50,)#!4)/./&#/.6)#4)/.3
!SINGLEACTCONSTITUTESMORETHANONESTATUTORYOFFENCE OR
STATUTORYANDCOMMON LAWOFFENCES
!SINGLEACTCONSTITUTESMORETHANONEOFFENCEATCOMMON
LAW
-ORETHANONEACTOFTHESAMENATUREOROFMOREORLESSTHE
SAMENATUREISCOMMITTEDPRACTICALLYSIMULTANEOUSLY
CONSTITUTINGMORETHANONEOFFENCEWHETHERASTATUTORYOR
COMMON LAWOFFENCE
#ONDUCTOFTHEPERPETRATORISSPREADOVERALONGPERIODOF
TIMEAND
AMOUNTSTOACONTINUOUSREPETITIONOFTHESAMEOFFENCE
*/).$%2/&/&&%.#%3
4(%*/).$%2/&3%6%2!,!##53%$


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr!CCESSTOINFORMATION
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTOFACCESSTOr
D ANYINFORMATIONHELDBYTHESTATEAND
E ANYINFORMATIONTHATISHELDBYANOTHERPERSONANDTHATISREQUIREDFORTHEEX
ERCISEORPROTECTIONOFANYRIGHTS
3EE BELOW
D TOBEINFORMEDOFTHECHARGEWITHSUFFICIENTDETAILTOANSWERIT
E TOHAVEADEQUATETIMEANDFACILITIESTOPREPAREADEFENCE
F ç K ccc
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr3ERIOUSNESSOFOFFENCES
)NORDERTODETERMINETHESERIOUSNESSOFOFFENCESFORPURPOSESOFTHIS!CT THECAT
EGORIESOFOFFENCESARELISTEDINTHEFOLLOWINGORDER BEGINNINGWITHTHECATEGORYOF
LEASTSERIOUSOFFENCES
D /FFENCESCONTAINEDIN3CHEDULE
E OFFENCESCONTAINEDIN3CHEDULEAND
F OFFENCESCONTAINEDIN3CHEDULE
)NTHECASEOFACHILDBEINGCHARGEDWITHMORETHANONEOFFENCEWHICHAREDEALT
WITH IN THE SAME CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENCE MUST GUIDE THE
MANNERINWHICHTHECHILDMUSTBEDEALTWITHINTERMSOFTHIS!CT
)NTHECASEOFACHILDBEINGCHARGEDWITHMORETHANONEOFFENCEWHICHAREDEALT
WITHINSEPARATECRIMINALPROCEEDINGS SUBSECTION DOESNOTAPPLY
3EE BELOW
,/$'%-%.4!.$3%26)#%/&).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
)NTRODUCTION
%VERYONE HAS THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ANY INFORMATION HELD BY THE STATE AND ANY
INFORMATIONTHATISHELDBYANOTHERPERSONANDTHATISREQUIREDFORTHEEXERCISEOF
PROTECTIONOFANYRIGHTSSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HISPRINCIPLEAPPLIESTOVARI
OUSFACETSOFTHECRIMINALPROCESSRELATINGTOTHEFAIRTRIALRIGHTSOFTHEACCUSED
WHICHWILLBEDISCUSSEDINMOREDETAILLATERINTHISCHAPTER
A !CCESSTOTHECONTENTOFTHEPOLICEDOCKETORRELEVANTPARTSTHEREOF
)N 3HABALALA V !TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL 'UMEDE V !TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANS
VAAL 3!#2## AT;=AND;= THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTGAVE
DIRECTIONASTOTHEFACTORSANDPRINCIPLESTHATCOULDINFLUENCETHEDECISIONBY

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
THEPROSECUTIONORTHECOURTWHENRELIEFISSOUGHTFROMTHECOURTAGAINSTTHE
3TATESDENIALOFACCESS ASTOWHETHERTHEACCUSEDSHOULDBEALLOWEDORDENIED
ACCESS
)NGENERAL ANACCUSEDPERSONSHOULDBEENTITLEDTOHAVEACCESSATLEAST
TODOCUMENTSINTHEPOLICEDOCKETWHICHAREEXCULPATORYFORTHEACCUSED
OR WHICH ARE PRIMA FACIE LIKELY TO BE HELPFUL TO THE DEFENCE UNLESS IN
VERYRARECASES THE3TATEISABLETOJUSTIFYTHEREFUSALOFSUCHACCESSONTHE
GROUNDSTHATITISNOTJUSTIFIEDFORTHEPURPOSESOFAFAIRTRIAL
/RDINARILY THERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALWOULDINCLUDEACCESSTOTHESTATEMENTS
OFWITNESSESWHETHERORNOTTHE3TATEINTENDSTOCALLSUCHWITNESSES AND
SUCHPARTSOFTHECONTENTSOFAPOLICEDOCKETASARERELEVANTINORDERTO
ENABLEANACCUSEDPERSONPROPERLYTOEXERCISETHATRIGHT BUTTHEPROSECU
TIONMAY INAPARTICULARCASE BEABLETOJUSTIFYTHEDENIALOFSUCHACCESS
ONTHEGROUNDSTHATITISNOTJUSTIFIEDFORTHEPURPOSESOFAFAIRTRIAL4HIS
WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE #ONSIDERATIONS TO BE
TAKENINTOACCOUNTARE FOREXAMPLE
I THE SIMPLICITY OF THE CASE EITHER ON THE LAW OR ON THE FACTS OR ON
BOTH
II THEDEGREEOFPARTICULARITYFURNISHEDINTHEINDICTMENTORTHESUM
MARYOFSUBSTANTIALFACTSINTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT
III THEPARTICULARSFURNISHEDPURSUANTTOSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT
IV THEDETAILSOFTHECHARGE READWITHSUCHPARTICULARS
4HE3TATEISENTITLEDTORESISTACLAIMBYTHEACCUSEDFORACCESSTOTHEDOS
SIERORTOANYPARTICULARDOCUMENTINTHEPOLICEDOCKETONTHEGROUNDS
THATSUCHACCESSISNOTJUSTIFIEDFORTHEPURPOSESOFENABLINGTHEACCUSED
PROPERLYTOEXERCISEHISORHERRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALORONTHEGROUNDTHAT
ITHASREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHEREISAREASONABLERISKTHATACCESSTOTHE
RELEVANTDOCUMENTWOULDLEADTOTHEDISCLOSUREOFTHEIDENTITYOFANIN
FORMER ORMIGHTDIVULGE3TATESECRETSORONTHEGROUNDSTHATTHEREISA
REASONABLE RISK THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE MIGHT LEAD TO THE INTIMIDATION OF
WITNESSES OR OTHERWISE PREJUDICE THE PROPER ENDS OF JUSTICE 4HE COURTS
RETAINADISCRETIONANDSHOULDBALANCETHEDEGREEOFRISKINVOLVEDINAT
TRACTING THE POTENTIAL PREJUDICIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE PROPER ENDS OF
JUSTICEAGAINSTTHEDEGREEOFTHERISKTHATAFAIRTRIALMAYNOTENSUEFORTHE
ACCUSEDIFSUCHACCESSISDENIED !COURTMAYREVIEWANDCHANGEITSOWN
DECISIONLATER
3EEALSOTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE0ROMOTIONOF!CCESSTO)NFORMATION
!CTOF INTERMSOFWHICHANINFORMATIONOFFICEROFAGOVERNMENTAL
PUBLICBODYMAYREFUSEACCESSTOAPOLICEDOCKETBEFORETHECOMMENCE
MENTOFTHETRIAL IFSUCHDISCLOSUREMAYPREJUDICETHEPOLICEINVESTIGATION
ORPROSECUTIONOFTHECRIMECOMMITTEDBYTHEALLEGEDOFFENDER ANDMUST
REFUSEDISCLOSUREIFTHEACCESSTOTHEPOLICEDOCKETCONCERNSCERTAINBAIL
PROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
B 4OBEINFORMEDOFTHEALLEGATIONSS A OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
-ORESPECIFICALLYASFARASTHEPRESENTCHAPTERISCONCERNED ANACCUSEDHAS
THE RIGHT INCLUDED IN HIS OR HER RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL TO BE INFORMED OF THE
CHARGEWITHSUFFICIENTDETAILTOANSWERITS A OFTHE#ONSTITUTION0E
TERSEN;=!LL3!# 4HEACCUSEDMAY HOWEVER BEENTITLEDTOHAVE
ACCESSTOTHERELEVANTPARTSOFTHEPOLICEDOCKETEVENINTHECASESWHERETHE
PARTICULARSFURNISHEDMIGHTBESUFFICIENTTOENABLETHEACCUSEDTOUNDERSTAND
THECHARGEAGAINSTHIMORHERBUT INTHESPECIALCIRCUMSTANCESOFAPARTICU
LARCASE ITMIGHTNOTENABLETHEDEFENCETOEXERCISEITSOTHERFAIRTRIALRIGHTS
)N ORDER TO AVOID UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE FACTS WHICH MUST BE PROVED
OUR LAW STIPULATES STRICT REQUIREMENTS WHICH HAVE TO BE SATISFIED WHEN AN
INDICTMENTORCHARGEISDRAWNUP4HETERM@INDICTMENTISUSEDINCONNEC
TIONWITHPROSECUTIONSINADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA@(IGH
#OURT WHILE@CHARGEREFERSTOAPROSECUTIONINALOWERCOURT 4HESEDOCU
MENTS INWHICHITISALLEGEDTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTYOFASPECIFICCRIMEOR
CRIMES FURNISHSPECIFICINFORMATION ASITISESSENTIALTHATTHEACCUSEDSHOULD
KNOWEXACTLYWHATTHECHARGEAGAINSTHIMORHERIS(UGO 3!
! 4HELEGISLATURE NEVERTHELESS HASENDEAVOUREDTOAVOIDCRIMINALTRIALSBE
INGRENDEREDABORTIVEMERELYBECAUSEOFINSIGNIFICANTMISTAKESMADEBYTHE
PERSONSWHODRAWUPINDICTMENTSANDCHARGESHEETS)NTHEPASTTHEREQUIRE
MENTSFORINDICTMENTSWERESOSTRICTTHATTHESLIGHTESTTECHNICALERROROFTEN
VITIATEDPROCEEDINGS
4HE 3OUTH !FRICAN LEGISLATURE THEREFORE HAS ENACTED PROVISIONS THROUGH
THE YEARS IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT A LESS FORMALISTIC PRACTICE (OWEVER THIS
DOESNOTMEANTHATANINDICTMENTORCHARGESHEETMAYBESLOVENLYDRAWN
-KENKANA 3!% THEGOLDENRULEREMAINSTHATANINDICTMENTOR
CHARGESHEETSHOULDINFORMTHEACCUSEDINCLEARANDUNMISTAKABLELANGUAGE
OFTHECHARGEHEORSHEHASTOMEET0ILLAY 3!. ANDCASESCITED
THERE
C 4OPREPAREITSOWNCASESUFFICIENTLYS B OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
)N*AIPAL 3!## 3!#2## AT;= ITWASSTATED
THATBESIDESTHEFAIRTRIALRIGHTSOFTHEACCUSED ESPECIALLYTHOSEMENTIONEDIN
S A ANDB OFTHE#ONSTITUTION THERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALALSOREQUIRESFAIRNESS
TOTHEPUBLICASREPRESENTEDBYTHE3TATEANDHASTOINSTILPUBLICCONFIDENCEIN
THECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM3UBSTANCEMUSTPREVAILOVERFORM4HEDETERMI
NATIONOFWHETHERFAIRTRIALRIGHTSWEREINFRINGEDTURNS INEACHCASE ONTHE
QUESTIONOFPREJUDICETOTHEACCUSED4HISSIGNIFIESTHATPREJUDICEWILLEXISTIF
THEREISAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYTHATTHEDEFENCEORRESPONSEOFTHEACCUSED
PERSONMAYNOTHAVEBEENTHESAMEHADTHEREBEENANAMENDMENT4HUS IF
THEREISAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYTHATIFTHEACCUSEDHADKNOWNFROMTHEOUTSET
THATHE SHEORTHEYWEREEXPOSEDTOAMORESERIOUSSENTENCE SUCHASLIFEIM
PRISONMENT THEACCUSEDMIGHTWELLHAVERESPONDEDDIFFERENTLYORCONDUCTED
HIS HERORTHEIRCASESDIFFERENTLY THEREWOULDINTHESECIRCUMSTANCESBEAN
INFRINGEMENTOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL+HOZAV4HE3TATE 3!#2
3#! AT;=

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
D 4O PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS RIGHT @TO ADDUCE AND CHALLENGE EVIDENCE S I OF THE
#ONSTITUTION
4HISINCLUDESTHERIGHTTOIDENTIFYWITNESSESABLETOCONTRADICTTHEASSERTIONS
MADEBYTHE3TATEWITNESSESORTOOBTAINEVIDENCEWHICHMIGHTHAVEASUF
FICIENTIMPACTUPONTHECREDIBILITYOFTHE3TATEWITNESSESDURINGCROSS EXAM
INATION OR TO INSTRUCT EXPERT WITNESSES PROPERLY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE WHICH
MIGHTSIMILARLYDETRACTFROMTHEPROBABILITYOFTHEVERSIONSGIVENBYTHE3TATE
WITNESSESORTOFOCUSPROPERLYONSIGNIFICANTMATTERSOMITTEDBYTHE3TATEWIT
NESSESTOTHEIRSTATEMENTORTODEALPROPERLYWITHTHESIGNIFICANCEOFMATTERS
STATEDINTHEIRSTATEMENTSBYSUCHWITNESSESINONESTATEMENT
)NTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
(AVINGDECIDEDTOINDICTANACCUSED THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMUSTLODGE
ANINDICTMENTWITHTHEREGISTRAROFTHE(IGH#OURT4HISISADOCUMENTPRESENTED
INTHENAMEOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSWHEREBYHEORSHEINFORMSTHE
COURTTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTYOFTHECRIMEALLEGEDTHEREIN4HEDOCUMENTFURTHER
SETSOUTTHEDATEANDPLACEATWHICHTHECRIMEWASALLEGEDLYCOMMITTED TOGETHER
WITHCERTAINPERSONALPARTICULARSOFTHEACCUSEDS
7HERE NO PREPARATORY EXAMINATION HAS BEEN HELD THE INDICTMENT MUST BE
ACCOMPANIEDBYASUMMARYOFTHESALIENTFACTSOFTHECASE INORDERTOINFORMTHE
ACCUSEDOFTHEALLEGATIONSAGAINSTHIMORHER PROVIDEDTHATTHISWILLNOTBEPREJU
DICIALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEORTHESECURITYOFTHESTATE4HEPURPOSEOF
THESUMMARYOFSUBSTANTIALFACTSISTOFILLOUTTHERATHERTERSEPICTUREALMOSTINEVI
TABLYPRESENTEDBYTHEINDICTMENT-PETHA 3!# 4HE3TATEISNOT
BOUNDBYTHESUMMARYANDCANNOTBEPRECLUDEDFROMLEADINGEVIDENCEWHICH
CONTRADICTSIT+GOLOKO 3!#2! !LISTOFTHENAMESANDADDRESSES
OFPERSONSTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSINTENDSCALLINGMUSTALSOBESUP
PLIED ALTHOUGHTHISMAYBEWITHHELDIFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSISOF
THEOPINIONTHATTHEWITNESSESMAYBETAMPEREDWITHORINTIMIDATEDS
4HE INDICTMENT MUST THEN BE SERVED ON THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RULES OF COURT 3ERVICE OF THE INDICTMENT TOGETHER WITH A NOTICE OF TRIAL MUST
TAKEPLACEATLEASTDAYS3UNDAYSANDPUBLICHOLIDAYSEXCLUDED BEFORETHEDATE
APPOINTEDFORTHETRIAL UNLESSTHEACCUSEDAGREESTOASHORTERPERIOD3ERVICEIS
EFFECTEDEITHERINTERMSOFTHERULESOFCOURT ORBYTHEMAGISTRATEHANDINGTHE
DOCUMENTS TO THE ACCUSED WHEN COMMITTING HIM OR HER TO THE (IGH #OURT
S
)NTHELOWERCOURTS
5NLESSANACCUSEDHASBEENSUMMONEDTOAPPEARINCOURTTHEPROCEEDINGSATA
SUMMARYTRIALINALOWERCOURTARECOMMENCEDBYLODGINGACHARGESHEETWITH
THE CLERK OF THE COURTS 5NLIKE AN INDICTMENT THIS IS NOT SERVED ON THE
ACCUSED BUTISPRESENTEDINCOURT4HEACCUSEDMAYEXAMINETHISATANYSTAGEOF
THERELEVANTCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSS4HEACCUSEDINSUCHACASEISBROUGHTTO
COURT ASWEHAVESEEN ONWRITTENNOTICE BYSUMMONS ORUNDERARREST
7HEREANACCUSEDISBROUGHTTOCOURTONWRITTENNOTICEORUNDERARREST HEOR
SHEMAYBEREQUIREDTOAPPEARUPONVERYSHORTNOTICE BUTWHEREASUMMONSIS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SERVEDUPONANACCUSEDTHISMUSTTAKEPLACEATLEASTDAYS3UNDAYSANDPUBLIC
HOLIDAYS EXCLUDED BEFORE THE DAY OF TRIALS )F THE ACCUSED OR HIS OR HER
ADVISERFINDSTHATTHISPERIODLEAVESTHEACCUSEDINSUFFICIENTTIMEWITHINWHICHTO
PREPAREHISORHERDEFENCE HEORSHEMAYAPPLYFOR ANDTHECOURTWILLINAPPROPRI
ATECASESGRANT APOSTPONEMENTFORTHATPURPOSE4HANE40$AND6AN
.IEKERK40$)N3INGHV"LOMERUS./ 3!. ITWASHELDTHAT
SHORTSERVICETOWHICHNOOBJECTIONHADBEENMADEATTHETRIALCOULDNOTBERELIED
ONBEFORETHEAPPEALCOURT
&
/2-!.$35"34!.#%/&#(!2'%3!.$).$)#4-%.43
4
ERMINOLOGY
"ECAUSETHEREQUIREMENTSASTOTHEFORMANDSUBSTANCEOFINDICTMENTSANDCHARGE
SHEETSARETHESAME THESHORTERTERM@INDICTMENTORSIMPLY@CHARGE WILL FORTHE
SAKEOFCONVENIENCE BEUSEDFROMNOWON
.ECESSARYAVERMENTSINTHECHARGESHEET
#HARGE SHEETS SHOULD BE KEPT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE 4HEY SHOULD BE INTELLIGIBLE
ANDACASETHATCANBEPARAPHRASEDINSIMPLETERMSMUSTNOTBEMADEINTRICATE
2AUTENBACH 3!#24
3ECTION SETSOUTTHEREQUIREMENTSWITHWHICHACHARGESHOULDCOMPLY)T
PROVIDESASFOLLOWS
3UBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFTHIS!CTANDOFANYOTHERLAWRELATINGTOANYPAR
TICULAROFFENCE ACHARGESHALLSETFORTHTHERELEVANTOFFENCEINSUCHMANNER
ANDWITHSUCHPARTICULARSASTOTHETIMEANDPLACEATWHICHTHEOFFENCEISAL
LEGEDTOHAVEBEENCOMMITTEDANDTHEPERSON IFANY AGAINSTWHOMANDTHE
PROPERTY IFANY INRESPECTOFWHICHTHEOFFENCEISALLEGEDTOHAVEBEENCOM
MITTED ASMAYBEREASONABLYSUFFICIENTTOINFORMTHEACCUSEDOFTHENATUREOF
THECHARGE
7HEREANYOFTHEPARTICULARSREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION AREUNKNOWNTOTHE
PROSECUTORITSHALLBESUFFICIENTTOSTATETHEFACTINTHECHARGE
)NCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHEDESCRIPTIONOFANYSTATUTORYOFFENCEINTHEWORDS
OFTHELAWCREATINGTHEOFFENCE ORINSIMILARWORDS SHALLBESUFFICIENT
)NSHORT THISSECTIONPROVIDESTHATTHERELEVANTOFFENCESHOULDBESETFORTHINTHE
CHARGEINSUCHAMANNERTHATTHEACCUSEDISSUFFICIENTLYINFORMEDOFTHENATURE
OFTHECHARGEBROUGHTAGAINSTHIMORHER"RIEFLY ITCANBESAIDTHATALLTHEELE
MENTSOFTHEOFFENCESHOULDBEMENTIONEDINTHECHARGE ORTOPUTITDIFFERENTLY
THATTHECHARGESHOULDDISCLOSEANOFFENCE3ECTION SPECIFICALLYREQUIRESTHAT
SUFFICIENTPARTICULARSASTOTHETIMEANDPLACEATWHICHTHEOFFENCEISALLEGEDTOHAVE
BEENCOMMITTED THEPERSONIFANY AGAINSTWHOMANDTHEPROPERTYIFANY IN
RESPECTOFWHICHTHEOFFENCEISALLEGEDTOHAVEBEENCOMMITTED SHOULDBEFUR
NISHEDINTHECHARGE
#OMPLIANCEWITHTHEFOREGOINGREQUIREMENTSOFACHARGECANBEDEMONSTRATED
BY REFERRING TO A TYPICAL CHARGE OF MURDER !S MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE (IGH
#OURTACHARGESHEETISREFERREDTOASANINDICTMENT 3UCHACHARGENORMALLYREADS
ASFOLLOWS

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
@4HATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTYOFTHECRIMEOFMURDERINTHATONORABOUT$ECEMBER
ANDATORNEAR3UNNYSIDEINTHEDISTRICTOF0RETORIA THEACCUSEDDIDINTENTIONALLYAND
UNLAWFULLYKILL*OHN3MITH ANADULTMALE
0ARTICULARSFURNISHEDARE
THENAMEOFTHEOFFENCEFORWHICHTHEACCUSEDISINDICTEDMURDER
ALLTHEELEMENTSOFTHECRIMEMURDERINTENTION UNLAWFULNESS KILLINGOFAN
OTHERHUMANBEING
THEDATEONWHICHANDPLACEWHERETHEOFFENCEWASALLEGEDLYCOMMITTEDAND
THEPERSONAGAINSTWHOMTHEOFFENCEWASALLEGEDLYCOMMITTED
)NTHISCASETHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHACOMMON LAWOFFENCE)NSUCHANIN
STANCETHEOFFENCEMUSTBEDESCRIBEDINCLEARLEGALTERMS ANDIFALEGALAPPELLATION
FOR THE OFFENCE EXISTS IT MUST BE SET FORTH BY SUCH APPELLATION OR OTHERWISE IT
SHOULD BE STRICTLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED%NDEMANN 40$ AND .EU
MANN 3!3PEC#RIM#T )NS ITISSPECIFICALLYPROVIDEDTHATTHE
DESCRIPTIONOFASTATUTORYOFFENCEWILLBESUFFICIENTIFTHEWORDSOFTHEENACTMENT
OR SIMILAR WORDS ARE USED 4HOSE WHO DRAFT INDICTMENTS SHOULD NOT SLAVISHLY
FOLLOWTHEWORDINGOFASTATUTE BUTSHOULDCONFINETHECHARGETOTHATWHICHIS
RELEVANT-ANGQU 3! % .OTE THAT THE #RIMINAL ,AW !MENDMENT
!CT OF DID NOT CREATE A NEW OFFENCE OF MURDER AND HENCE THERE IS NO
SUCHCHARGEAS@MURDERUNDERS OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF
OR@MURDERUNDERS OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF
/BVIOUSLYNOPLEACANBETENDERED@INTERMSOFEITHEROFTHEABOVESECTIONS AND
THESTATECANNOTBINDTHECOURTTOACCEPTINGSUCHAPLEA"YREADINGTHECHARGE
TOGETHERWITHTHEAPPROPRIATESECTIONOF!CTOF THEACCUSEDISALERTED
TOTHEAPPLICABILITYOFTHEPRESCRIBEDMINIMUMSENTENCE ANDTHEACCUSEDISAF
FORDEDTHEOPPORTUNITYTOPLACEFACTSBEFORETHECOURTONWHICHADEVIATIONFROM
THEPRESCRIBEDSENTENCEWOULDBEJUSTIFIED+EKANA 3!#23#! AT;=
7ITHREGARDTOAVERMENTSASTOTHETIMEATWHICHTHEOFFENCEISALLEGEDTOHAVE
BEENCOMMITTED S C PROVIDESTHATIFTIMEISNOTOFTHEESSENCEOFTHEOFFENCE
ANINDICTMENTISNOTNECESSARILYDEFICIENTASARESULTOFFAILURETOSTATETHETIMEAT
WHICHTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED)FTHETIMEOFTHEOFFENCEISINDEEDMENTIONED
BUTITISPROVEDTHATTHEACTOROFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDONANYOTHERDAYORTIME
NOTMORETHANTHREEMONTHSBEFOREORAFTERTHEDAYORPERIODALLEGED SUCHPROOFWILL
BETAKENTOSUPPORTSUCHALLEGATIONASTOTHETIMEOFTHEOFFENCE PROVIDEDTHAT
TIME IS NOT OF THE ESSENCE OF THE OFFENCES )F THE ACCUSED RAISES AN ALIBI
ASADEFENCEINOTHERWORDS THATATTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEALLEGED
CRIMEHEORSHEWASELSEWHERE ANDTHECOURTCONSIDERSTHATTHEACCUSEDMIGHT
BEPREJUDICEDINMAKINGSUCHDEFENCEIFPROOFWERETOBEADMITTEDTHATTHEACT
OROFFENCEHADBEENCOMMITTEDONSOMEDAYORTIMEOTHERTHANTHEDAYORTIME
STATEDINTHEINDICTMENT THENTHECOURTMUSTREJECTSUCHPROOFEVENTHOUGHTHE
TIMEPROPOSEDTOBEPROVEDISWITHINTHEAFORESAIDTHREE MONTHPERIOD 7HERE
ADEFENCEOFANALIBIHASBEENRAISEDANDTHETRIALCOURTACCEPTSTHEEVIDENCEIN
SUPPORTTHEREOFASBEINGPOSSIBLYTRUE ITFOLLOWSTHATTHETRIALCOURTSHOULDFIND
THATTHEREISAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYTHATTHEPROSECUTIONSEVIDENCEISMISTAKEN
ORFALSE4HERECANNOTBEAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYTHATTHETWOVERSIONSAREBOTH
CORRECT-USIKER 3!#23#!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED MAY ALSO BE OF THE ESSENCE OF AN
OFFENCE&OREXAMPLE SOMEOFFENCESCANBECOMMITTEDONLYINAPUBLICPLACE EG
NEGLIGENTDRIVINGOFAMOTORVEHICLEWHICHOFFENCECANTAKEPLACEONLYONAPUB
LICROAD )NSUCHACASEACHARGEISDEFECTIVEIFITDOESNOTALLEGETHATTHEOFFENCE
WASCOMMITTEDINSUCHAPLACE
)NTHEABOVEEXAMPLEOFANINDICTMENTOFMURDER YOUWILLNOTICETHATITISSPE
CIFICALLYMENTIONEDTHATTHEACCUSEDACTEDINTENTIONALLY7HEREITISANESSENTIAL
FEATUREOFANOFFENCETHATITBECOMMITTEDINCIRCUMSTANCESSHOWINGAPARTICULAR
MENTAL ATTITUDE ANIMUS OF THE OFFENDERFOR EXAMPLE THAT IT WAS DONE INTEN
TIONALLY AS IN THE CASE OF @MURDER OR NEGLIGENTLY AS IN THE CASE OF @CULPABLE
HOMICIDE SUCHMENTALATTITUDESHOULDBEAVERRED OTHERWISETHECHARGEDOES
NOTDISCLOSEANOFFENCE
! CHARGE IS VALID IF IT SETS OUT THE PARTICULARS OF AN OFFENCE WITH WHICH AN
ACCUSEDISCHARGED)TISNOTREQUIREDOFTHE3TATETOSPECIFYONTHECHARGESHEET
THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF A CONVICTION ON THE OFFENCE AS CHARGED$IRECTOR OF
0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ESTERN#APEV0RINS 3!#23#! !LTHOUGHTHE
PRESENCEOFAGGRAVATINGCIRCUMSTANCESAFFECTSSENTENCEONLY ITISOFGREATIMPOR
TANCETHATAPERSONCHARGEDWITHROBBERYORWITHHOUSEBREAKINGWITHINTENTTO
COMMITANOFFENCE SHOULDBEINFORMED INCLEARTERMS THATTHE3TATEALLEGESAND
INTENDSTOPROVETHATAGGRAVATINGCIRCUMSTANCESWEREPRESENT:ONELE 3!
! )NACONSTITUTIONALDISPENSATIONITCANCERTAINLYBENOLESSDESIRABLETHAN
UNDERCOMMONLAWTHATTHEFACTSTHE3TATEINTENDSTOPROVETOINCREASETHECOURTS@
SENTENCINGJURISDICTIONASUNDERSOF!CTOFMINIMUMSENTENCING
LEGISLATION SHOULD BE CLEARLY SET OUT IN THE CHARGE SHEET OR INDICTMENT "UT IN
,EGOA 3!#23#! AT;=THECOURTHELDTHATWHILSTTHEDESIRABILITY
OF SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN A CHARGE SHEET OR INDICTMENT TO ANY SENTENCING LEGISLA
TIONSUCHAS!CTOF UPONWHICHTHE3TATEMAYSEEKTORELYANDTOTHE
FACTSWHICHTHE3TATEINTENDSTOPROVETOBRINGTHEACCUSEDWITHINTHEAMBITOF
SUCHLEGISLATIONCANNOTBEGAINSAID ITISNOTNECESSARILYESSENTIAL3EEALSO.DLOVU
3!#23#! AT;=AND;=7HERETHEREISNOSUCHREFERENCE THE
ISSUEISWHETHER DESPITETHEOMISSIONS THEACCUSEDHASHADAFAIRTRIAL(OWEVER
IN4HAKELIV3 3!#23#! THECHARGESHEETREFERREDTOS OFTHE
#RIMINAL ,AW !MENDMENT !CT OF THE -INIMUM 3ENTENCES !CT 4HE
TRIALCOURTAMENDEDTHECHARGESHEETINTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT AFTERTHEAPPELLANTSTHEACCUSED HADTESTIFIEDINTHEIRDEFENCE BYREPLACING
S WITHS OFTHE-INIMUM3ENTENCES!CT WITHOUTAFFORDINGTHEACCUSED
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COURT IN RESPECT OF THE AMENDMENT 4HE EFFECT
OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE CHARGE SHEET BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE MAGISTRATE WAS TO
EXPOSETHEAPPELLANTSTOTHEPRESCRIBEDMINIMUMSENTENCEOFLIFEIMPRISONMENT
ASOPPOSEDTOAPRESCRIBEDMINIMUMSENTENCEOFYEARSIMPRISONMENTINTERMS
OFS OFTHE-INIMUM3ENTENCES!CT ASAPPLICABLETOTHEORIGINALCHARGE4HE
3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL HELD THAT THIS CONSTITUTED A FUNDAMENTAL IRREGULARITY
THATINFRINGEDTHEFAIRTRIALRIGHTSOFTHEAPPELLANTS ANDDESTROYEDTHEVALIDITYOF
THEAMENDMENT
7HERETHE3TATERELIESONACOMMONPURPOSEITISESSENTIALTOALLEGETHECOM
MONPURPOSEINTHECHARGESHEETBECAUSERELIANCEONACOMMONPURPOSEINTHE

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AVERMENT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE NOTION OF A FAIR TRIAL
-SIMANGO 3!#23#!
.EGATIVINGEXCEPTIONS EXEMPTIONS PROVISOS EXCUSESORQUALIFICATIONS

3OMETIMESSTATUTORYPROVISIONSCONTAINEXCEPTIONSORPROVISOSINTERMSWHERE
OFCERTAINPERSONSAREEXEMPTEDFROMTHEOPERATIONOFASTATUTORYPROVISION)N
TERMSOFSITISNOTNECESSARYFORTHESTATETOSPECIFYORNEGATIVESUCHEXCEPTIONS
ETCINTHECHARGE)FTHEPROSECUTORUNNECESSARILY DOESTHIS ITNEEDNOTBEPROVED
BYTHEPROSECUTION)TISFORTHEACCUSEDTOPROVETHATHEORSHEISPROTECTEDBY
SUCHANEXCEPTION EXEMPTION ETC
!DISTINCTIONSHOULDBEDRAWNBETWEENANECESSARYAVERMENTCONCERNINGTHE
OFFENCE ANDANEXCEPTION)NTHISREGARDTHEGOLDENRULEISTHATINCRIMINATINGFAC
TORSMUSTBEPROVEDBYTHEPROSECUTIONANDEXCULPATORYFACTORSBYTHEACCUSED
7HILE INCRIMINATING FACTS MUST BE MENTIONED IN THE CHARGE EXCULPATORY FACTS
NEEDNOTBEMENTIONED
4HEAPPLICATIONOFTHISRULECANBEEXPLAINEDASFOLLOWS)FTHEACCUSEDISCHARGED
WITHTHEOFFENCEOFDRIVINGAMOTORVEHICLEWITHOUTALICENCE THEFACTTHATTHE
ACCUSEDDIDNOTPOSSESSALICENCEISASUBSTANTIALELEMENTOFTHERELEVANTOFFENCE
$RIVINGAVEHICLEASSUCHISNOTANOFFENCE BUTDRIVINGITWITHOUTALICENCEIS4HE
AVERMENTTHATTHEACCUSEDWASNOTINPOSSESSIONOFALICENCEIS INOTHERWORDS
INCRIMINATORYANDMUSTBEINCLUDEDINTHECHARGE(OWEVER IFAPERSONISCHARGED
WITHTHEUNLAWFULPOSSESSIONOFPROHIBITEDDEPENDENCE PRODUCINGMEDICINEEG
DAGGA THEPROSECUTIONNEEDNOTALLEGETHATTHEACCUSEDWASNOTAUTHORISEDIN
TERMSOFTHE$RUGSAND$RUG4RAFFICKING!CTOFTOBEINPOSSESSIONOF
SUCHMEDICINE)FTHEACCUSEDSHOULDALLEGETHATHEORSHEWASINDEEDAUTHORISED
TO BE IN POSSESSION OF SUCH MEDICINE THIS FACT CONSTITUTES AN EXCULPATORY FACTOR
WHICHMUSTBERAISEDBYTHEACCUSEDANDITNEEDNOTBEINCLUDEDINTHECHARGE
)NCLUSIONOFUNNECESSARYAVERMENTS
7HEN DURINGATRIAL ITAPPEARSTHATANYWORDSORPARTICULARSINANINDICTMENT
ORCHARGEARESUPERFLUOUS ANAMENDMENTMAYBEMADEIFITDOESNOTPREJUDICE
THEACCUSEDS @0REJUDICEISMEANTTOREFERTOTHEACCUSEDSDEFENCE#OETZER
3!! )FSUCHAMENDMENTISNOTMADE THEVALIDITYOFTHEPROCEED
INGSWILLNOTBEAFFECTED UNLESSTHEAMENDMENTHASBEENREFUSEDBYTHECOURT
3UCHSURPLUSAGE IFITDOESNOTEMBARRASSTHEACCUSEDINHISORHERDEFENCE WILLAS
AGENERALRULEBEDISREGARDEDFOREXAMPLE ACHARGEWHICHNEEDLESSLYANDINACCU
RATELYSPECIFIEDANEXCEPTIONWASUPHELDIN-ANNHEIM40$)NACCURATE
AVERMENTSINACHARGEMAYSERIOUSLYPREJUDICETHE3TATESCASE(ASSAN
3!#
4HEOBLIGATIONTOPROVIDEPARTICULARS
)FTHEACCUSEDFEELSTHATTHEPARTICULARSINTHEINDICTMENTARETOOSCANTYTOINFORM
HIMORHERPROPERLYOFTHECHARGEAGAINSTHIMORHER SUCHACCUSEDORSHE ORHIS
OR HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE MAY REQUEST PARTICULARS OR FURTHER PARTICULARS FROM
THEPROSECUTORS%VENIFACHARGECOMPLIESWITHTHEREQUIREMENTSETOUTIN
THEPRECEDINGPARAGRAPHSOFTHISCHAPTER THECOURTISSTILLCOMPETENTTOGRANTAN

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ORDERFORFURTHERPARTICULARSWHICHMAYBEREQUIREDBYTHEACCUSEDTOENABLEHIM
OR HER TO PREPARE HIS OR HER DEFENCE-OKGOETSI !$ AT 4HE COURT
MAYEITHERBEFOREORATTHETRIALBUTBEFOREEVIDENCEHASBEENLED INITSDISCRETION
DIRECT PARTICULARS TO BE DELIVERED TO THE ACCUSED 7HERE THE ACCUSED GENUINELY
REQUIRESPARTICULARSOFTHESUBSTANTIVEALLEGATIONAGAINSTHIMORHERINORDERTO
ASCERTAINTHETRUENATUREOFTHECASEHEORSHEHASTOMEET THECOURTWILLORDERTHE
PROSECUTIONTOFURNISHSUCHPARTICULARSUNLESSTHISISSHOWNTOBEIMPRACTICABLE
!BBASS!$4HEPROSECUTORMUSTDELIVERTHEPARTICULARSFREEOFCHARGE
)NDETERMININGWHETHERAPARTICULARISREQUIREDORNOTANDWHETHERADEFECTINAN
INDICTMENTISMATERIALTOTHESUBSTANTIALJUSTICEOFTHECASEORNOT THECOURTMAY
REFERTOTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONORSUMMARYOFSUBSTANTIALFACTSINTERMSOF
S A
)N7EBERV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE7INDHOEK 3!37! THE3OUTH7EST
!FRICA $IVISION GRANTED A MANDAMUS DIRECTING THAT THE MAGISTRATE ORDER THE
PROSECUTORTODELIVERTOTHEAPPLICANTSFURTHERPARTICULARSREGARDINGTHECHARGES
AGAINST THEM 4HE (IGH #OURT WILL INTERVENE IN UNCONCLUDED PROCEEDINGS IN
MAGISTRATESCOURTSONLYIFITISNECESSARYTOPREVENTAGRAVEINJUSTICE)NTHISCASE
THE (IGH #OURT REJECTED THE PROPOSITION THAT POSTPONEMENTS AND RECALLING OF
WITNESSESCOULDSERVEASASUBSTITUTEFORTHERIGHTOFANACCUSEDTOBESUFFICIENTLY
INFORMED OF THE CHARGES BEFORE HE OR SHE PLEADS AND BEFORE HE OR SHE PRESENTS
HISORHERDEFENCE.ANGUTUUALA 3!37! 'ENERALLYSPEAKING THE
COURTSAREVERYRELUCTANTTOISSUEAMANDAMUSDIRECTINGTHEFURNISHINGOFFURTHER
PARTICULARS'ONCALVESV!DDISIONELE,ANDDROS 0RETORIA 3!4
)FACHARGESUFFICIENTLYDISCLOSESANOFFENCE BUTISLACKINGINADEQUATENARRATION
OFPARTICULARS THEACCUSEDISDEEMEDTOHAVEWAIVEDHISORHERRIGHTTOAPPLYFOR
PARTICULARSANDCANNOTSETUPSUCHDEFECTONAPPEALIFHEHASFAILEDTOAPPLYFOR
SUCHPARTICULARSATTHETRIAL,OTZOFF!$
4HEFUNCTIONOFPARTICULARSISTODEFINETHEISSUESANDNOTTOENLARGETHEM4HE
PROSECUTORMUSTGIVEPARTICULARSWITHREGARDTOTHEEVIDENCEWHICHISTOBELED
(EORSHEISNOTENTITLEDTOSETOUTANENDLESSSERIESOFALTERNATIVES3ADEKE
3!4 AND-PETHA 3!# )N!DAMS 3!3PEC
#RIM#T ITWASHELDTHATWHEREFURTHERPARTICULARSAREAPPLIEDFORTHE3TATEMAY
NOTMERELYREFERTOTHERECORDOFTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONIFSUCHRECORDIS
VOLUMINOUS.ORMAYTHE3TATEREPLYTOAREQUESTFORPARTICULARSBYSTATINGSIMPLY
THATTHEPARTICULARSSOUGHT@AREMATTERSPECULIARLYWITHINTHEKNOWLEDGEOFTHE
ACCUSED 3UCH REPLY MAY LEAD TO THE INDICTMENT BEING QUASHED.ATIONAL (IGH
#OMMAND 3!4 7HERETHEREISMORETHANONECOUNT THEPARTICULARS
APPLICABLETOEACHCOUNTMUSTBESETOUT.KIWANI 3!2
7HEREPARTICULARSAREGIVEN THE3TATEMUSTPROVETHECHARGEASPARTICULARISED
IN THE FURTHER PARTICULARS !NTHONY 40$ AND WHERE A CONVICTION IS
BASEDONEVIDENCENOTCOVEREDBYTHEPARTICULARSSUPPLIED THECONVICTIONMAY
BESETASIDEONREVIEW+ROUKAMP40$)NACHARGEOFNEGLIGENTDRIVING
OFAMOTORVEHICLE FORINSTANCE THEGENERALALLEGATIONISMADETHATTHEACCUSED
DROVETHECARINANEGLIGENTMANNER4HEACCUSEDREQUESTSTHEPROSECUTORTOFUR
NISHPARTICULARSWITHREGARDTOTHEMANNERINWHICH ITISALLEGED HEORSHEDROVE
NEGLIGENTLY4HEPROSECUTOR INRESPONSETOTHISREQUEST INFORMSTHEDEFENCETHAT
THEACCUSEDWASNEGLIGENT@INTHATHEFAILEDTOKEEPAPROPERLOOK OUT)FITAPPEARS

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL THAT THE ACCUSED ACTUALLY DID KEEP A PROPER LOOK OUT
BUTFAILEDTOAPPLYTHEBRAKES HEORSHECANNOTBECONVICTEDINTHEABSENCEOF
ANAMENDMENTOFTHECHARGE CF+ROUKAMPABOVE AND-AFUNGO 3!
'7
)F THE TRIAL COURT HAS REFUSED AN APPLICATIONFORPARTICULARSANDITAPPEARSON
APPEALTHATTHEACCUSEDHASBEENPREJUDICEDBYSUCHREFUSALANDTHATITCANNOT
BESAIDTHATNOFAILUREOFJUSTICEHASRESULTED THECOURTWILLSETASIDETHEACCUSEDS
CONVICTION6ERITY !MM40$$E#ONING 3!. AND#
3!4
$
%&%#4).).$)#4-%.4/2#(!2'%#52%$"9%6)$%.#%
7HENDISCUSSINGTHEREQUIREMENTSWITHWHICHINDICTMENTSMUSTCOMPLY REGARD
MUSTBEHADTOSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT WHICHWASORIGINALLYENACTED
IN AS PART OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT 4HIS SECTION HAS VERY FAR
REACHINGEFFECTS
"ACKGROUND
"EFORETHECOURTSCONSISTENTLYREQUIREDINDICTMENTSTODISCLOSEANOFFENCE
IETHATTHEYDISCLOSEFACTSWHICH IFPROVED WOULDRENDERTHEACCUSEDGUILTYOFAN
OFFENCE3EE EG $ESAI 3!! 7HEREAMATERIALELEMENTOFTHECRIME
INQUESTIONWASOMITTEDFOREXAMPLEWHERETHEPROSECUTORFAILEDTOALLEGETHAT
THEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDINAPUBLICPLACE ORTHATTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED
WITHAPARTICULARANIMUS THEACCUSEDCOULDNOTBEFOUNDGUILTY EVENTHOUGHTHE
EVIDENCEATTHETRIALPROVEDTHEELEMENTOMITTEDINTHECHARGE4HISWASALSOTHE
CASEWHERETHEACCUSEDHADPLEADEDGUILTY)FTHEACCUSEDWASCONVICTEDINSUCH
ACASEHEORSHECOULDBESURETHATTHECONVICTIONWOULDBEQUASHEDONAPPEAL
4HELEADINGCASEINTHISCONNECTIONIS(ERSCHEL!$#F4UCKER 3!
! -AGADHLA 3!. 2ADEBE 3!/ 4HECOURTHAD
THEPOWER OFCOURSE TOAMENDTHEINDICTMENT BUTUPTOOURCOURTSHELD
THEVIEWTHATANINDICTMENTCOULDNOTBEAMENDEDUNLESSITDISCLOSEDANOFFENCE
4OPUTANENDTOPROSECUTIONSBEINGRENDEREDABORTIVEBECAUSEOFSUCH@TECH
NICALERRORSMADEBYPERSONSDRAWINGUPCHARGES THELEGISLATUREINTRODUCED IN
SBISINTOTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFNOWSOF!CTOF
3ECTIONPROVIDESASFOLLOWS
7HEREACHARGEISDEFECTIVEFORTHEWANTOFANAVERMENTWHICHISANESSENTIALINGREDIENT
OFTHERELEVANTOFFENCE THEDEFECTSHALL UNLESSBROUGHTTOTHENOTICEOFTHECOURTBEFORE
JUDGMENT BECUREDBYEVIDENCEATTHETRIALPROVINGTHEMATTERWHICHSHOULDHAVEBEEN
AVERRED
4HISMEANSTHATTHEACCUSEDCANNOWBEFOUNDGUILTYEVENTHOUGHTHEINDICT
MENTDOESNOTDISCLOSEANOFFENCE ASLONGASTHEEVIDENCEPROVESTHEOFFENCE4HIS
ARRANGEMENTGREATLYALLEVIATESTHEBURDENOFPROSECUTORS&ROMANARROWREADING
ORINTERPRETATIONOFTHESECTION THECHARGEMAYBESODEFECTIVETHATTHEACCUSED
IS NOT PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST HIM OR HER (OWEVER
WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE IN A PRE CONSTITUTIONAL DISPENSATION WILL NOT NECESSARILY
MEETPRESENTDEMANDSINVIEWOFTHEEMPHASISINS OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONON

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL3ECTION A DEMANDSTHATTHEACCUSEDBEINFORMEDOF
THECHARGES AGAINSTHIMORHERWITHSUFFICIENTDETAILTOANSWERTOIT4HEQUES
TIONINEACHGIVENSITUATIONWHERETHEACCUSEDRELIESONANALLEGEDINFRINGEMENT
OFHISORHERRIGHTEMBODIEDINS A OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONSHOULDBEWHETHER
ANACCUSEDWASPREJUDICEDINTHEEXERCISINGOFHISORHERRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL!N
ACCUSED WILL BE SO PREJUDICED IF FOR EXAMPLE HE OR SHE REASONABLY WOULD HAVE
CALLED CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE OR CROSS EXAMINED DIFFERENTLY IF THE CHARGE HAD
READDIFFERENTLY ANDIFTHEPOSITIONCOULDNOTHAVEBEENCUREDBYAPOSTPONEMENT
+EARNEY 3!!$ ORBYANAMENDMENTWITHOUTTHEACCUSEDBEING
INANYWAYPREJUDICEDINHISORHERDEFENCE SOTHATHISORHERDEFENCEWOULDHAVE
REMAINEDEXACTLYTHESAMEHADTHE3TATEAMENDEDTHECHARGE-OLOIV-INISTEROF
*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2## AT;=
4HEFOLLOWINGCOMMENTSCONCERNINGSARENOTEWORTHY
!LTHOUGHSPROVIDESFORANAUTOMATICCUREOFADEFECT ATANYTIMEBEFORE
JUDGMENT THE 3TATE CANNOT RELY ON THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ONCE THE
DEFECTISBROUGHTTOTHECOURTSNOTICEBYANYOFTHEPARTIESBEFOREJUDGMENT
)NSUCHACASETHE3TATEMUSTASKFORANAMENDMENTINTERMSOFS
4HELANGUAGEOFTHESECTIONINDICATESTHAT ATTHEVERYLEAST THEOFFENCEWITH
WHICHTHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDSHOULDBENAMEDINTHEINDICTMENT-CWERA
0( ( . 4HE WORDS @THE OFFENCE SHOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE CON
STRUED AS MEANING THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH THE ACCUSED IS CHARGED AND OF
WHICHHEORSHEISCONVICTED)FTHEPROSECUTORWANTSTOCHARGETHEACCUSED
WITHTHEFT HEORSHESHOULD ITISSUBMITTED ATTHEVERYLEASTUSETHEWORD
@THEFTINTHEINDICTMENT7HEREASTATUTORYOFFENCEISALLEGED THENUMBER
OFTHESECTIONSHOULDATLEASTBEGIVENACCURATELYIFTHEPROSECUTORWANTSTO
RELYONS4HEREMUST INOTHERWORDS BEINDICATEDINTHECHARGESOMEREC
OGNISABLEOFFENCE ALTHOUGHNOOFFENCEIS TECHNICALLYSPEAKING DISCLOSED
$HLUDHLA 3!. SEEALSO-AYONGO 3!% 4HEREFORE
WHERE TWO OFFENCES ARE CONTAINED IN A SECTION AND THE ACCUSED IS CHARGED
WITHONLYONEOFTHEMNOREFERENCEBEINGMADEINTHECHARGESHEETTOTHE
OTHEROFFENCE SCANNOTBEINVOKEDTOCONVICTTHEACCUSEDOFSUCHOTHER
OFFENCE-OLOINYANE 3!/ 6AN2ENSBURG 3!'
%VENTHOUGHANACCUSEDMAYNOWBECONVICTEDUPONANINDICTMENTWHICH
DOESNOTDISCLOSEANOFFENCE INACONSTITUTIONALDISPENSATIONITISESSENTIAL
THAT THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD EXERCISE CAUTION BY FRAMING THE INDICTMENT IN
SUCHTERMSTHATITDOESDISCLOSEANOFFENCE)FHEORSHEFAILSTODOSOTHEAC
CUSEDCANBEFOREPLEADINGRAISEANEXCEPTIONAGAINSTTHECHARGE
)FTHEACCUSEDBEFOREJUDGMENTBRINGSTHEWANTOFAVERMENTTOTHENOTICEOF
THECOURTANDTHECOURTTHENREFUSESTOORDERTHECHARGETOBEAMENDED THE
RULEIN(ERSCHELSCASESTILLAPPLIES IETHEACCUSEDMAYRELYUPONTHEDEFECTON
APPEAL IFHEORSHEHASBEENCONVICTEDBYTHETRIALCOURT'ABA 3!
/
!DEFECTCANBECUREDONLYBYEVIDENCEPROPER NOT FOREXAMPLE BYTHEIN
VOCATIONOFSTATUTORYPROVISIONSANDPRESUMPTIONS!27HOLESALERS
3!.# THISCASECONTAINSATHOROUGHEXPOSITIONREGARDINGS 0HEKA
3!.# 4HEREPLIESOFANACCUSEDWHOHASPLEADEDGUILTY TO
QUESTIONINGINTERMSOFS B MAY FORTHEPURPOSESOFS BETREATEDAS

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
@EVIDENCECAPABLEOFCURINGADEFECTINTHECHARGE4SHIVHULE 3!
6
3ECTIONDOESNOTAUTHORISEREPLACEMENTOFONEOFFENCEWITHANOTHEROF
FENCEPROVEDBYEVIDENCE3ARJOO 3!. 3UBSTITUTIONOF@JERSEY
FOR@MEATINATHEFTCHARGEWOULDAMOUNTTOSUBSTITUTIONOFACHARGE+USE
3!#2%
#
/22%#4)/./&%22/23).#(!2'%
3ECTIONSANDSHOULDBEREADTOGETHERBOTHFROMAHISTORICALANDACONTEX
TUALPERSPECTIVE"OTHSECTIONSAREAIMEDATCORRECTINGMISTAKESOROMISSIONSOF
ANESSENTIALNATUREINTHECHARGESHEETORINDICTMENT 7HEREASTHEPROVISIONS
OFSCOULDAUTOMATICALLYCUREAFATALDEFECTINTHECHARGESHEETPROVIDEDTHAT
THEDEFECTINTHECHARGESHEETHASNOTBEENBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHECOURT
BYANYOFTHEPARTIESBEFOREJUDGMENTSEE:7 3!#2%#' ANDPRO
VIDEDTHATNONEOFTHEIMPEDIMENTSDISCUSSEDINPARAABOVEISPRESENT SUCHAS
THATTHEREHASBEENNOEVIDENCETOSUPPLYTHEMISSINGAVERMENT SISAIMEDAT
MOSTLYVERBAL REQUESTSBYTHE3TATETOTHECOURTTOAMENDADEFECT ALLEGATIONOR
OMISSIONINTHECHARGESHEETATANYTIMEBEFOREJUDGMENT
"EFORE IT WAS GENERALLY ASSUMED ON THE STRENGTH OF AN OBITER DICTUM OF
THE !PPELLATE $IVISION NOW THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL IN *HAZBAI !$
THATACHARGECOULDBEAMENDEDONLYWHEREITDISCLOSEDANOFFENCE)FITDID
NOTDISCLOSEANOFFENCE ITWASCONSIDEREDFATALLYDEFECTIVE)N HOWEVER THE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALIN#RAUSE 3!! HELDTHATTHISWASINCOR
RECTANDTHATTHETRIALCOURTCOULDCORRECTTHEINDICTMENTEVENTHOUGHITDIDNOT
DISCLOSEANOFFENCE4HISDECISIONWASCONFIRMEDBYANEXPRESSPROVISIONTOTHIS
EFFECTINS !CTOF WHICHAMENDEDS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTOF.TJORO 3!4 4HEPRESENTS CONTAINSASIMILAR
STIPULATION
3ECTIONPROVIDESASFOLLOWS
7HERE A CHARGE IS DEFECTIVE FOR THE WANT OF ANY ESSENTIAL AVERMENT THEREIN OR
WHERE THERE APPEARS TO BE ANY VARIANCE BETWEEN ANY AVERMENT IN A CHARGE AND
THEEVIDENCEADDUCEDINPROOFOFSUCHAVERMENT ORWHEREITAPPEARSTHATWORDS
ORPARTICULARSTHATOUGHTTOHAVEBEENINSERTEDINTHECHARGEHAVEBEENOMITTED
THEREFROM ORWHEREANYWORDSORPARTICULARSTHATOUGHTTOHAVEBEENOMITTEDFROM
THE CHARGE HAVE BEEN INSERTED THEREIN OR WHERE THERE IS ANY OTHER ERROR IN THE
CHARGE THECOURTMAY ATANYTIMEBEFOREJUDGMENT IFITCONSIDERSTHATTHEMAKING
OFTHERELEVANTAMENDMENTWILLNOTPREJUDICETHEACCUSEDINHISORHERDEFENCE
ORDERTHATTHECHARGE WHETHERITDISCLOSESANOFFENCEORNOT BEAMENDED SOFARAS
ITISNECESSARY BOTHINTHATPARTTHEREOFWHERETHEDEFECT VARIANCE OMISSION INSER
TIONORERROROCCURSANDINANYOTHERPARTTHEREOFWHICHITMAYBECOMENECESSARY
TOAMEND
4HEAMENDMENTMAYBEMADEONSUCHTERMSASTOANADJOURNMENTOFTHEPROCEED
INGSASTHECOURTMAYDEEMFIT
5PON THE AMENDMENT OF THE CHARGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COURT
THE TRIAL SHALL PROCEED AT THE APPOINTED TIME UPON THE AMENDED CHARGE IN THE
SAMEMANNERANDWITHTHESAMECONSEQUENCESASIFITHADBEENORIGINALLYINITS
AMENDEDFORM

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEFACTTHATACHARGEISNOTAMENDEDASPROVIDEDINTHISSECTIONSHALLNOT UNLESS
THECOURTREFUSESTOALLOWTHEAMENDMENT AFFECTTHEVALIDITYOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
THEREUNDER
)N .DLOVU V 3 3!#2 ## AT ;= TO ;= THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT
HELDTHATTHEMAGISTRATECOULDHAVEANDSHOULDHAVETAKENSTEPSTOENSURETHAT
THEACCUSEDWASPROSECUTEDORCONVICTEDINTERMSOFTHECORRECTPROVISIONOFTHE
APPLICABLEPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOFALSORE
FERREDTOASTHE-INIMUM3ENTENCES!CT 4HECOURTHELDTHATCOURTSAREEXPRESSLY
EMPOWEREDINTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTTOORDERATTHEOUTSET
OFTHETRIAL THATACHARGEBEAMENDED5PONREALISINGTHATTHECHARGEDIDNOTAC
CURATELY REFLECT THE EVIDENCE LED IT IS ALSO OPEN TO THE COURT AT ANY TIME BEFORE
JUDGMENTTOINVITETHE3TATETOAPPLYTOAMENDTHECHARGEANDTOINVITETHEAC
CUSEDTOMAKESUBMISSIONSONWHETHERANYPREJUDICEWOULDBEOCCASIONEDBYTHE
AMENDMENT)NTHISCASETHEMAGISTRATEFAILEDTODOSO)TWASONLYAFTERCONVIC
TION ATSENTENCING THATTHE MAGISTRATE SOUGHT TOINVOKETHE CORRECTPROVISION
$UTIESOFCOURTSANDPROSECUTORSINRESPECTOFDRAFTINGANDWARNINGATBEGINNING
OFTRIALARESETOUTIN.DLOVUABOVE )NTHISMATTERTHEAPPEALCOURTINCORRECTLY
REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE SAME MAGISTRATE TO CONTINUE THE HEARING 4HE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALSETTHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEASIDEANDORDEREDTHE
MATTERTOBEDEALTWITHINTERMSOFSC OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
)NSHORT S MAKESPROVISIONFORTHEAMENDMENTOFANINDICTMENTORCHARGE
INTHEFOLLOWINGSITUATIONS
WHEREITISDEFECTIVEFORWANTOFANESSENTIALAVERMENT
WHERETHEREISAVARIANCEBETWEENTHEAVERMENTINTHECHARGEANDTHEEVIDENCE
OFFEREDINPROOFOFSUCHAVERMENT
WHEREWORDSORPARTICULARSHAVEBEENOMITTED ORUNNECESSARILYINSERTEDOR
WHEREANYOTHERERRORISMADE
4HE FOLLOWING POINTS REGARDING THE AMENDMENT OF A CHARGE OR INDICTMENT IN
TERMSOFSARETOBENOTED
)N TERMS OF S THE COURT MAY ORDER AN AMENDMENT ONLY IF IT CONSIDERS
THATTHEMAKINGOFTHEAMENDMENTWILLNOTPREJUDICETHEACCUSEDINHISOR
HERDEFENCE4AITZ 3!. )NASUMMARYTRIALOFGREATCOMPLEX
ITYWHICHINVOLVESANUMBEROFCOUNTS ACOURTWILLBEVERYLOATH ATALATE
STAGEOFTHEPROCEEDINGS TOSANCTIONANYRADICALDEPARTUREFROMTHEINDICT
MENTFORFEAROFPREJUDICINGTHEACCUSED(ELLER 3!! AT#n$
4HEREWILLNOTBEPREJUDICEIFTHEREISBUTASLIGHTVARIANCEORWHEREITISCLEAR
THATTHEDEFENCEWOULDHAVEREMAINEDEXACTLYTHESAMEHADTHE3TATEORIGINALLY
PRESENTED THE CHARGE IN THE AMENDED FORM 7HERE APPLICATION TO AMENDA
CHARGEISMADEONAPPEAL THECOURTMUSTBESATISFIEDTHATTHEDEFENCEWOULD
HAVE REMAINED THE SAME IF THE CHARGE HAD ORIGINALLY CONTAINED THE NECES
SARYPARTICULARS/NAPPEALTHECOURTWOULDACCEDETOANAPPLICATIONFORAN
AMENDMENTOFACHARGEONLYIFITWERESATISFIEDTHATTHEREWASNOREASONABLE
DOUBTTHATTHEAPPELLANTWOULDNOTBEPREJUDICED& 3!4 AT
4HUS THE QUESTION OF PREJUDICE DEPENDS UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE
FACTSANDCIRCUMSTANCESINEACHPARTICULARCASE0ILLAY 3!.
AND#OETZER 3!!

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
3ECTIONMAKESPROVISIONFORAMENDMENTOFTHECHARGENOTFORREPLACE
MENTTHEREOFBYANALTOGETHERNEWCHARGE"ARKETTS4RANSPORT%DMS "PK
3! ! 4HE APPROACH TO ADOPT IS TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTDIFFERSTOSUCHANEXTENTFROMTHEORIGINALCHARGETHATITISINES
SENCEANOTHERCHARGE)FTHEPROPOSEDAMENDEDCHARGEDOESNOTCORRESPOND
ATALLTOTHEORIGINALCHARGE THENONECANTALKOFASUBSTITUTIONANDNOTOFAN
AMENDMENT)FONLYTHECITATIONOFACHARGEHASTOBEAMENDEDEGREPLACING
ACHARGEOFBRIBERYWHICHHASBEENREPEALEDANDREPLACEDWITHASTATUTORY
OFFENCEWITHACHARGEOFCONTRAVENTIONOFASTATUTORYPROVISIONUNDERTHE
0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF&RUUXSW!CTIVITIES$FWOF ANDTHEES
SENTIALSOFTHECHARGEWILLBETHESAME THEDEFENCEWILLNOTBEAFFECTEDBY
THEAMENDMENT-AHLANGU 3!#24 3CHOLTZ 3!#2
3#! 3HOULDANEWCHARGEBEFRAMEDINTHECOURSEOFATRIAL THEPOSSIBILITY
OFPREJUDICETOTHEACCUSEDISSTRONGTHEACCUSEDCOMESTOCOURTPREPAREDTO
MEETAPARTICULARCHARGE ANDWILLNOWBEFACEDWITHADIFFERENTISSUE3LAB
BERT 3!/
3ECTION HOWEVER PROVIDES THAT THE FACT THAT A CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN
AMENDEDASPROVIDEDINTHISSECTIONSHALLNOT UNLESSTHECOURTHASREFUSEDTO
ALLOWTHEAMENDMENT AFFECTTHEVALIDITYOFTHEPROCEEDINGSTHEREUNDER4HIS
SUBSECTIONMAYBEMISLEADING!CCORDINGTOOURCOURTSITMUSTBEINTERPRETED
INSUCHAWAYTHATIFANAMENDMENTWOULDHAVEBEENINORDERBYVIRTUEOF
SUB S IEIFITWOULDNOTHAVEPREJUDICEDTHEACCUSEDINHISORHERDEFENCE THE
FAILURETOEFFECTTHEAMENDMENTWILLNOTINVALIDATETHEPROCEEDINGS EXCEPT
WHERE THE COURT REFUSED TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT#OETZER 3!
! AT4HEINTERPRETATIONREFERREDTOINTHEITALICISEDWORDSABOVEISSTILL
INFORCEASREGARDSTHEINSERTIONOFSUPERFLUOUSWORDSANDANYDISCREPANCY
BETWEENTHEAVERMENTINTHECHARGEANDTHEEVIDENCEADDUCED3EE-OLOIV
-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2##
3
0,)44).'/&#(!2'%3/2$50,)#!4)/./&#/.6)#4)/.3
)THAPPENSFREQUENTLYTHATONEANDTHESAMEACTOFAPERSONCONSTITUTESMORETHAN
ONEOFFENCE)FAMAN FORINSTANCE ASSAULTSAMENTALLYDISABLEDPERSONBELOWTHE
AGEOFYEARSANDHASFORCIBLEINTERCOURSEWITHHIMORHER HISCONDUCTMAYCON
STITUTEANYOFTHEFOLLOWINGOFFENCESCOMMONASSAULTASSAULTWITHINTENTTORAPE
RAPECONNECTIONWITHAGIRLBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARSINCONTRAVENTIONOFS
!CTOF'ENERALCONSIDERATIONSOFFAIRNESSMILITATEAGAINSTTHEPERPETRATOR
BEINGCHARGEDWITHANDCONVICTEDOFALLTHESEOFFENCES
4HE FURTHER POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT A PERSON COMMITS MORE THAN ONE OFFENCE
I BYCONDUCTWHICHISSPREADOVERAPERIOD FORINSTANCEAPERSONWHOFORAYEAR
CONTINUOUSLYPRETENDSTOBEAMEDICALDOCTORANDTREATSPATIENTSII THROUGHTHE
SAMESERIESOFACTIONS FORINSTANCEAMANWHOATTACKSAWOMAN RAPESHERAND
THENRUNSAWAYWITHHERHANDBAG THEREBYCOMMITTINGWITHINABRIEFPERIODOF
TIMEASSAULT ASSAULTWITHINTENTTOCOMMITRAPE RAPE ROBBERYANDTHEFT-AYTHE
PERPETRATORBECHARGEDWITHALLTHESEOFFENCES
3UBJECTTOTHEQUALIFICATIONTHATTHEACCUSEDSHOULDNOTBECONVICTEDOFALLTHESE
OFFENCES THEANSWERTOTHEQUESTIONABOVEISINTHEAFFIRMATIVE3ECTIONPRO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
VIDESTHATIFBYREASONOFANYUNCERTAINTYASTOTHEFACTSWHICHCANBEPROVED OR
FORANYOTHERREASON ITISDOUBTFULWHICHOFSEVERALOFFENCESISCONSTITUTEDBYTHE
FACTSWHICHCANBEPROVED THEACCUSEDMAYBECHARGEDWITHHAVINGCOMMITTEDALL
ORANYOFTHOSEOFFENCESANDANYNUMBEROFSUCHCHARGESMAYBETRIEDATONCE OR
THEACCUSEDMAYBECHARGEDINTHEALTERNATIVEWITHHAVINGCOMMITTEDANYNUM
BEROFTHOSEOFFENCES
4HECOURTSDEVELOPEDARULEAGAINSTTHESO CALLEDSPLITTINGORDUPLICATION OF
CHARGES)N%XPARTE-INISTEROF*USTICE)NRE2V-OSEME!$ATITWAS
QUESTIONEDWHETHERTHISPROVISIONDOESNOTDRAWAVEILOVERTHEWHOLESERIESOF
DECISIONSDEALINGWITHSPLITTINGOFCHARGESANDWHETHERTHEPROSECUTIONSRIGHTS
REGARDINGTHESPLITTINGOFCHARGESWERENOTENLARGED4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
KNOWNATTHETIMEASTHE!PPELLATE$IVISION DIDNOTDECIDETHISPOINT HOWEVER
)N6AN:YL 3!# ITWASHELDTHATINVIEWOFTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE
FORERUNNEROFTHECURRENT STHEOLDTESTSWERENOWAPPLICABLEONLYTOCONVIC
TIONSANDNOTTOCHARGES'ARDINERAND,ANSDOWNACCORDINGLYSTATEAT
)T IS THE DUPLICATION OF CONVICTIONS TO WHICH ATTENTION MUST BE DIRECTED SAVE WHERE
THERE CAN BE NO REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE OFFENCE TO BE CHARGED THE DUPLICATION OF
CHARGES BUTNOTOFCONVICTIONS ISPERMITTEDBYTHESECTION
4HE LEADING CASE ON @SPLITTINGOF CHARGESIS 'ROBLER 3! ! )N THIS
DECISIONTHEORIGINANDAPPLICATIONOFTHERULEISEXTENSIVELYTRACEDANDTHEOPIN
IONISEXPRESSEDTHATSDEALSWITHTHEPROCEDUREWHICHMAYBEADOPTEDINTHE
FORMULATION OF CHARGES AND NOT WITH THE STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES
REGARDINGCONVICTIONANDPUNISHMENT4HERULEAGAINSTTHESPLITTINGOFCHARGES
WASINFACTALWAYSDIRECTEDATTHEDUPLICATIONOFCONVICTIONSANDDESIGNEDTOAPPLY
INTHEFIELDOFPUNISHMENT4HEEFFECTOFTHESECTIONISONLYTHATWHENTHEREIS
UNCERTAINTYABOUTTHEFACTSWHICHCANBEPROVED ORWHEREITISDOUBTFULFORANY
OTHERREASON INCLUDINGLEGALUNCERTAINTY WHICHOFSEVERALOFFENCESISCONSTITUTED
BYTHEFACTSWHICHCANBEPROVED THE3TATEMAYFORMULATEASMANYCHARGESASTHE
AVAILABLEFACTSJUSTIFY ANDNOEXCEPTIONCANBETAKENAGAINSTTHECHARGESHEETIF
THEACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHMORETHANONEOFFENCEINRESPECTOFONEPUNISHABLE
FACT)F HOWEVER ITAPPEARSATTHEENDOFTHETRIALTHATACCORDINGTOTHEPROVEN
FACTS TWO CHARGES COMPRISE ONE AND THE SAME PUNISHABLE FACT THE COURT WILL
CONVICTTHEACCUSEDONONECHARGEONLY#F(EYNS 0((# AND-ANELI
3!#23#!
!SAPRACTICALGUIDETHECOURTSTHROUGHTHEPASSAGEOFTIMEHAVEDEVELOPED
TWO TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN SPLITTING OF OFFENCES OR DUPLI
CATION OF CONVICTIONS 4HE ONE TEST IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE @SINGLE INTENT
TESTANDASKSWHETHERTHEACCUSEDSCONDUCTCONSTITUTESONECONTINUOUSCRIMI
NALTRANSACTION ASSETOUTIN3ABUYI43AND*OHANNES40$
4HEOTHERTESTISCOMMONLYKNOWNASTHE@EVIDENCETEST THATIS THETESTASTO
WHETHERTHEEVIDENCENECESSARYTOESTABLISHONECRIMEINVOLVESPROVINGANOTHER
CRIME ASSETOUTIN'ORDON%$#AND*OHANNES40$4HERULE
AGAINSTTHEDUPLICATIONOFCONVICTIONSISTOBEAPPROACHEDONTHEBASISOFTHE
FOLLOWINGPOSSIBILITIES

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
!SINGLEACTCONSTITUTESMORETHANONESTATUTORYOFFENCE ORSTATUTORY

ANDCOMMON LAWOFFENCES
3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATWHEREANACTOROMISSION CONSTITUTESANOFFENCEUNDER
TWOORMORESTATUTORYPROVISIONSORISANOFFENCEAGAINSTASTATUTORYPROVISIONAND
THECOMMONLAW THEPERPETRATORMAYBEPROSECUTEDANDPUNISHEDUNDEREITHER
THESTATUTORYPROVISIONORTHECOMMONLAW4HEPERPETRATORMAYNOT HOWEVER
BEHELDLIABLETOMORETHANONEPUNISHMENTFORTHEACTOROMISSIONCONSTITUTING
THEOFFENCE)LLUSTRATIONSOFTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHISPRINCIPLEARE
7HEREAMANISCHARGEDWITHINCESTONTHEGROUNDOFCONNECTIONWITHHIS
DAUGHTERWHOISUNDERTHEAGEOF ASWELLASWITHCONNECTIONWITHAGIRL
THESAMEDAUGHTER WHOISUNDERTHEAGEOFARISINGOUTOFTHESAMEACTOF
CARNALINTERCOURSE THISWILLAMOUNTTOUNDUESPLITTING
4HEREISUNDUESPLITTINGOFCHARGESIFTHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDINACTUALFACT
CONVICTED INRESPECTOFTHESAMEACTWITHASSAULTANDWITHCOMMITTINGTHE
STATUTORY OFFENCE OF POINTING A FIREARM7EGENER %$, AND CF "LAAU
0((3 #
7HEREANACCUSEDISCONVICTEDOFBOTHDRIVINGUNDERTHEINFLUENCEOFLIQUOR
ANDRECKLESSDRIVING ANDBOTHCOUNTSAREBASEDONTHESAMEFACTS ITWOULD
CONSTITUTEANINCORRECTDUPLICATIONOFCONVICTIONS%NGELBRECHT 3!#2
#
3ECTIONDEALSONLYWITHCASESWHERETHEREWASASINGLEACTOROMISSION AND
WHERE AT LEAST ONE OF THE OFFENCES IS A STATUTORY OFFENCE /UR COURTS HOWEVER
APPLYTHESAMEPRINCIPLEINTHEFOLLOWINGSITUATIONS
!SINGLEACTCONSTITUTESMORETHANONEOFFENCEATCOMMONLAW
)LLUSTRATIONS
7HERETHEACCUSEDWASFOUNDSTRIPPINGLEADFROMAROOFINTENDINGTOSTEALIT
HISCONVICTIONONACHARGEOFMALICIOUSINJURYTOPROPERTYWASHELDINCOMPE
TENT SINCE INRESPECTOFTHESAMEACT HEHADBEENCONVICTEDOFTHEFT(EN
DRICKS#42
7HERETHEACCUSEDWASCHARGEDWITHBOTHRAPEANDINCEST ARISINGFROMTHE
SAMEACTOFINTERCOURSE HEWASCONVICTEDOFONLYONEOFTHESEOFFENCES4
#0$
7HERETWOPERSONSAREKILLEDINTHESAMEROADACCIDENT ITISIMPROPERTOCON
VICTTHEACCUSEDONTWOCOUNTSOFCULPABLEHOMICIDE!SINGLECHARGESHOULD
MAKEREFERENCETOBOTHTHEDECEASED-AMPA 3!#
-ORETHANONEACTOFTHESAMENATUREOROFMOREORLESSTHESAME
NATUREISCOMMITTEDPRACTICALLYSIMULTANEOUSLY CONSTITUTINGMORE
THANONEOFFENCEWHETHERASTATUTORYORCOMMON LAWOFFENCE
4HETESTAPPLIEDBYOURCOURTSINTHISTYPEOFCASEISTHEFOLLOWING7ERETHEACTS
DONE WITH A SINGLE INTENT AND WERE THEY PART OF ONE CONTINUOUS TRANSACTION OR
DOESTHEEVIDENCEREQUIREDTOPROVETHEONECHARGENECESSARILYINVOLVEPROOFOF
THEOTHER3EE(IEMSTRA4HETESTSAREINTHEALTERNATIVETHEYNEEDNOTBOTH

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
BEANSWEREDINTHEAFFIRMATIVE)FTHEANSWERTOONEOFTHEQUESTIONSISINTHEAF
FIRMATIVE ITISSAIDTOBEANIMPROPERSPLITTING)N3V-ANELI 3!#2
3#! AT;=THECOURTHELDASFOLLOWS
/NESUCHTESTISTOASKWHETHERTWOORMOREACTSWEREDONEWITHASINGLEINTENTAND
CONSTITUTEONECONTINUOUSCRIMINALTRANSACTION!NOTHERISTOASKWHETHERTHEEVIDENCE
NECESSARYTOESTABLISHONECRIMEINVOLVESPROVINGANOTHERCRIME
)N7HITEHEAD 3!#23#! AT;=THECOURTHELDTHATTHEREISNOTANALL
EMBRACINGFORMULAANDTHEVARIOUSTESTSAREMEREGUIDELINESTHATARENOTEXHAUSTIVE
)FTHETESTSDONOTYIELDCLEARRESULTSACOURTMUSTAPPLYITSCOMMONSENSEANDSENSEOF
FAIRNESSTOMAKEAFINDING
4HESETESTSARERATHERARBITRARYANDITISHARDLYSURPRISINGTOFINDMANYCONFLICTING
DECISIONS4HETESTSARE INANYEVENT ONLYGUIDINGPRINCIPLESANDNOTCONCLUSIVE
)NEVERYCASETHEULTIMATERULEISTHATTHECOURTMUSTJUDGEWHETHER ACCORDING
TO THE DIFFERENCE IN NATURE AND DEGREE OF THE FACTS ONE OR MORE OFFENCES HAVE
BEENPROVED'ROBLER 3!! 'n( ACASEWHEREACONVICTION
OFBOTHMURDERANDROBBERYWASUPHELD)N+UZWAYO 3!! ITWAS
POINTEDOUTTHATTHEREAREBORDERLINECASESWHICHMAYNOTBECOVEREDPRECISELY
BYTHETESTSANDINSUCHCASESTHEDECISIONOFTHEISSUEWILLDEPENDONTHEJUDICIAL
OFFICERSCOMMONSENSEANDSENSEOFFAIRPLAY#FALSO-BULAWA 4ANDAWUPI
3!% #HRISTIE 3!! AND.AMBELA 3!#2%
$LAMINI 3!#23#! ISANEXAMPLEOFDIFFERENTOPINIONSOFJUDGESON
ONEFACTUALSITUATION WHERETHECOURTINITSMAJORITYDECISIONTHREETOTWO DE
CIDEDTHATTHEACCUSED TOGETHERWITHTWOOTHERS INTHEEXECUTIONOFACOMMON
PURPOSEROBBEDTHREEWOMENINTHEDRIVEWAYTOONEOFTHEWOMENSHOUSEWHEN
THEYTOOKTHEWOMENSMOTORVEHICLESANDPERSONALBELONGINGS/NLYONEOFTHE
ROBBERSHADHADAWEAPONPOINTEDATTHEWOMEN4HECOURTFOUNDTHATTHREEROB
BERIESWERECOMMITTEDANDHELDASFOLLOWSAT;=
)F VIOLENCE IS DIRECTED AT ONLY ONE PERSON BUT PROPERTY IS TAKEN FROM SEVERAL PERSONS
INCLUDINGTHEONEAGAINSTWHOMVIOLENCEWASDIRECTED THEREISONEROBBERYANDSEVERAL
THEFTS"UTWHEREVIOLENCEORTHREATSAREPERPETRATEDAGAINSTTHREEPERSONSANDPROPERTY
TAKENFROMALLTHREEASARESULTOFSUCHVIOLENCEORTHREATS THEREARETHREEROBBERIES
)F THE TOTALITY OF THE ACCUSEDS CRIMINAL CONDUCT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED IN ONE
SINGLECHARGE THEACCUSEDMAYNOTBECONVICTEDOFMULTIPLECHARGES&OREXAMPLE
IFANACCUSED INTHEACTOFCOMMITTINGRAPE TEARSTHEVICTIMSJACKET HEMAYNOT
BE CONVICTED OF RAPE AND MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY "UT SHOULD THE ACCUSED
AFTERTHECOMPLETIONOFTHERAPETAKETHEVICTIMSPURSEWHICHHASDROPPEDFROM
HERJACKET THEACCUSEDCOMMITSTHEFURTHERACTOFTHEFT7HERETHENATUREOFTHE
SEPARATEACTSTHATHAVEBEENCOMMITTED ANDTHEINTENTWITHWHICHEACHACTHAS
BEENCOMMITTED DIFFERTOSUCHANEXTENTTHATITISIMPOSSIBLETOACCOMMODATE
ALLTHEACTSWITHINONEOFFENCEONLY CONVICTIONONMULTIPLECHARGESWOULDNOT
CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DUPLICATION OF CONVICTIONS7AITES 3!#2
.# 3EEALSO-URBANE 3!#2.# )N3ARA0RINS;=:!7#(#
THEACCUSEDWASCHARGEDWITHTWOCOUNTSOFCONTRAVENINGTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE
#HILD#ARE!CTOF4HIS!CTHASBEENREPEALEDINITSENTIRETYBYS
OFTHE#HILDRENS!CTOF 4HEFIRSTCOUNTRELATEDTOTHECONTRAVENTIONOF
S B INTHATSHEHADABANDONEDHERTWOCHILDREN4HESECONDCOUNTRELATED
TOTHECONTRAVENTIONOFS INTHATSHEHADFAILEDTOMAINTAINANDORPROVIDE

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
FORTHECHILDRENWHENSHEABANDONEDTHEM!LTHOUGHTHEACCUSEDPLEADEDGUILTY
TOBOTHCOUNTS THECOURTOFREVIEWFOUNDTHATONTHEEVIDENCE THEREHADBEEN
ADUPLICATIONOFCONVICTIONS ASSHECOMMITTEDTHEOFFENCESWITHASINGLEINTENT
WHICHINFORMEDBOTHTHEACTOFABANDONMENTASENVISAGEDUNDERS B AND
THEFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHEPARENTALDUTYASENVISAGEDUNDERS 4HECOURT
HELDTHATIMPLICITINTHECONCEPT@ABANDONWASTHEFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHHER
PARENTALDUTY
&URTHERILLUSTRATIONSFORTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHESEPRINCIPLES
)FAMANBREAKSINTOAHOUSEWITHINTENTTOSTEALANDTHEREUPONCOMMITSTHEFT
FROMTHEHOUSE HEORSHESHOULDBECHARGEDONLYWITHHOUSEBREAKINGWITH
INTENTTOSTEALANDTHEFT3 3!! AT((OWEVER WHENABUR
GLARBREAKSINTODIFFERENTPREMISESUNDERONEROOFVARIOUSFLATSINONEBLOCK
FOREXAMPLETHISWILLAMOUNTTODIFFERENTOFFENCES4SHUKE 3!
# (OUSE BREAKINGWITHINTENTTOSTEALANDTHEFTARETWOSEPARATEOFFENCES
THOUGHTHEYAREINPRACTICECHARGEDANDPUNISHEDASONEOFFENCE#ETWAYO
3!#2%
)FANASSAULTISCOMMITTEDPURSUANTTO ANDINTHECOURSEOF ANATTEMPTTO
ESCAPE THEACCUSEDSHOULDBECONVICTEDOFONEOFTHESEOFFENCESONLY6LOK
#0$
)FANACTOFRAPEISACCOMPANIEDBYROBBERYOFTHEVICTIM THEACCUSEDMAYBE
CONVICTEDOFBOTHTHESECRIMES. 3!!
)FAMANBREAKSINTOPREMISESWITHINTENTTOCOMMITANOFFENCE ANDTHEREAFTER
@BREAKSOUTAGAINEGBYBREAKINGADOOR INORDERTOESCAPE HEORSHEMAY
BECONVICTEDOFBOTHHOUSEBREAKINGWITHINTENTTOCOMMITACRIMEANDMALI
CIOUSINJURYTOPROPERTY3HELEMBE 3!.
7HERE AN ACCUSED DRIVES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND
THROUGHHISORHERNEGLIGENTDRIVINGCAUSESTHEDEATHOFOTHERPERSONS HEOR
SHEMAYBECONVICTEDOFBOTHCULPABLEHOMICIDEANDDRIVINGUNDERTHEINFLU
ENCEOFINTOXICATINGLIQUOR'ROBLER 3!/ AND+OEKEMOER
0((. 3IMULTANEOUSCONVICTIONSOFDRIVINGUNDERTHEINFLUENCEOF
LIQUORANDNEGLIGENTDRIVINGMAYBEAPPROPRIATEWHEREONTHEPROVENFACTS
BOTHFORMSOFCULPABLECONDUCTCANBEDISTINGUISHED-LILO 3!
4 )F HOWEVER EVIDENCERELATINGTOTHENEGLIGENTDRIVINGISUSEDASPROBA
TIVEMATERIALTOPROVETHATTHEDRIVERSJUDGMENTANDSKILLWEREAFFECTEDBY
THECONSUMPTIONOFLIQUOR THENTHEACCUSEDCANONLYBECONVICTEDOFDRIVING
UNDERTHEINFLUENCEOFLIQUOR#OMMONSENSEANDCONSIDERATIONSOFREASON
ABLENESSDICTATEDTHEFINDINGTHATOTHERWISEANUNWARRANTEDDUPLICATIONOF
CONVICTIONSWOULDOCCUR7EHR 3!#2#
7HEREANACCUSEDISCAUGHTSELLINGDAGGA HEORSHEMAYBECONVICTEDONLYOF
SELLINGANDNOTALSOOFPOSSESSIONOFTHERESTOFTHEUNSOLD DAGGA%BRAHIM
3!. 4HECOURTSARENOTUNANIMOUSASTOWHETHERDEALINGIN
ORPOSSESSIONOFDAGGAANDMANDRAXATTHESAMETIMECONSTITUTESONEORTWO
OFFENCES$IEDERICKS 3!# AND0HILLIPS 3!#
7HERETHEREISNOEVIDENCETHATANACCUSEDARMEDHIMSELFORHERSELFWITHTHE
INTENTIONTOCOMMITANEVENTUALASSAULT HEORSHEMAYBECONVICTEDOFBOTH
THEUNLAWFULPOSSESSIONOFADANGEROUSWEAPONINTERMSOFS OF!CT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
OF ANDASSAULT:ENZILE 3!% AND-BULAWA 3!

%
)N CASES WHERE AN ACT OF ASSAULT DOES INDEED CONSTITUTE AN ELEMENT OF AT
TEMPTEDMURDER ACONVICTIONOFATTEMPTEDMURDERANDROBBERYWILLRESULT
IN AN ACCUSED BEING CONVICTED TWICE OF THE SAME ACT OF ASSAULTIF THE SAME
COMPLAINANTINBOTHOFFENCESWASSHOTWITHAFIREARMANDROBBED"ENJAMIN
3!! #F HOWEVER -OLOTO 3!"( )F HOWEVER IT
WASPROVEDBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTTHATTHEACCUSEDALSOHADTHEINTENTION
TOKILLANDNOTMERELYTOUSEFORCE THECOURTISENTITLEDTOFINDHIMORHER
GUILTYOFTHETWOSEPARATEOFFENCES-OLOTO 3!!
#ONDUCTOFTHEPERPETRATORISSPREADOVERALONGPERIODOFTIMEAND
AMOUNTSTOACONTINUOUSREPETITIONOFTHESAMEOFFENCE
!STOWHETHERSUCHCONDUCTSHOULDFORMTHESUBJECTOFONECONVICTIONONLY THE
DECISIONSOFOURCOURTSARECONFLICTING
)LLUSTRATIONS
!SEPARATIONINTOTWOCOUNTSOFKEEPINGANEATING HOUSEINADISORDERLYWAY
ON FOUR CONSECUTIVE DAYS AMOUNTS TO AN UNLAWFUL SPLITTING2 V ,AK:UNY
*3
/NCETHEFACTHADBEENESTABLISHEDTHATAPERSONWASWRONGFULLYPRACTISING
ASAMEDICALPRACTITIONER EACHACTOFTREATINGAPATIENT SEPARATEINRESPECTOF
TIMEANDPLACE WASREGARDEDASASEPARATECONTRAVENTION(ANNAH!$

7HEREANACCUSEDHADMADEANARRANGEMENTWITH3 ANOFFICEROFTHEPUBLIC
SERVICE THATHEWOULDPAY3ACERTAINAMOUNTINRESPECTOFEACHMOTORVE
HICLEORDEREDBYTHEADMINISTRATIONFROMTHEACCUSED ITWASHELDTHATEVERY
SUBSEQUENTINDIVIDUALTRANSACTIONCOULDPROPERLYFORMTHESUBJECTOFASEPA
RATECHARGEOFBRIBERY)NGHAM 3!# ANDCF6ORSTER 0(
(!
7HEREFAILINGTOREPORTTHEPRESENCEOFTERRORISTSINTHENEIGHBOURHOODOVER
APERIODOFTIMEWASSEPARATEDINTOSEVERALOFFENCES ITWASHELDTHATSPLITTING
OFCHARGESHADTAKENPLACE-UTAWARIRA 3!2
7HERE AN ACCUSED HAS STOLEN GOODS FROM TWO COMPLAINANTS LIVING IN THE
SAMEROOMHECANONLYBECONVICTEDONONECHARGEOFTHEFT0OLELO
3!.# AND.TSWAKELE 3!4
4HESTATEISENTITLEDTORELYONACOURSEOFCONDUCTONTHEPARTOFTHEACCUSED
INORDERTOCHARGETHEACCUSEDONTHEGROUNDOFASERIESOFACTSDONEINPURSU
ANCEOFONECRIMINALDESIGNASASINGLECRIME4HEVARIOUSALLEGEDACTSARENOT
MENTIONEDASSEPARATECHARGESINTHECHARGESHEET BUTBYMEANSOFPARTICU
LARSINRESPECTOFASINGLECHARGE EGONECHARGEOFTREASONORSEDITION BASED
ONASERIESOFACTS:WANE 3!7
0REJUDICETOTHEACCUSED IFHEORSHEISCONVICTEDONMORETHANONECHARGEARIS
ING FROM ONE AND THE SAME PUNISHABLE FACT CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED
RULE COULDRESULTINONEORBOTHOFTHEFOLLOWINGWAYSFIRST THECOMBINEDPUN
ISHMENTIMPOSEDBYAMAGISTRATEINRESPECTOFTHEVARIOUSCHARGESCOULDEXCEED
THATWHICHITWOULDHAVEBEENCOMPETENTFORHIMORHERTOIMPOSEIFTHEACCUSED

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
WERETOHAVEBEENFOUNDGUILTYOFONECHARGEONLYTHEMAGISTRATESJURISDICTION
IN RESPECT OF MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT RELATES TO EVERY SINGLE CHARGE SEPARATELY
SECONDLYTHENUMBEROFCONVICTIONSCOULDAFFECTTHEACCUSEDADVERSELYONASUB
SEQUENT CONVICTION CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS REGARDING
PERMISSIBLE PUNISHMENTSEE #HAPTER &URTHER TO THE ABOVE IN SENTENCING
COURTSAREALSOENJOINEDTOGUARDAGAINSTTHEDUPLICATIONOFPUNISHMENTWHICH
COULDRESULTWHERETWOCONVICTIONSARISEOUTOFTHESAMEINCIDENTEGRAPEROB
BERY AND MURDER WHERE THE VICTIM IS KILLED IN THE ACT OF BEING RAPEDROBBED
!LTHOUGHMANYOFTHEFACTSRELEVANTTOONECONVICTIONMAYALSOBERELEVANTTOTHE
OTHER TAKINGTHESAMEFACTSINTOACCOUNTINSENTENCINGANACCUSEDFOREACHOFTHE
TWODIFFERENTOFFENCESCOULDRESULTINSUCHADUPLICATIONOFPUNISHMENT-ORTEN
3!#2! AND3 3!!
3HOULDTHEPROSECUTORINTHESAMEINDICTMENTBRINGAWHOLESERIESOFCHARGES
AGAINSTTHEACCUSED FOREXAMPLEINCEST RAPEANDCONNECTIONWITHAFEMALEBELOW
THEAGEOFYEARS ALLARISINGOUTOFTHESAMEACTOFINTERCOURSE THEACCUSEDMAY
NOT ASARULE OBJECTTOTHEINDICTMENT BUTMAYOBJECTTOCONVICTIONOFMORETHAN
ONEOFTHEOFFENCES
)FANACCUSEDHASBEENCONVICTEDORACQUITTED OFOFFENCE8ANDTHEPROSECU
TORTHEREAFTERCHARGESHIMORHERWITHOFFENCE9 WHICH IFITHADBEENBROUGHT
AGAINSTHIMORHERWHENHEORSHEWASCHARGEDWITH8 WOULDHAVEAMOUNTEDTO
ASPLITTINGOFCHARGESASWEUNDERSTANDTHISEXPRESSIONNOW THEACCUSEDMAY
RAISETHEPLEAOFAUTREFOISCONVICTORACQUITASTHECASEMAYBE 4OGIVEANEXAMPLE
!ISCHARGEDWITHRAPEOFA YEAR OLDGIRL(EISFOUNDNOTGUILTY(ECANNOTSUB
SEQUENTLYBECHARGEDWITHUNLAWFULCONNECTIONWITHAGIRLBELOWTHEAGEOF
YEARS3HOULDHEBECHARGEDTHUS HECANPLEADAUTREFOISACQUIT!UTREFOISCONVICT
ANDAUTREFOISACQUITWILLBEDEALTWITHBELOW
*/).$%2/&/&&%.#%3
)N PRACTICE THE PROSECUTOR USUALLY CHARGES THE ACCUSED WITH THE MOST SERIOUS
CRIMEASMAINCHARGE ANDTHELESSEROFFENCESASALTERNATIVECHARGES
!PART FROM UNDUE SPLITTING WHICH WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSED ANY NUMBER OF
OFFENCESMAYBECHARGEDAGAINSTTHESAMEACCUSEDINONEINDICTMENTS )T
MUST HOWEVER TAKEPLACEATANYTIMEBEFOREANYEVIDENCEHASBEENLEDINRESPECT
OFANYPARTICULARCHARGE)FTHISPROVISIONISNOTCOMPLIEDWITH THEPROCEEDINGS
AREVOID NOTMERELYVOIDABLE4HIPE 3!4 4HECOURTMAY HOW
EVER DIRECTTHATTHECHARGESTHUSJOINEDBETRIEDSEPARATELY IFINITSOPINIONTHIS
WILLBEINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICES )TISDESIRABLETHATWHERETHESTATEHAS
KNOWLEDGEOFANUMBEROFCHARGESAGAINSTAPERSON ITSHOULDENDEAVOURASFARAS
ISREASONABLYPOSSIBLETOBRINGSUCHCHARGESBEFORETHECOURTINONEINDICTMENT
SOTHATTHEYARETRIEDTOGETHER,UBBE40$AND*ANTJIES 3!
# "UTTHETRIALOFSEPARATECHARGESMAYNOTTAKEPLACESEPARATELYONTHEBASISOF
@TRIALSWITHINTHEMAINTRIAL-AJOLA 3!.
5PTOACHARGEOFMURDERCOULDNOTBEJOINEDINTHESAMEINDICTMENTWITH
ANYOTHERCHARGE BUTTHISLIMITATIONHASNOWBEENREMOVEDSEE FOREXAMPLE
-ATHEBULA 3!!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
.OADDITIONALCHARGESCANBEJOINEDAFTERQUESTIONINGOFTHEACCUSEDINTERMS
OFS B SEETHEDISCUSSIONOFTHEPLEAOFGUILTYBELOW HASCOMMENCED
7ITBOOI 3!.#
3ECTION OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFPROVIDESTHAT INTHECASEOFA
CHILDBEINGCHARGEDWITHMORETHANONEOFFENCEANDTHESEBEINGDEALTWITHIN
THESAMECRIMINALPROCEEDINGS THEMOSTSERIOUSOFFENCEMUSTGUIDETHEMANNER
INWHICHTHECHILDMUSTBEDEALTWITHINTERMSOFTHIS!CT!SPECTSOFACCOM
MODATIONOFCHILDOFFENDERSINTHECRIMINALPROCESS INTERMSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CT AREDEALTWITHINVARIOUSSECTIONSOFTHISHANDBOOK )NORDERTODETERMINE
THESERIOUSNESSOFOFFENCESFORTHEPURPOSESOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT INTERMSOF
S THECATEGORIESOFOFFENCESARELISTEDINTHEORDEROFTHETHREE3CHEDULESTO
THE !CT BEGINNING WITH THE LESS SERIOUS OFFENCES CONTAINED IN 3CHEDULE EG
TRESPASS ADVANCINGINSERIOUSNESSTOTHOSECONTAINEDIN3CHEDULEEG TREASON
ORMURDER
4
(%*/).$%2/&3%6%2!,!##53%$
3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATANYNUMBEROFPARTICIPANTSINTHESAMEOFFENCEMAYBE
TRIEDTOGETHER ASWELLASANYNUMBEROFACCESSORIESAFTERTHEFACTTOANOFFENCE
ORBOTHPARTICIPANTSANDACCESSORIESINRESPECTOFTHESAMEOFFENCE4HESECTION
FURTHERPROVIDESTHATARECEIVEROFPROPERTYOBTAINEDBYMEANSOFANOFFENCESHALL
BEDEEMEDTOBEAPARTICIPANTINTHEOFFENCEINQUESTION4HEFIRSTPARTOFTHIS
SECTIONREQUIRESTHATTHECO ACCUSEDTOOKPARTINTHESAMEOFFENCE7HERETWO
ACCUSEDWERECHARGEDWITHHAVINGBEENFOUNDINPOSSESSIONOFMEATREASONABLY
SUSPECTEDTOHAVEBEENSTOLENANDNOTBEINGABLETOGIVEASATISFACTORYACCOUNTOF
SUCHPOSSESSION ANDITAPPEAREDTHATSEPARATEMEATWASINVOLVED ITCONSTITUTEDA
MISJOINDERTOCHARGETHETWOACCUSEDJOINTLY#HAWE 3!.#
3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATWHENEVERITISALLEGEDINACHARGETHATTWOORMORE
PERSONSHAVECOMMITTEDSEPARATEOFFENCESATTHESAMEPLACEANDTIME ORATABOUT
THESAMETIME ANDTHEPROSECUTORINFORMSTHECOURTTHATANYEVIDENCEWHICHIS
INHISORHEROPINIONADMISSIBLEATTHETRIALOFONEOFTHOSEPERSONSISINHISORHER
OPINIONALSOADMISSIBLEATTHETRIALOFTHEOTHERPERSONORPERSONS SUCHPERSONS
MAYBETRIEDJOINTLYFORTHOSEOFFENCESONTHATCHARGE4HUSPERSONSWHOTHROUGH
PARTICIPATIONINTHESAMETRANSACTIONCOMMITDIFFERENTOFFENCESMAYBEJOINTLY
CHARGEDANDTRIEDFOREXAMPLE WHEREAMANPROCURESANDFURNISHESPREMISESIN
WHICH WOMEN CARRY ON PROSTITUTION ON THE PROCEEDS WHEREOF HE LIVES HE AND
THEYMAYBECHARGEDANDTRIEDTOGETHERHEWITHLIVINGONTHEPROCEEDSOFPROSTI
TUTION ANDTHEYWITHCARRYINGONTHEPRACTICE0RIORTOTHEENACTMENTOFSIT
WASHELDTHATWHEREAPASSENGERWASKILLEDASARESULTOFACOLLISIONBETWEENTWO
MOTORCARS THEREWERETWOSEPARATEOFFENCESANDTHATJOINDEROFTHETWODRIVERS
WASIRREGULAR-EYER 3!4 "UTSLEAVESLITTLEDOUBTTHATSUCH
JOINDERWOULDNOLONGERBEIRREGULAR)N'ELDERBLOEM 3!# HOWEVER
ITWASHELDTHATWHERETWOPERSONSWERECHARGEDWITHHAVINGPOINTEDAFIREARM
ATTHECOMPLAINANT EACHPERSONSCONDUCTCONSTITUTEDASEPARATETRANSACTIONAND
THATJOINDERWASIRREGULAR)TISSUBMITTEDTHATTHISDECISIONISCORRECT!LTHOUGH
SEPARATEOFFENCESWERECOMMITTEDATTHESAMETIMEANDPLACE EVIDENCETHAT8
HADPOINTEDAGUNWOULDNOTBEADMISSIBLEINACHARGETHAT9HADPOINTEDAGUN

#(!04%2r).$)#4-%.43!.$#(!2'%3(%%43
ORVICEVERSA"UTITMUSTBENOTEDTHATTHESECTIONMAKESPROPERJOINDERDEPEN
DENTUPONTHEOPINIONOFTHEPUBLICPROSECUTORASTOADMISSIBILITY)TISSUBMITTED
THAT A COURT SHOULD SATISFY ITSELF THAT THE PROSECUTORS OPINION IS BONA FIDE AND
BASEDONAREASONABLEINTERPRETATIONOFTHERULESOFEVIDENCE
4HE PROVISIONS OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT AND !CT OF REGARDING
JOINDERARENOTPEREMPTORY4HEPROSECUTORNEEDNOT THEREFORE JOINTHESAIDPER
SONS 4HE PROVISIONS ARE MERELY PERMISSIVE &URTHERMORE THERE IS NO PROVISION
FORTHEADDITIONOFFURTHERACCUSEDDURINGTHETRIALSUCHAPROCEDUREWOULD IN
RESPECTOFTHATACCUSED OFFENDAGAINSTSPRINCIPLEOFCONFRONTATIONTRIALIN
PRESENCEOFACCUSEDSEE#HAPTER
4HEREPLIESTOTHEQUESTIONINGOFANACCUSEDINTERMSOFS B ARENOT@EVI
DENCEINTERMSOFS ANDFURTHERACCUSEDCANTHEREFOREBEJOINEDAFTERAN
ACCUSEDHASBEENQUESTIONEDINTERMSOFS B 3LABBERT 3!#
7HEREACHILDANDANADULTARECHARGEDTOGETHERINTHESAMETRIALINRESPECTOF
THESAMESETOFFACTSINTERMSOFSS ANDOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT THECOURTMUSTAPPLYTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFIN
RESPECT OF THE CHILD AND THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT IN RESPECT OF THE ADULT
S OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
)N TERMS OF S DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY MAY BE CHARGED JOINTLY WITH THE
COMPANY4HESUBSECTIONALSOMAKESPROVISIONFORSEPARATETRIALS
&URTHER ASPECTS REGARDING JOINDER AND THE RIGHT OF PERSONS WHO ARE JOINTLY
CHARGEDTOAPPLYFORSEPARATETRIALSWILLBEDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTER BELOW

#(!04%2
4HETRIALCOURTS
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
6%.5%/&4(%42)!,#/5243
#/.34)454)/./&!.$4(%-!..%2/&!22)6).'!4
$%#)3)/.3"94(%42)!,#/5243
,OWERCOURTS
2ECUSALOFASSESSORSINLOWERCOURTS
$IVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURT
2IGHTSANDDUTIESOFASSESSORS
2ECUSALOFJUDICIALOFFICERS
'ENERAL
!PPLICATIONFORRECUSALOFJUDICIALOFFICER
4RIALBYJURYREPEALED
)-0!24)!,)49!.$&!)2.%33
'ENERAL
)NTRODUCTION
)MPARTIALITYANDCOURTESY
$XGLDOWHUDPSDUWHP
$ECISIONSSOLELYUPONEVIDENCETHEOATH
&AIRNESSTOTHEACCUSED
3ECTIONr%QUALITY
%VERYONEISEQUALBEFORETHELAWANDHASTHERIGHTTOEQUALPROTECTIONANDBENEFIT
OFTHELAW
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr!CCESSTOCOURTS
DECIDEDINAFAIRPUBLICHEARINGBEFOREACOURTOR WHEREAPPROPRIATE ANOTHERINDEPEN
DENTANDIMPARTIALTRIBUNALORFORUM
3EEAND BELOW


#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243

K TOBEPRESUMEDINNOCENT TOREMAINSILENT ANDNOTTOTESTIFYDURINGTHEPRO
CEEDINGS
3ECTIONr*UDICIALAUTHORITY
c
4HECOURTSAREINDEPENDENTANDSUBJECTONLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAND
THELAW WHICHTHEYMUSTAPPLYIMPARTIALLYANDWITHOUTFEAR FAVOUROR
PREJUDICE

4HE#HIEF*USTICEISTHEHEADOFTHEJUDICIARYANDEXERCISESRESPONSIBILITY
OVERTHEESTABLISHMENTANDMONITORINGOFNORMSANDSTANDARDSFORTHE
EXERCISEOFTHEJUDICIALFUNCTIONSOFALLCOURTS
3EE#HAPTERANDPARAGRAPHSAND BELOW
3ECTIONr$EFINITIONS
)NTHIS!CT UNLESSTHECONTEXTINDICATESOTHERWISEr
lCHILDJUSTICECOURTmMEANSANYCOURTPROVIDEDFORINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT DEALING
WITHTHEBAILAPPLICATION PLEA TRIALORSENTENCINGOFACHILD
6
%.5%/&4(%42)!,#/5243
&ORTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICATHEVENUEOFEACHCOURTISFIXEDATTHEPERMA
NENTSEATOFTHEDIVISIONSORISSPECIFIEDINTHEPROCLAMATIONCONSTITUTINGCIRCUIT
COURTS,OWERCOURTSMUSTSITATTHEPLACESASSIGNEDBYTHE0RESIDENTINTERMSOF
SOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOF#ERTAINEXCEPTIONSMAYBEALLOWED
FOR EXAMPLE WITH JUVENILE ACCUSED AND WITH PATIENTS IN INSTITUTIONS WHERE THE
VENUEOFTHECOURTMAYBECHANGEDRESPECTIVELYTOAROOMOTHERTHANTHEREGULAR
COURTROOMORTOTHEINSTITUTION!CHILDJUSTICECOURTISANYORDINARYCRIMINALTRIAL
COURTDEALINGWITH PLEA TRIALORSENTENCINGOFACHILDUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS
ANDINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESAPERSONBETWEENANDYEARSOFAGESOFTHE
#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
)FTHEACCUSEDISBROUGHTBEFOREACOURTWHICHLACKSJURISDICTIONTOTRYHIMOR
HER HEORSHEMAYOBJECTTOTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHATCOURT(OWEVER IFTHEACCUSED
FAILSTOOBJECTANDTHETRIAL HAVINGRUNITSNORMALCOURSE ENDSINACONVICTION
THEFACTTHATTHEVENUEWASWRONGWILLNOTAVAILTHEACCUSEDONAPPEALSEES
OF !CT OF WHICH APPLIES TO BOTH (IGH #OURT AND LOWER COURTS AND SEE
.QUNELO 3!/
3ECTIONMAKESPROVISIONFORTHEREMOVALOFACRIMINALCASEFROMONEDIVI
SIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTTOANOTHERDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTONAPPLICATIONOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THEPROSECUTIONOROFTHEACCUSED4HEEFFECTOFSUCHREMOVALMAYBETOCONFER
JURISDICTIONUPONACOURTWHICHWOULDNOTNORMALLYHAVEBEENCOMPETENTTOTRY
THEACCUSED3UCHREMOVALFROMONEJURISDICTIONTOANOTHERMUSTBEDONEBEFORE
THETRIALDATEANDAFTERTHELODGINGOFTHEINDICTMENT3ECTIONAPPLIESONLYTO
THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA3ECTIONOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF
HASASIMILARPROVISIONAFTERANYPROCEEDINGSHAVEBEENINSTITUTED
3UCHANAPPLICATIONFORREMOVALWILLNOTBEGRANTEDUNLESSTHEAPPLICANTCAN
SHOWTHATTHECHANGEOFVENUEWOULDBEINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE FOREXAMPLE
WHEREITMAYREASONABLYBEFEAREDTHATTHEEVIDENCEMAYBELOSTORTAMPEREDWITH
IFTHETRIALHASTOSTANDOVERFORMONTHSUNTILTHENEXTSESSIONOFTHECIRCUITCOURT
)N"OTHMA 3!/ ITWASHELDTHATTHEMERESAVINGOFTIMEWOULDNOT
BECONSIDEREDAVALIDGROUNDFORREMOVAL
!COURTCANORDERTHEREMOVALOFATRIALTOANOTHERVENUEIFTHECOURTDEEMSIT
NECESSARYOREXPEDIENT FOREXAMPLE TOPROTECTWITNESSESWHOSELIVESARETHREAT
ENEDSEE-BAKA 3!% WHERETHECOURTMADEITSORDERBYVIRTUEOF
S
)NTERMSOFS OF!CTOF WHERETHE.ATIONAL$IRECTORORADEPUTY
DIRECTORAUTHORISEDTHERETOINWRITINGBYTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOR DEEMSITINTHE
INTERESTOFTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICETHATANOFFENCECOMMITTEDASAWHOLEOR
PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF ONE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
@$00 BEINVESTIGATEDANDTRIEDWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFANOTHER$00
HEORSHEMAY SUBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT IN
WRITINGDIRECTTHATTHEINVESTIGATIONANDCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSINRESPECTOFSUCH
OFFENCE BE CONDUCTED AND COMMENCED WITHIN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF SUCH
OTHER$00
0LEASENOTETHATTHEWORDS@TRIALCOURTSAREUSEDFORTHESAKEOFCONVENIENCEAND
REFERTOCOURTSOF@FIRSTINSTANCE
#
/.34)454)/./&!.$4(%-!..%2/&!22)6).'!4$%#)3)/.3"9
4(%42)!,#/5243
,
OWERCOURTS
4HESECOURTSAREPRESIDEDOVERBYMAGISTRATES)NADISTRICTORREGIONALCOURTTRIAL
THE MAGISTRATE MAY IF HE OR SHE DEEMS IT EXPEDIENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE BEFOREANYEVIDENCEHASBEENLEDORINCONSIDERINGACOMMUNITY BASED
PUNISHMENT IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENCE
SUMMONONEORTWOASSESSORSTOASSISTHIMORHERATTHEPROCEEDINGS)NTHERE
GIONALCOURTATTHETRIALOFANACCUSEDONACHARGEOFMURDER ITISPEREMPTORYTHAT
THEJUDICIALOFFICERSUMMONTWOASSESSORSTOASSISTHIMORHER UNLESSTHEACCUSED
REQUESTSTHATTHETRIALPROCEEDWITHOUTASSESSORSSTER A OF!CTOF )F
THEACCUSEDWAIVESHISORHERRIGHTTOASSESSORSTHEJUDICIALOFFICERMAYINHISOR
HERDISCRETIONSUMMONONEORTWOASSESSORS TOASSISTHIMORHER.ON COMPLIANCE
WITHTHEPROVISIONSOFSTER A ISGROSSLYIRREGULARANDCONSTITUTESAFAILUREOF
JUSTICE4ITUS 3!#2.# 7HENTHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHMURDER
WHETHERTOGETHERWITHOTHERCHARGESORNOT SITTINGWITHASSESSORSINAREGIONALCOURT
ISPEREMPTORYASREQUIREDBYSTER OFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CT OF
7HERE THE ACCUSED DID NOT REQUEST THAT THE COURT SITS WITHOUT ASSESSORS SUCH

#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243
REGIONALCOURTSITTINGWITHOUTASSESSORSISNOTPROPERLYCONSTITUTEDANDANYCON
VICTIONANDSENTENCEMUSTBESETASIDEASBEINGINCOMPETENTWITHINTHEMEANING
OFSA OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF 3HANGEV3;=:!3#!
!FAILURETOGIVECONSIDERATIONTOHAVINGASSESSORSCONSTITUTESASERIOUSIRREGU
LARITYEVENWHERETHEACCUSEDHADAGREEDTODISPENSEWITHASSESSORS-ITSHAMA
3!#27 )NCONSIDERINGWHETHERSUMMONINGASSESSORSWOULDBE
EXPEDIENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THE JUDICIAL OFFICER SHALL TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT FACTORS LIKE THE CULTURAL SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF THE
ACCUSED THENATUREANDSERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE THEINTERESTSWHICHTHECOM
MUNITYMAYHAVEINTHEADJUDICATIONOFTHEMATTERCONCERNED ETC4HEASSESSORS
COMMENCEWITHTHEIRFUNCTIONSAFTERTHEPLEAHASBEENRECORDED7ITHREGARDTO
MATTERSOFFACTTHEDECISIONOFTHECOURTISTHATOFTHEMAJORITYTHEREOF-ATTERSOF
LAWANDDECIDINGWHETHERAMATTERFORDECISIONISAMATTEROFLAW AREDECIDEDBY
THEJUDICIALOFFICERSTEROF!CTOF
5HFXVDORIDVVHVVRUVLQORZHUFRXUWV
4HEPROSECUTORORTHEACCUSEDMAYAPPLYFORTHERECUSALOFTHEASSESSOR4HEPRE
SIDINGOFFICERMAYATANYSTAGEBEFORETHECOMPLETIONOFTHEPROCEEDINGSORDERTHE
RECUSALOFTHEASSESSORFROMTHEPROCEEDINGSIFHEORSHEISSATISFIEDTHAT
THEASSESSORHASAPERSONALINTERESTINTHEPROCEEDINGSCONCERNED
THEREAREREASONABLEGROUNDSFORBELIEVINGTHATTHEREISLIKELYTOBEACONFLICT
OFINTERESTSASARESULTOFTHEASSESSORSPARTICIPATIONINTHEPROCEEDINGSCON
CERNED
THEREAREREASONABLEGROUNDSFORBELIEVINGTHATTHEREISALIKELIHOODOFBIASON
THEPARTOFTHEASSESSOR
THEASSESSORISFORANYREASON ABSENTOR
THEASSESSORHASDIED
!NASSESSORMAYREQUESTHISORHEROWNRECUSALBASEDONANYOFTHEREASONSMEN
TIONED IN TO ABOVE 4HE PROSECUTION AND THE ACCUSED SHALL BE GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITYTOADDRESSARGUMENTSONTHEISSUEOFTHEASSESSORSRECUSAL ANDTHE
ASSESSOR WHEN APPLICABLE SHALL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE
ARGUMENTS4HEPRESIDINGOFFICERISOBLIGEDTOGIVEREASONSFORHISORHERORDEROF
RECUSALOFTHEASSESSORANDMAYDIRECT INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE THATTHEPROCEED
INGSCONTINUEBEFORETHEREMAININGMEMBERSOFTHECOURTORTHATTHEPROCEEDINGS
STARTAFRESHORWHERETHEASSESSORWASABSENTFORANYREASON POSTPONETHEPRO
CEEDINGSTOOBTAINTHEASSESSORSPRESENCESTER AND OF!CTOF
ASAMENDEDBY!CTOF)FASSESSORSABSCONDDURINGATRIALWITHOUTGOOD
REASONANDTHEMAGISTRATECONTINUESWITHTHETRIALWITHOUTTHEM THISAMOUNTSTO
AFATALIRREGULARITYWHICHVITIATESTHEPROCEEDINGS-NGENI 3!#2%
$IVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURT
#RIMINALCASESINTHE(IGH#OURTARETRIEDEITHERBYAJUDGESITTINGALONEORBY
AJUDGEANDONEORTWOASSESSORS4HEPRESIDINGJUDGEGENERALLYHASADISCRETION
WHETHERORNOTTOSITWITHASSESSORS4HEADVANTAGESWHICHTHEASSISTANCEOFAS
SESSORSMAYRENDERAJUDGEATATRIALSHOULDNOTBEUNDERESTIMATED-HLONGO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3!#2! ANDTHEPROCEDURALSAFEGUARDSOFTHEPROVISIONFORASSESSOROR
ASSESSORSINTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMAREANOVERARCHINGOBJECTIVETOWARDSEN
SURINGAFAIRTRIAL$ZUKUDA4SHILO 3!## 3!#2##
AT;=n;=
A 3UHVLGLQJMXGJHpVLQDELOLW\WRDFW
)N'UMBI 3!#23#! THEISSUESWERETHEINCAPACITYOFTHETRIALJUDGE
DUE TO ILLNESS BEFORE HE COULD PRONOUNCE HIS VERDICT AND THE 3TATE NOT HAVING
COMMENCEDWITHPROCEEDINGSDENOVO BUTADVISINGTHENEWJUDGEWHOREPLACED
THEFORMERJUDGE ONTHEBASISOFSEVIDENCERECORDEDATPREPARATORYEXAMINA
TIONADMISSIBLEATTRIALINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES TOPROCEEDWITHTHETRIALWHERE
THEINCAPACITATEDJUDGELEFTOFF4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHELDTHATEVIDENCE
INACRIMINALTRIALIS INTERMSOFS REQUIREDTOBEGIVENVIVAVOCE4HESECTION
PROVIDES THAT WITNESSES SHALL GIVE THEIR EVIDENCE VIVA VOCE THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS
BEINGTHOSEEXPRESSLYPERMITTEDBYTHE!CT SBEINGONE3ECTION HOW
EVER DOES NOT AUTHORISE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECORD OF THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS
INCLUDINGDOCUMENTARYEXHIBITS UPONITSMERESUBMISSION ANDSUCHPROCEDURE
DOESNOTFURNISHPROOF.EITHERTHEACCUSEDNORTHEIRCOUNSELCOULDBYAGREEMENT
VALIDATE THE INVALID PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE JUDGE 4HE COURT HELD THAT THERE
HADBEENSUCHAGROSSDEPARTUREFROMTHEESTABLISHEDRULESOFPROCEDURETHATTHE
APPELLANTSHADNOTBEENTRIEDPROPERLY CONSTITUTINGAFAILUREOFJUSTICE3EEALSO
-OODIE 3!! AT%n' AND#HAPTER CONCERNINGIRREGULARITIES
B $VVHVVRUVDQGWKHLULQDELOLW\WRDFWDVDVVHVVRUV
!NASSESSORISAPERSONWHO INTHEOPINIONOFTHEPRESIDINGJUDGE HASEXPERIENCE
INTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEORSKILLINANYMATTERWHICHMAYBECONSIDERED
ATTHETRIALS B OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT5SUALLYTHEJUDGEPROCURES
THESERVICESOFADVOCATESFORTHISPURPOSE BUTOCCASIONALLYMAGISTRATESESPECIALLY
RETIREDMAGISTRATES ATTORNEYSANDPROFESSORSOFLAWSERVEINTHISCAPACITY)NCASES
IN WHICH EXPERT EVIDENCE ON A PARTICULAR TOPIC IS EXPECTED TO BE LED THE JUDGE
MAYSITWITHANASSESSORWHOISPROFESSIONALLYQUALIFIEDINTHEFIELDINQUESTIONEG
INMEDICINE ENGINEERING ACCOUNTANCY
)NPRACTICE THETRIALJUDGEISOBLIGEDTORELY TOACERTAINEXTENT ONTHERECOM
MENDATIONOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSORAMEMBEROFHISORHERSTAFF
COUNSELFORTHE3TATE )NTHEFINALANALYSIS ITISTHETRIALJUDGEWHOHASTOCOMETO
ACONCLUSIONINTHISMATTER ANDTHEOPINIONOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
ISBUTONEFACTORTOBETAKENINTOACCOUNTFORTHISPURPOSE ALONGWITHOTHERINFOR
MATIONSUCHASTHESUMMARYOFSALIENTFACTSACCOMPANYINGTHEINDICTMENTSEE
#HAPTER 3CHOBA 3!! !NASSESSORAPPOINTEDINTERMSOFS
ISAMEMBEROFTHECOURTANDPARTICIPATESINALLDECISIONSOFTHECOURTONQUESTIONS
OFFACT7HERETHEJUDGESITSWITHTWOASSESSORS THEDECISIONOFTHEMAJORITYON
FACTUALQUESTIONS CONSTITUTESTHEDECISIONOFTHECOURT7HEREONTHEOTHERHAND
THEJUDGESITSWITHONLYONEASSESSOR THEN INTHEEVENTOFADIFFERENCEOFOPINION
THEDECISIONOFTHEJUDGEPREVAILSS !NACCUSEDHASARIGHTTOHAVEHISOR
HERCASECONSIDEREDBYEVERYMEMBEROFTHEFACT FINDINGTRIBUNAL-ALINDI
3!! AT'n(3EEPARAGRAPHBELOW

#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243
3ECTION A PROVIDES THAT IF AN ASSESSOR DIES OR IN THE OPINION OF THE PRE
SIDING JUDGE BECOMES UNABLE TO ACT AS ASSESSOR AT ANY TIME DURING A TRIAL THE
PRESIDINGJUDGEMAYDIRECTTHATTHETRIALPROCEEDBEFORETHEREMAININGMEMBEROR
MEMBERSOFTHECOURT ORTHATTHETRIALBEGINDENOVO0ROCEDURALSAFEGUARDSEXIST
TOENSURETHATFAIRNESSISNOTCOMPROMISEDBYCONTINUATIONOFATRIALWITHONLY
ONEASSESSOR+HUMALO 3!#2. )NTERMSOFS THEWORDSUN
ABLETOACTEMBRACENOTONLYPHYSICALBUTALSOMENTALDISABILITIES!NASSESSORWHO
ISSUBJECTEDTOSERIOUSANDCONTINUEDEMOTIONALSTRESSDURINGATRIALINWHICHHE
ORSHEISSITTINGASANASSESSORMAY BECAUSEOFSUCHSTRESS BECOMEUNABLETOACTAS
ANASSESSOR)FTHEMENTALCAPABILITYANDORCOMPETENCYOFTHEASSESSORTOFULFILHIS
ORHERDUTIESISINISSUE THEMATTERHASTOBEDECIDEDONTHECOMMON LAWBASISOF
THEDUTYOFAJUDICIALOFFICERTORECUSEHIM ORHERSELF(OWEVER THETESTOFREASON
ABLEPERCEPTIONORSUSPICIONOFTHEPARTIESASTOIMPARTIALITYOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICER
ISNOTAPPLICABLEINTHECASEOFMENTALINCOMPETENCE4HEASSESSORSCOMPETENCE
ORLACKTHEREOFCANBEESTABLISHEDOBJECTIVELY+ROON 3!#23#!
0RESSING COMMITMENTS ELSEWHERE CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN INABILITY TO ACT AS AN
ASSESSORWITHINTHEMEANINGOFTHEWORD'QEBA 3!! 4HECOURT
HASNOPOWERTODISPENSEWITHTHEASSESSORSPRESENCEANDPROCEEDWITHOUTHIM
ORHERNOTEVENWITHTHECONSENTOFTHEACCUSED$ANIELS 3!#2#
4HE INABILITY TO ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF S IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A SITUATION
WHEREANASSESSORISLEGALLYINCOMPETENTTOCONTINUETOACTINACASEBECAUSEOF
SOMEACTOROCCURRENCEWHICHWARRANTEDTHEASSESSORSRECUSAL-ALINDI
3!!
7HEREAJUDGE ACTINGINTERMSOFS FINDSANASSESSORHASBECOMEUNABLE
TOACTASSUCH ITISINCUMBENTUPONHIMORHERTOHEARTHEPARTIESONTHEQUES
TIONOFHOWTHEPROCEEDINGSWILLBECONDUCTEDFURTHERIEWITHONEASSESSORORDE
NOVO )NGENERAL THEPARTIESAREENTITLEDTOBEHEARDBEFORETHEJUDGECOMESTO
THEDECISIONTHATANASSESSORHASBECOMEUNABLETOACT-ALINDIABOVE +
3!#2#
2IGHTSANDDUTIESOFASSESSORS
"EFORETHETRIALCOMMENCES THEASSESSORSMUSTTAKEANOATHTHATTHEYWILLGIVE
ATRUEVERDICT ACCORDINGTOTHEEVIDENCEUPONTHEISSUESTOBETRIED!SSOONAS
THISOATHHASBEENADMINISTEREDBYTHEJUDGE THEASSESSORSAREMEMBERSOFTHE
COURTSEES AND WITHTHEFOLLOWINGPROVISOS
3UBJECTTOPARAS AND BELOWANDS B THEDECISIONORFINDINGOF
THEMAJORITYOFTHEMEMBERSOFTHECOURTUPONANYQUESTIONOFFACT ORUPON
THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IN PARA SHALL BE THE DECISION OR FINDING OF THE
COURT EXCEPTWHENTHEPRESIDINGJUDGESITSWITHONLYONEASSESSOR INWHICH
CASETHEDECISIONORFINDINGOFTHEJUDGESHALL INTHECASEOFADIFFERENCEOF
OPINION BETHEDECISIONORFINDINGOFTHECOURT
)FTHEPRESIDINGJUDGEISOFTHEOPINIONTHATITWOULDBEINTHEINTERESTSOFTHE
ADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICETHATTHEASSESSORS ASSISTINGHIMORHERDONOTTAKE
PARTINANYDECISIONUPONTHEQUESTIONWHETHEREVIDENCEOFANYCONFESSION
OROTHERSTATEMENTMADEBYANACCUSEDISADMISSIBLEASEVIDENCEAGAINSTHIM
ORHER THEJUDGEALONESHALLDECIDEUPONSUCHQUESTION ANDHEORSHEMAYFOR

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THISPURPOSESITALONE)TISCLEARTHATTHEJUDGEMAYNOW INHISORHERDISCRE
TION TOGETHERWITHTHEASSESSORSDETERMINETHEADMISSIBILITYOFACONFESSION
OROTHERSTATEMENTMADEBYTHEACCUSEDS A ANDB .GCOBO
3!7
4HE PRESIDING JUDGE ALONE SHALL DECIDE UPON ANY OTHER QUESTION OF LAW OR
UPON ANY QUESTION WHETHER ANY MATTER CONSTITUTES A QUESTION OF LAW OR A
QUESTIONOFFACT ANDHEORSHEMAYFORTHISPURPOSESITALONES !N
APPLICATIONATTHECLOSEOFTHE3TATESCASEFORTHEACCUSEDSDISCHARGEINTERMS
OFSISONEOFLAW ANDTHEDECISIONISTHATOFTHEJUDGEALONE-AGXWALISA
3!.
!JUDGEPRESIDINGATACRIMINALTRIALINTHE(IGH#OURTSHALLGIVETHEREASONS
FORHISORHERDECISIONWHEREHEORSHEDECIDESANYQUESTIONOFLAWORWHETHER
ANYMATTERCONSTITUTESAQUESTIONOFLAWORAQUESTIONOFFACT4HEJUDGESHALL
ALSOGIVETHEREASONSFORTHEDECISIONORFINDINGOFTHECOURTUPONANYQUES
TIONOFFACTORTHEQUESTIONREFERREDTOINPARA ABOVE WHETHERHEORSHESITS
WITHORWITHOUTASSESSORS7HERETHEJUDGESITSWITHASSESSORSANDTHEREISA
DIFFERENCEOFOPINIONUPONANYQUESTIONOFFACTORUPONTHEQUESTIONREFERRED
TO IN PARA THE JUDGE SHALL GIVE THE REASONS FOR THE MINORITY DECISION
S
!SSOONASANASSESSORRECEIVESINFORMATIONDETRIMENTALTOTHEACCUSEDWHICHHAS
NOTBEENPROVEDINEVIDENCE HEORSHEMUSTRETIREFROMTHECASE-ATSEGO
3!! )N3OLOMONS 3!! THEIRREGULARITYINTHECASEWASTHAT
THEASSESSORSHADGAINEDINFORMATIONTHATTHEACCUSEDHADATANEARLIERSTAGEOF
THATSAMEEVENINGBEENINVOLVEDINKNIFE ASSAULTS4HISINFORMATIONDIDNOTFORM
PARTOFTHEEVIDENCEATTHETRIAL!NASSESSORMUSTSHOWABSOLUTEIMPARTIALITYHIS
ORHEREXPRESSINGANOPINIONABOUTAPARTICULARWITNESSBEFORETHEACCUSEDHAS
BEENCALLEDTOSTATEHISORHERDEFENCEWILLBEGROSSLYIRREGULAR-AYEKISO
3!#2# #FALSO3TONE 3!!
4HEFUNCTIONOFASSESSORSISLIMITEDTOTHEHEARINGOFTHETRIAL ANDSINCETHETRIAL
ISTHEDETERMINATIONOFTHEMATTERSPUTINISSUEANDENDSWITHTHEVERDICT THE
ASSESSORSHAVENOPARTWITHTHEJUDGEINTHEASSESSMENTORTHEIMPOSITIONOFAN
APPROPRIATESENTENCEALTHOUGH ITISNOTIRREGULARFORTHEJUDGETOSEEKTHEADVICE
OFTHEASSESSORSINTHEMATTEROFSENTENCE)NPRACTICETHISISFREQUENTLYDONECF
3PARKS 3!! AND,EKAOTO 3!! -ALGAS 3!#2
.#
#F IN GENERAL 2ICHINGS #RIMINAL ,AW 2EVIEW n $UGARD #RIME
#ORRECTION 0UNISHMENT n .OV "EKKER @!SSESSORE IN 3UID !FRIKAANSE
STRAFSAKE(ULDIGINGSBUNDELVIR7!*OUBERT n7ATNEY4(2(2
2
ECUSALOFJUDICIALOFFICERS
*HQHUDO
)TISACLEARRULEOFOURLAWTHATNOPERSONWHOHASANINTERESTINORHARBOURSANY
PREJUDICEINRESPECTOFTHEMATTERTOBETRIEDSHOULDADJUDICATEONSUCHMATTER
3EETHEREMARKSONIMPARTIALITYIN BELOW 3INCETHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTDOESNOTCONTAINANYPROVISIONSONTHESUBJECTOFRECUSAL THECOMMON LAW
RULESANDCONSTITUTIONALIMPERATIVESMUSTBEAPPLIEDINAPPLICATIONSFORTHERECU
SALOFJUDGES MAGISTRATES OR ASSESSORS4HE#ODEOF*UDICIAL#ONDUCTFOR3OUTH

#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243
!FRICAN*UDGES ADOPTEDINTERMSOFSECTIONOFTHE*UDICIAL3ERVICE#OMMISSION
!CT PUBLISHED IN '. '' OF /CTOBER PROVIDING FOR
ETHICALANDPROFESSIONALSTANDARDSREQUIREDOFEVERY*UDGE INARTICLETHEREOF
PROVIDESFORTHETESTSFORTHERECUSALOFJUDGES)TPROVIDESTHATAJUDGEMUSTRECUSE
HIM ORHERSELFIFTHEREISAREALORREASONABLYPERCEIVEDCONFLICTOFINTEREST OR THERE
ISAREASONABLESUSPICIONOFBIASBASEDONOBJECTIVEFACTS!JUDGESHALLNOTRECUSE
HIM ORHERSELFONINSUBSTANTIALGROUNDS
$SSOLFDWLRQIRUUHFXVDORIMXGLFLDORIILFHU
3UCHAPPLICATIONSHOULD IFPOSSIBLE BEMADEATTHECOMMENCEMENTOFTHETRIAL
IN ORDER TO OBVIATE UNNECESSARY COMPLICATIONS SUCH AS A DISCONTINUATION OF A
PARTLYHEARDTRIALANDTHENECESSITYOFSTARTINGITDENOVO)FUNAVOIDABLE SUCHAN
APPLICATIONMAYBEMADEINTHECOURSEOFTHETRIAL3ILBER 3!! 3UCH
APPLICATIONMUST HOWEVER BEMADEINRESPECTFULANDCOURTEOUSTERMSANDMUST
NOTBEWILFULLYINSULTINGASTHEAPPLICATIONINTHECASEOF3ILBERWASHELDTOBE
4HEREQUIREMENTSOFTHETESTFORTHEPRESENCEOFJUDICIALBIASARE
4HEREMUSTBEASUSPICIONTHATTHEJUDICIALOFFICERMIGHTBE NOTWOULDBE BI
ASED
4HESUSPICIONMUSTBETHATOFAREASONABLEPERSONINTHEPOSITIONOFTHEAC
CUSED
4HESUSPICIONMUSTBEBASEDONREASONABLEGROUNDS
4HESUSPICIONMUSTBEONEWHICHTHEREASONABLEPERSONREFERREDTOWOULD NOT
MIGHT HAVEHELD
4HEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERSHOULDHAVENOCOMMUNICATIONWHATEVERWITHEI
THERPARTYEXCEPTINTHEPRESENCEOFTHEOTHER2OBERTS 3!#23#!
!SAGENERALRULE ANYMAGISTRATEORJUDGEWHOISAWARETHATHEORSHEHASANY
FEELINGOFPARTIALITY ENMITYORANYMOTIVEWHICHMIGHTACTUATEORBECOMMONLY
SUPPOSED TO ACTUATE HIM OR HER IN DECIDING A MATTER WOULD MERO MOTU RECUSE
HIM OR HERSELF AND CAUSE A SUBSTITUTE TO TRY THE MATTER 7HERE FOR INSTANCE A
MAGISTRATEHASINAPREVIOUSCAPACITYASAPUBLICPROSECUTORBEENCONCERNEDWITH
THEMERITSOFACASE SUCHAMAGISTRATESHOULDRECUSEHIM ORHERSELF FOR ASITHAS
BEENPUT JUSTICEMUSTNOTONLYINFACTBEDONEBUTMUSTALSOAPPEARTOBEDONE
#F"AILEY 3!% !NDERSON 3!/ 4AMPART 3!#2
37! (EITA 3!#2.M 3IMILARLY ITISGROSSLYIRREGULARFORAPRE
SIDINGOFFICERTOHEARANAPPLICATIONFORBAILWHENHEORSHEHASPREVIOUSLYTAKEN
DOWN A CONFESSION FROM THE SAME ACCUSED 4HE PRESIDING OFFICER SHOULD BE AN
IMPARTIAL OPEN MINDEDANDUNINFORMEDADJUDICATORINTHESENSEOFTAKINGCOG
NISANCEOFONLYTHOSEFACTSABOUTTHECASEWHICHAREPROVENINCOURTINTHEUSUAL
WAY3IBEKO 3!#24 4HEPRINCIPLEINVOLVEDINANAPPLICATIONFOR
RECUSALISTHATNOREASONABLEMANSHOULD BYREASONOFTHESITUATIONORACTIONOFA
JUDICIALOFFICER HAVEGROUNDSFORSUSPECTINGTHATJUSTICEWILLNOTBEADMINISTERED
INANIMPARTIALANDUNBIASEDMANNER(ERBST 3!% 4HEFACTTHAT
INREALITYTHEJUDICIALOFFICERWASIMPARTIALORISLIKELYTOBEIMPARTIALISNOTTHE
TEST)TISTHEREASONABLEPERCEPTIONOFTHEPARTIESASTOHISORHERIMPARTIALITYTHAT
ISIMPORTANT-ALINDI 3!! 'n)#OUNCILOF2EVIEW 3OUTH!FRICAN
$EFENCE&ORCEV-ÈNNIG 3!! 4HEREISAPRESUMPTIONAGAINSTTHEPAR

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TIALITYOFAJUDICIALOFFICER ANDANAPPLICANTWHOALLEGESREALBIASORTHEREASONABLE
APPREHENSION THEREOF HAS TO ESTABLISH IT #OGENT AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE WILL
BENECESSARYTODISLODGETHISPRESUMPTION"ASSON 3!#2## 4HE
CRITERIONFORRECUSALISANOBJECTIVEONE IEWHETHERTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERSCONDUCT
LEAVESARIGHT THINKINGOBSERVERORLITIGANTWITHTHEIMPRESSIONTHATTHEACCUSED
DIDNOTRECEIVEAFAIRTRIAL-ASEKO 3!#2! 3EEALSO3AGERV3MITH
3!3#! 3HACKELL 3!#23#!
!RELATIONSHIPWITHONEOROTHEROFTHEPARTIESTOACASEALSOAFFORDSGROUNDSFOR
RECUSAL BYREASONOFTHENOTUNNATURALBIASWHICHMAYREASONABLYBESUPPOSEDTO
RESULT(EADAND&ORTUINV7OLLASTON40$#F"AM 3!% AND
$UBE 3!#23#! )RREGULARITYINTHEQUESTIONINGOFAWITNESSBYTHE
TRIALCOURTDOESNOTMEANTHATTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERISNECESSARILYBIASED$AWID
3!#2.M 4HEMEREFACTTHATTHEJUDGEANDTHEACCUSEDBELONGTO
DIFFERENTRACEGROUPSWILLOBVIOUSLYNOTAMOUNTTOAGROUNDFORRECUSAL#OLLIER
3!#2#
)N3EGAL 3!# ITWASHELDTHATITISUNDESIRABLEFORAMAGISTRATEWHO
HASCONDUCTEDANINQUESTTOPRESIDEATTHETRIALARISINGFROMSUCHINQUEST UNLESS
THEREISNOOTHERJUDICIALOFFICERAVAILABLE
7HENTWOJUDICIALOFFICERSAREATTACHEDTOTHESAMEBENCHASCOLLEAGUES IRRE
SPECTIVEOFORDEROFRANK ANDONEOFTHEMISALITIGANTORANACCUSED THENTHEREIS
AREASONABLEGROUNDFORTHEOTHERTOBERECUSEDFROMTRYINGTHEACTION3!-OTOR
!CCEPTANCE#ORPORATIONV/BERHOLZER 3!4
4HEINTERESTONWHICHANAPPLICATIONFORRECUSALISBASEDSHOULDNOT HOWEVER BE
SOTRIFLINGORTHEASSOCIATIONSOREMOTETHATITWOULDBEUNREASONABLETOSUPPOSE
THATITCOULDHAVEANYEFFECTUPONTHEMINDOFTHEJUDGEORMAGISTRATECONCERNED
)THASBEENHELD FORINSTANCE THATAMAGISTRATEISNOTDISQUALIFIEDBECAUSEPRE
VIOUSLYINHISORHERJUDICIALCAPACITYHEORSHEDEALTWITHASIMILARCHARGEAGAINST
THEACCUSED ALTHOUGHITMAYBEBETTER ONTHEWHOLE ESPECIALLYWHEREASTRONG
VIEWHASBEENEXPRESSED THATANOTHERMAGISTRATESHOULDTRYTHECASE-UKAMA
40$!PRESIDINGOFFICERSMEREKNOWLEDGEOFFACTSINVOLVEDINTHETRIAL
WILLNOTNECESSARILYDISQUALIFYTHATOFFICERFROMHEARINGTHECASE WHEREHEORSHE
BRINGSITTOTHENOTICEOFTHEPARTIES ANDWHERETHEREISNOISSUEBETWEENHIMOR
HERANDTHEACCUSEDABOUTTHECORRECTNESSOFTHATKNOWLEDGE%SSA 3!
. 4HEFACTTHATAJUDGEHASKNOWLEDGEOFFACTSOBTAINEDINCIVILPROCEEDINGSIN
WHICHTHEACCUSEDWASCONCERNEDDOESNOTDISQUALIFYHIMORHERFROMPRESIDING
ATTHESUBSEQUENTCRIMINALTRIAL-AMPIE 3!.# .ORDOESKNOWL
EDGE OF AN ACCUSEDS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS IPSO FACTO DISQUALIFY A JUDICIAL OFFICER
FROMTRYINGACASE+HANV+OCH./ 3!2 )TIS HOWEVER PREFERABLE
TOINCLINETOWARDSGRANTINGANAPPLICATIONFORRECUSALINCASESOFUNCERTAINTY)F
ITCOULDNOTBESAIDTHATANACCUSEDCOULDNOTHARBOURAREASONABLEFEARTHATTHE
COURTWOULDREJECTHISORHEREVIDENCEBECAUSEOFAFINDINGONHISORHERCREDIBIL
ITYINANOTHERTRIAL ITWOULDBEPREFERABLEFORTHEJUDICIALOFFICERTORECUSEHIM OR
HERSELF$AWID 3!#2.M
3HOULD A JUDICIAL OFFICER REFUSE TO RECUSE HIM OR HERSELF IN A CASE WHERE THIS
SHOULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN DONE SUCH REFUSAL WOULD CREATE A GOOD GROUND FOR
REVIEWOFTHECASE4HECASEWILL HOWEVER ONLYBESUBMITTEDFORREVIEWAFTERCON

#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243
VICTION BECAUSETHECOURTWILLINTERFEREWITHUNTERMINATEDPROCEEDINGSONLYIN
RAREINSTANCES"URNS 3!#
4HREATENINGAJUDICIALOFFICERWILLNOTMATERIALLYAFFECTHISORHERIMPARTIALITY
ANDHISORHERREFUSALTORECUSEHIM ORHERSELFISNOTIRREGULAR2ADEBE
3!!
7HEREAJUDGERECUSESHIM ORHERSELFMEROMOTUANDTHEACCUSEDISTHENCHARGED
BEFOREANDCONVICTEDBYANOTHERJUDGE SUCHRECUSALWILLNOTREADILYBECONSTRUED
ASAFAILUREOFJUSTICEASREGARDSTHEACCUSED3ULIMAN 3!! "UTA
JUDICIALOFFICERSHOULDNOTRECUSEHIM ORHERSELFUNLESSHEORSHEHASASKEDTHE
DEFENCETOMAKEITSSUBMISSIONS3ULIMANABOVE
.OTETHATAJUDICIALOFFICERWHORECUSESHIM ORHERSELFBECOMESFUNCTUSOFFICIO
4HEWHOLETRIALBECOMESVOIDANDANACCUSEDMAYACCORDINGLYNOTCLAIMTHATHE
ORSHEBEEITHERACQUITTEDORFOUNDGUILTY INTERMSOFS !NEWTRIALMAY
THUSBEINSTITUTED-AGUBANEV6ANDER-ERWE./ 3!.
4RIALBYJURYREPEALED
4HEJURYSYSTEMIN3OUTH!FRICAMEANTTHATALLCRIMINALTRIALSINTHEPREVIOUSLY
CALLED@SUPERIORCOURTSEXCEPTTHOSEINTHEFORMER.ATAL.ATIVE(IGH#OURTAND
SPECIALCOURTS TOOKPLACEBEFOREAJUDGEANDNINEJURYMEMBERS/NLYWHITEMALES
COULDBECOMEMEMBERSOFAJURY)NPROVISIONWASMADEFORJURIESCONSISTING
OFWOMENONLYWHENITWASREQUESTEDBYAFEMALEACCUSEDORANACCUSEDUNDER
THEAGEOFYEARS)NITIALLYTHEDECISIONOFJURYMEMBERSHADTOBEUNANIMOUS
,ATERAMAJORITYOFSEVENVOTESOUTOFNINEWASREQUIRED
4HE JURY SYSTEM WAS INTRODUCED IN 3OUTH !FRICA IN VIA "RITAIN BUT WAS
EVENTUALLYABOLISHEDBYTHE!BOLITIONOF*URIES!CTOF
"Y@JURYISMEANTAPANELOFLAYPERSONSWHOACTINCRIMINALCASESASTHESOLE
JUDGESOFTHEFACTS*UDGMENTONLEGALQUESTIONSANDTHEEVENTUALIMPOSITIONOF
SENTENCESAREMATTERSFORTHEJUDGEALONE!JURYMAYGIVEJUDGMENTOF@GUILTYOR
@NOTGUILTY ORASPECIALJUDGMENTONTHEFACTS4HEACCUSEDORTHEPROSECUTORMAY
OBJECTTOTHEMEMBERSOFTHEJURYASAGROUPORASINDIVIDUALS
4HEJURYSYSTEMEXISTSINSEVERALCOUNTRIES INCLUDING#ANADA %NGLAND !USTRALIA
.EW:EALANDANDTHE53!)N%NGLANDANDTHE53!THESYSTEMISREGARDEDASTHE
CORNERSTONE OF AN IMPARTIAL AND ACCEPTABLE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE COLD
LOGIC OF CRIMINAL LAW IS TEMPERED BY THE LOGIC OF A GROUP OF INDEPENDENT AND
THEORETICALLYIMPARTIALORDINARYCITIZENSOFTHECOUNTRYWHOCOMEFROMALLSTRATA
OFSOCIETY
4HE MAIN OBJECTION TO THE JURY SYSTEM IS THAT IT IS A CUMBERSOME AND INEFFI
CIENTSYSTEMANDTHATJUDICIALDECISIONSSHOULDBELEFTINTHEHANDSOFSPECIALISTS
IE TRAINED JUDGES 7HERE THE JURY SYSTEM WAS INTRODUCED IN #ONTINENTAL LEGAL
SYSTEMS ITWASGENERALLYABANDONEDFORASYSTEMOFTRIALSBYABENCHCONSISTING
OFTRAINEDJUDGESANDLAYASSESSORSWHODECIDEJOINTLYONTHEQUESTIONSOFGUILT
INNOCENCEANDSENTENCE EGIN&RANCE "ELGIUM 'ERMANY )TALYAND3PAIN
/WINGTOTHECOMPLEXCOMPOSITIONOF3OUTH!FRICANSOCIETY THEJURYSYSTEMIN
3OUTH!FRICACHANGEDFROMATRIALWITHJURYMEMBERSTOATRIALWHERETHEACCUSED
COULDDEMANDTOBETRIEDWITHOUTJURYMEMBERS)NSUCHACASETHEJUDGECOULD
OBTAINTWOASSESSORSTOSITWITHHIMORHERINANADVISORYCAPACITYONTHEFACTS
!T A LATER STAGE IT BECAME COMPULSORY BY STATUTE TO HAVE TWO ASSESSORS IN TRIALS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
WHERE THE CHARGE WAS TREASON SEDITION MURDER OR RAPE OR WHERE THE -INISTER
OF*USTICEHADORDEREDATRIALWITHOUTAJURY!FTERTHECOMPULSORYTAKING
OFASSESSORSWASABOLISHEDANDITWASLEFTTOTHEDISCRETIONOFTHEJUDGE)N
THEJURYSYSTEMSUFFEREDASERIOUSSETBACKWHENTHEONUSOFREQUESTINGATRIALBY
JURYWASPLACEDONTHEACCUSED-AGISTRATESWEREOBLIGED WHENCOMMITTINGAN
ACCUSEDFORTRIALAFTERAPREPARATORYEXAMINATION TOINFORMSUCHACCUSEDOFHIS
ORHERRIGHTTODEMANDATRIALBYJURYARIGHTWHICHWASEXERCISEDLESSANDLESS
FREQUENTLYUNTILITWASREALISEDTHATTHESYSTEMHADBECOMEUNSUITABLEFOR3OUTH
!FRICAANDITWASABOLISHEDIN
4HEJURYSYSTEMDIDNOTPASSUNNOTICEDBUTSTRONGLYINFLUENCEDESPECIALLYOUR
LAWOFEVIDENCEWITHITSCOMPLICATEDRULES)TSDEMISEDOESNOTSEEMTOBEENTIRELY
IRREVERSIBLETHEREINTRODUCTIONOFTHESYSTEMIN3OUTH!FRICASFUTURELEGALDISPEN
SATIONISTHESUBJECTOFSPECULATIONFROMTIMETOTIME
/NTHEJURYSYSTEMINGENERALSEE72#ORNISH4HE*URY +ALVEN:EISEL
4HE!MERICAN*URY 3!3TRAUSS!CTA*URIDICAAND3!3TRAUSS
7EST!USTRALIAN,AW*OURNAL%+AHN"-, ANDASWELLAS
3!,**0*#OETZER#ONSULTUS
)-0!24)!,)49!.$&!)2.%33
'ENERAL
,QWURGXFWLRQ
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTLAYSDOWNCERTAINRULESOFPROCEDUREWHICHSHOULD
BEOBSERVED BUTTHETRIALISOTHERWISESUBJECTTOTHEMANAGEMENTOFTHEJUDICIAL
OFFICERPRESIDINGOVERIT!LLORDERSGIVENINTHEJUDICIALDISCRETIONOFTHEPRESID
ING JUDGE OR OTHER JUDICIAL OFFICER FOR THE PROPER CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL MUST BE
OBEYEDBYTHEPARTIES THECOURTSTAFFANDTHEPUBLIC WHOAREALL INTHEEVENTOF
WILFULDISOBEDIENCE LIABLETOBECOMMITTEDORFINEDSUMMARILYFORCONTEMPTOF
COURT@4HEQUALITYOFADJUDICATIONISCENTRALTOTHERULEOFLAW&ORTHELAWTOBE
RESPECTED DECISIONSOFCOURTSMUSTBEGIVENASSOONASPOSSIBLExAND;SUCHDE
CISIONS=MUSTFOLLOWFROMSOUNDREASONING BASEDONTHEBEST;RELIABLE=AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE2OAD!CCIDENT&UNDV-DEYIDE 3!## AT;=!FAMOUSFOR
MULATIONREGARDINGTHECOURSEOFACRIMINALTRIALISTHATOF,ORD(EWARTIN3USSEX
*USTICES +"AT
;)=T IS NOT MERELY OF SOME IMPORTANCE BUT OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE THAT JUSTICE
SHOULDBOTHBEDONEANDBEMANIFESTLYSEENTOBEDONE4HERULEISTHATNOTHINGISTO
BEDONEWHICHCREATESEVENASUSPICIONTHATTHEREHASBEENANIMPROPERINTERFERENCE
WITHTHECOURSEOFJUSTICE
4HIS ELOQUENT PASSAGE HAS BEEN REPEATED FREQUENTLY SOMETIMES IN A MODIFIED
FORM BYOURCOURTSCF3ALLEM 3!! AND-ARX 3!!
AT/NE FACET OF THE MAXIM THAT JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BEDONE IS THE RE
QUIREMENTTHATWITNESSESANDACCUSEDPERSONSMUSTBETREATEDCOURTEOUSLYBYTHE
COURT THEDEFENCEANDTHEPROSECUTIONCF!BRAHAMS 3!%
4HECONCEPTOF@JUSTICEINITSPROCEDURALSENSEISCLOSELYRELATEDTOTHEIDEAOF
LEGALITYSEE#HAPTER ITISNOTACONCEPTWHICHPRESUPPOSESTHATTHEACCUSED
IS NOT GUILTY BUT RATHER ONE WHICH REFERS TO A QUALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGSCF

#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243
-USHIMBA 3!! AT)TISCLEARLYILLUSTRATEDIN$OZERELI

3!# WHEREANACCUSEDWASASKED CONTRARYTOS WHYHEHADBEENIN
PRISONBEFORETHISSECTIONPROHIBITSINFORMATIONREGARDINGPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS
WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS IN THE TRIAL STAGES PRIOR TO SENTENCING 4HE REVIEWING
COURT STATED THAT THIS WAS NOT EXCUSABLE EVEN THOUGH THE MAGISTRATE AFFIRMED
THATHEHADNOTBASEDTHECONVICTIONONTHISINFORMATIONITALSODOESNOTMAT
TERWHETHERTHEACCUSEDISREALLYGUILTYORNOT4HEONLYQUESTIONISWHETHERTHE
BASICRIGHTOFTHEACCUSEDTOAFAIRTRIALHASBEENAFFECTEDBYTHEIRREGULARITYTO
SUCHADEGREETHATITCANNOTINPRINCIPLEBESAIDTHATJUSTICEWASDONE)NCASU
THEREVIEWINGCOURTSETTHECONVICTIONASIDE !PARTFROMWHATISSTATEDINTHEFOL
LOWINGPARAGRAPH THESTANDARDSWHICHAJUDICIALOFFICERSHOULDMAINTAININTHE
QUESTIONINGOFWITNESSESANDTHEACCUSEDHAVEBEENSUMMARISEDIN-ABUZA
3!#2/ ASFOLLOWS
4HECOURTSHOULDNOTCONDUCTITSQUESTIONINGINSUCHAMANNERTHATITSIM
PARTIALITYCANBEQUESTIONEDORDOUBTED
4HECOURTSHOULDNOTTAKEPARTINTHECASETOSUCHANEXTENTTHATITSVISIONIS
CLOUDEDBYTHE@DUSTOFTHEARENAANDITISTHENUNABLETOADJUDICATEPROPERLY
ONTHEISSUES
4HECOURTSHOULDNOTINTIMIDATEORUPSETAWITNESSORTHEACCUSEDSOTHATHIS
ORHERANSWERSAREWEAKENEDORHISORHERCREDIBILITYSHAKEN
4HECOURTSHOULDCONTROLTHETRIALINSUCHAWAYTHATITSIMPARTIALITY ITSOPEN
MINDEDNESS ITSFAIRNESSANDREASONABLENESSAREMANIFESTTOALLWHOHAVEAN
INTERESTINTHETRIAL INPARTICULARTHEACCUSED
*UDICIAL OFFICERS CAN ONLY PROPERLY FULFIL THEIR DEMANDING AND SOCIALLY IMPOR
TANT DUTIES IF THEY GUARD AGAINST THEIR OWN ACTIONS ARE ATTENTIVE TO THEIR OWN
WEAKNESSESSUCHASIMPATIENCE PERSONALOPINIONSANDWHIMS ANDCONTINUALLY
RESTRAINTHEM4HEYMUSTPRESERVETHEDIGNITYOFTHEJUDICIALINSTITUTIONANDTHEIR
DUTIESAREIMPOSEDFORTHEPROTECTIONOFTHEINTERESTSOFTHEPUBLICATLARGE,ANGA
V(LOPHE 3!3#!
,PSDUWLDOLW\DQGFRXUWHV\
4HEPRESIDINGJUDGEORMAGISTRATEMUSTENDEAVOURTOBEABSOLUTELYFAIRTOBOTH
THEPROSECUTIONANDTHEDEFENCE4HEINDIVIDUALHASTHERIGHTTOEQUALITYBEFORE
THELAWANDTOEQUALPROTECTIONOFTHELAWSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION ANDTOHAVE
JUSTICIABLEDISPUTESSETTLEDBYACOURTOFLAWOR WHEREAPPROPRIATE ANOTHERINDE
PENDENTANDIMPARTIALFORUMSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION%VERYCRIMINALCOURT
THEREFORE IS ASSUMED TO BE IMPARTIAL )MPARTIALITY DENOTES A STATE OF MIND IN
WHICHTHEADJUDICATORISDISINTERESTEDINTHEOUTCOME ANDISOPENTOPERSUASION
BYTHEEVIDENCEANDSUBMISSIONS,E'RANGE 3!#23#! 3EE GENER
ALLY (LOPHEV*UDICIAL3ERVICE#OMMISSION;=!LL3!'3*
)N*ACOBS 0((# TWOWITNESSESWHOHADINITIALLYSTATEDTHATTHEY
DIDNOTKNOWTHEACCUSED HAVINGBEENTHREATENEDBYTHEMAGISTRATEWITHAWHIP
PINGINTHECELLSUNLESSTHEYTOLDTHETRUTH THENIDENTIFIEDTHEACCUSED/NTHE
REVIEWITWASHELDTHATTHEPROCEDUREADOPTEDCONSTITUTEDSUCHASERIOUSIRREGU
LARITYTHATAFAILUREOFJUSTICEPERSEHADRESULTED3ETTINGASIDETHECONVICTIONAND
SENTENCETHEJUDGESAIDAT EMPHASISADDED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)THINKTHATITISHARDLYNECESSARYFORMETOSAYTHATWHATHAPPENEDINTHISCASECONSTI
TUTEDAVERYGROSSIRREGULARITY7HILEITISTRUETHATITISTHEFUNCTIONOFACRIMINALCOURT
TODETERMINETHEGUILTORINNOCENCEOFTHEACCUSED ITPERFORMSTHISFUNCTIONINACCORDANCE
WITHCERTAINACCEPTEDNORMSOFPROCEDURE4HESEINVOLVE INTERALIA THECONCEPTSOFFAIRNESSTO
THEACCUSED COURTESYTOWITNESSESANDANADHERENCETOCERTAINCIVILISEDSTANDARDSOFBEHAVIOUR
)THASNEVERBEENRECOGNISEDINTHECOURTSOFTHISCOUNTRYTHAT BECAUSEGUILTYPERSONS
SHOULDBEPUNISHED ANYPROCEDURE HOWEVERUNFAIRORUNSEEMLY MAYBEEMPLOYEDIFIT
HELPSTOESTABLISHTHEGUILTOFTHEACCUSED
)N2ALL 3!! THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALSTATEDSOMEOFTHELIMI

TATIONS WITHIN WHICH JUDICIAL QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES SHOULD BE CONFINED #F
ALSO/MAR 3!. REGARDINGUNFAIRCROSS EXAMINATIONOFANACCUSED
AND:UNGU 3!. REGARDINGDOUBTSASTOAPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERS
IMPARTIALITYASARESULTOFCIRCUMSTANCESARISINGAFTERTHECONCLUSIONOFATRIALAND
BEFOREITSREOPENING7ITNESSESANDACCUSEDPERSONSSHOULDNOTBEADDRESSEDBY
MEANSOFTHEIMPERSONALTERMS@WITNESSAND@ACCUSED BUTSHOULDBEADDRESSED
BYSURNAME EG@-R'WEBU'WEBU 3!7 !BRAHAMS 3!
% 'QULAGHA 3!#2! 4 3!#24 )TISALSODISRE
SPECTFUL IFNOTDEGRADING TOADDRESSANADULTASAJUVENILEINCASUBYADDRESSING
HIMBYHISFIRSTNAME +USE 3!#2%
$XGLDOWHUDPSDUWHP
.ORULINGOFANYIMPORTANCE EITHERONTHEMERITSORONPROCEDURALPOINTS SHOULD
BEMADEWITHOUTGIVINGBOTHPARTIESTHEOPPORTUNITYOFEXPRESSINGTHEIRVIEWS
3ULIMAN 3!! 4HEPRINCIPLEOFAUDIALTERAMPARTEMSHOULDALWAYS
BEOBSERVED"IDI 3!2 :UMA;=!LL3!. )NDEED IN
TERMSOFS I OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONEVERYACCUSEDHASTHERIGHTTOADDUCEAND
CHALLENGEEVIDENCE
'
HFLVLRQVVROHO\XSRQHYLGHQFHWKHRDWK
*UDICIAL OFFICERS MUST BASE THEIR DECISIONS SOLELY UPON EVIDENCE HEARD IN OPEN
COURTINTHEPRESENCEOFTHEACCUSED!JUDICIALOFFICERSHOULDHAVENOCOMMU
NICATION WHATEVER WITH EITHER PARTY IN A CASE BEFORE HIM OR HER EXCEPT IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE OTHER AND NO COMMUNICATION WITH ANY WITNESS EXCEPT IN THE
PRESENCEOFBOTHPARTIES-AHARAJ 3!. (ARRICHARAN 3!
. 3EEDAT 3!. .ORMAYAJUDICIALOFFICERTAKENOTICEOFDOCU
MENTARY INFORMATION EG CONTAINED IN THE POLICE DOCKET WHICH HAD NOT BEEN
TENDEREDASEVIDENCE$U4OIT 0((%
%VIDENCEMUSTBEGIVENUPONOATHORUPONASOLEMNAFFIRMATIONINLIEUOFAN
OATHORUPONASERIOUSADMONITIONTOSPEAKTHETRUTHSSnOFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT)N-ATSHIVHA 3!#23#! AT;=AND;=THECOURTSET
OUTTHEMATERIALELEMENTSFORADMISSIBILITYOFEVIDENCEUNDERSS AND
)TSTATED
4HEREADINGOFS MAKESITCLEARTHAT WITHTHEEXCEPTIONOFCERTAINCATEGORIESOF
WITNESSESFALLINGUNDEREITHERSORS ITISPEREMPTORYFORALLWITNESSESINCRIMI
NALTRIALSTOBEEXAMINEDUNDEROATH!NDTHETESTIMONYOFAWITNESSWHOHASNOTBEEN
PLACEDUNDEROATHPROPERLY HASNOTMADEAPROPERAFFIRMATIONORHASNOTBEENPROPERLY

#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243
ADMONISHEDTOSPEAKTHETRUTHASPROVIDEDFORINTHE!CT LACKSTHESTATUSANDCHARACTER
OFEVIDENCEANDISINADMISSIBLE
3ECTION ISRESORTEDTOWHENACOURTISDEALINGWITHTHEADMISSIONOFEVI
DENCEOFAWITNESSWHO FROMIGNORANCEARISINGFROMYOUTH DEFECTIVEEDUCATION
OROTHERCAUSE ISFOUNDNOTTOUNDERSTANDTHEIMPORTOFTHEOATHORAFFIRMATION
4HE INQUIRY ORDERED UNDER S APPLIES TO ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND NOT TO
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THE OATH OR AFFIRMATION FOR THE REASONS
STATEDINTHATSECTION INCLUDINGDEFECTIVEEDUCATIONOROTHERCAUSE!LTHOUGHTHIS
INQUIRYISPRIMARILYAIMEDATCHILDWITNESSES ITISEQUALLYAPPLICABLEINRESPECT
OFMENTALLYILLWITNESSES3V3- 3!#23#! 3UCHAWITNESSMUST
INSTEADOFBEINGSWORNINORAFFIRMED BEADMONISHEDBYTHEJUDICIALOFFICERTO
SPEAKTHETRUTH4HEFINDINGMUSTBEPRECEDEDBYTHEFORMOFENQUIRYBYTHEJU
DICIALOFFICER TOESTABLISHWHETHERTHEWITNESSUNDERSTANDSTHENATUREANDIMPORT
OFTHEOATH)FTHEJUDICIALOFFICERSHOULDFINDAFTERSUCHANENQUIRYTHATTHEWIT
NESSDOESNOTPOSSESSTHEREQUIREDCAPACITYTOUNDERSTANDTHENATUREANDIMPORT
OFTHEOATH HEORSHESHOULDESTABLISHWHETHERTHEWITNESSCANDISTINGUISHBE
TWEENTRUTHANDLIES ANDIFTHEINQUIRYYIELDSAPOSITIVEOUTCOME ADMONISHTHE
WITNESSTOSPEAKTHETRUTH)N4 3!! THECOMPLAINANTWASAFIVE
YEAR OLDGIRLWHODIDNOTKNOWTHEDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHETRUTHANDUNTRUTH(ER
EVIDENCEWASINAUDIBLEEXCEPTTOHERMOTHERWHOREPEATEDITTOTHECOURT4HE
MOTHERWASUNSWORN/NAPPEALTHECONVICTIONWASSETASIDEONACCOUNTOFSUCH
IRREGULARITY4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTIN$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAAL
V-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2## HELD
THATTHEPURPOSEOFTHEOATHISTOENSURETHATTHEEVIDENCEGIVENISRELIABLE4O
ADMITEVIDENCEOFACHILDWHODOESNOTUNDERSTANDWHATITMEANSTOTELLTHETRUTH
UNDERMINESTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
)TISTHEDUTYOFTHECOURTTOBEIMPARTIALTHEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICEROR IN
THECASEOFASUPERIORCOURT THEPRESIDINGJUDGEORTHEREGISTRAROFTHECOURTSHALL
ADMINISTER THE OATH IN RESPECT OF WITNESSESS 4HE PROSECUTOR MAY NOT
DOSO"OTHMA 3!# CFSOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CT!N
INTERPRETER INTHEPRESENCEOFTHEJUDGEORMAGISTRATE MAYNATURALLYALSOBEUSED
S
7ITNESSESMUSTBEALLOWEDTOGIVEEVIDENCEINTHEIROWNWORDSINTHEIROWN
WAYANDATTHEIROWNTEMPO/NLYINTHATWAYCANTHETRUTHBEASCERTAINED AND
THISISUSUALLYALLTHEMORESOWHENTHECOURTISDEALINGWITHTHOSEWHOARELESS
KNOWLEDGEABLEANDSOPHISTICATED(ENDRIKS 0((#
&AIRNESSTOTHEACCUSED
!TTHEHEARTOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIRCRIMINALTRIALISTHENEEDFORJUSTICETOBEDONE
AND ALSO TO BE SEEN TO BE DONE$ZUKUDA 3!#2 ## 7HERE THE
ACCUSEDISUNDEFENDEDTHECOURTSHOULDENSURETHATTHEACCUSEDISAWAREOFHIS
ORHERRIGHTSATALLTIMESANDISGIVENEVERYOPPORTUNITYOFCONDUCTINGHISORHER
DEFENCE ADEQUATELY CF .HANTSI 3!#2 4K 4HESE RIGHTS HAVE TO BE
EXPLAINEDTOTHEACCUSEDBYTHEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICIALNOT FORINSTANCE BY
THEINTERPRETER -ZO 3!# ,IKEWISE THEACCUSEDSDUTIES SUCHAS
THEDUTYTODISCHARGEAPARTICULARONUSINCERTAINCASES SHOULDBECAREFULLYEX

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PLAINEDTOHIMORHER3IBISI 3!. )NCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESSUCH

ANEXPLANATIONSHOULDBEGIVENEVENBEFOREPLEADING'UESS 0((#
)NACCORDANCEWITHTHEABOVEPRINCIPLES WHEREADEAFPERSONISUNABLETOFOLLOW
THEPROCEEDINGS AFAILUREOFJUSTICEWILLRESULT-BEZI 3!#27##
4HEACCUSEDSRIGHTSINCLUDETHERIGHTTOCROSS EXAMINE3EBATANA 3!
/ $IPHOLO 3!4 THISINCLUDESALSOTHERIGHTTOGIVEEVIDENCE
ANDCROSS EXAMINEINTHELANGUAGEOFTHEACCUSEDSCHOICEIRRESPECTIVEOFHISOR
HERAPPARENTRACE,ESOENA 3!#24 TOPUTHISORHERDEFENCETO
3TATEWITNESSESDURINGCROSS EXAMINATION'OVAZELA 3!/ TOCALL
WITNESSES3ELEMANA 3!4 (LONGWANE 3!. TOPRO
DUCERELEVANTDOCUMENTS FACTSANDFIGURESTORECORDTHEEVIDENCEIFHEORSHE
SOWISHES-OHLABANE 0((/ TOTESTIFYANDTOPRESENTARGUMENT
TOTHECOURTANDTOMAKEREPRESENTATIONSREGARDINGSENTENCECF3IBISI ABOVE !T
THECLOSEOFTHE3TATESCASETHEACCUSEDMUSTBEFULLYINFORMEDOFHISORHERLEGAL
RIGHTS2ADEBE 3!4
4HEPRESIDINGOFFICERSHOULDBEPATIENTWITHTHEACCUSEDANDBECOURTEOUSATALL
TIMES-POFU 3!2 )FTHEACCUSEDISUNDULYHAMPEREDBYTHECOURT
INHISORHERCROSS EXAMINATIONOF3TATEWITNESSES ITMAYRESULTINTHEACCUSEDS
CONVICTIONBEINGSETASIDEUPONREVIEWORAPPEAL,EEUWNER 0((%
)N4 3!#24 THECONVICTIONWASSETASIDEOWINGTOTHEMAGISTRATES
OBSTRUCTIONOFTHECROSS EXAMINATIONOFANUNDEFENDEDACCUSED)N3ALLEM
3!! ACONVICTIONWASSETASIDEWHERETHEMAGISTRATEHADNOTCONTROLLED
HISIMPATIENCEANDHADTHEREBYCOMMITTEDASERIESOFIRREGULARITIESANDMISDIREC
TIONS!CONVICTIONWILLALSOBESETASIDEIFANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDISPREJUDICED
BYAFAILUREOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICERTOINFORMHIMORHEROFHISORHERLEGALRIGHTS
2ADEBE 3!4 +HAMBULE 3!#27 7HEREAMAGISTRATE
ENGAGES COUNSEL IN A DEBATE ON THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE WHILE A WITNESS IS
TESTIFYING THEREBYALERTINGTHE3TATETOADEFICIENCYINITSCASE THEPRESIDINGOFFI
CERCONTAMINATESTHEPROCEEDINGSANDCAUSESAFAILUREOFJUSTICE-OSESI
3!#27
)T IS A GENERALPRINCIPLEOFOURLAW STEMMINGFROMITSACCUSATORIAL CHARACTER
THATTHECOURTISNOTENTITLEDTOQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDONTHEMERITSOFTHECASE
UNLESSHEORSHESUOMOTUTESTIFIESUNDEROATH4HISPRINCIPLEMUSTBERESPECTEDIN
THECOURSEOFTHETRIAL'ROTES*AWUKA 3!# 4HEACCUSED THEREFORE
MAY@DEFENDHIM ORHERSELFBYKEEPINGSILENT4HISISHISORHERPROCEDURALRIGHT
(OWEVER WHILEANACCUSEDISNOTCOMPELLEDTOSPEAK INCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES
THEACCUSEDSSILENCEMAYDAMAGEHISORHERCASEITISAFACTORWHICHMAYBETAKEN
INTOACCOUNTINASSESSINGTHEWEIGHTOFTHEEVIDENCEINITSTOTALITY"UTWHERETHE
3TATESCASEDEPENDS FOREXAMPLE UPONTHEDRAWINGOFINFERENCESFROMCIRCUM
STANTIALEVIDENCE THEACCUSEDSSILENCEMAYWELLBEEXPLAINEDASRESULTINGFROM
HISORHERCONFIDENCETHATTHEEVIDENCEADDUCEDBYTHE3TATEDOESNOTESTABLISH
GUILTANDDOESNOTREQUIRETOBEANSWERED#F+HOMO 3!$ ANDTHE
TEXTBOOKSONTHELAWOFEVIDENCE3EEALSO+ 3!! AT AND$UBE
!$.OMAKHALALA 3!#2!
4HEACCUSEDS@RIGHTTOSILENCEORMORECORRECTLY THE@RIGHTNOTBEQUESTIONED
HASBEENQUALIFIEDONLYBYSRELATINGTOTHE@PLEAEXPLANATIONPROCEDURESEE
#HAPTERBELOW3UCHQUESTIONINGBYTHEPRESIDINGOFFICER HOWEVER MAYTAKE

#(!04%2r4(%42)!,#/5243
PLACEONLYONARRAIGNMENTANDNOTDURINGTHECOURSEOFTHETRIAL!FTERANACCUSED
HASBEENCONVICTED THECOURTISENTITLEDTOKNOW ANDITISTHEDUTYOFTHEPROS
ECUTIONTOINFORMIT OFTHEPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSOFTHEACCUSED INORDERTOASSIST
ITINASSESSINGTHEPROPERPUNISHMENTTOIMPOSEONTHEACCUSED(OWEVER DURING
THETRIALALLKNOWLEDGEOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSOFTHEACCUSEDSHOULDBEWITHHELD
FROMTHECOURT SINCESUCHKNOWLEDGEMAYINFLUENCETHECOURTTOTHEPREJUDICE
OF THE ACCUSEDSEE S 4HE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIR
CUMSTANCESTOPROVESUCHPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSBEFOREVERDICT SUCHASWHERETHE
ACCUSEDHASATTACKEDTHECHARACTEROFA3TATEWITNESSORHASGIVENEVIDENCEOFHIS
ORHEROWNGOODCHARACTERS)TMAYBEPOINTEDOUTINPASSINGTHATITWILL
INPRACTICENOTALWAYSBEPOSSIBLETOKEEPFROMAJUDGETHEFACTTHATANACCUSED
HASAPREVIOUSCRIMINALRECORD)F FORINSTANCE ANACCUSEDISINDICTEDINTHE(IGH
#OURTFORAPETTYOFFENCE ITSHOULDBEEVIDENTTOANYONEWITHANYKNOWLEDGEOF
PROCEDURETHATTHEACCUSEDSRECORDOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSMUSTBECONSIDERABLE
TO HAVE JUSTIFIED HIS OR HER TRIAL IN THE (IGH #OURT AND NOT IN THE MAGISTRATES
COURT
4HE ACCUSED WILL HOWEVER NOT BE ENTITLED TO COMPLAIN OF SUCH INFERENTIAL
KNOWLEDGE WHEREAS IFSUCHINFORMATIONISIMPROPERLYDISCLOSEDTOTHECOURT THE
CONVICTIONWILLGENERALLYBESETASIDEEVENTHOUGHTHEMAGISTRATEMIGHTSTATETHAT
HEORSHEHADNOTBEENINFLUENCEDBYTHEINFORMATION0ERSOTAM40$
UNLESSTHECOURTOFAPPEALIS INTHECIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEPARTICULARCASE SATISFIED
THAT NO FAILURE OF JUSTICE HAS RESULTED FROM SUCH DISCLOSURES /F COURSE
IF DURING THE TRIAL THE FACT OF THE ACCUSEDS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS IS REVEALED BY
THEDEFENCE SUCHKNOWLEDGEWILL ASARULE NOTINVALIDATETHECONVICTIONOFTHE
ACCUSED

#(!04%2
!RRAIGNMENTANDPLEAOFAN
ACCUSED
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
!22!)'.-%.4!.$'%.%2!,02).#)0,%3
7(%.0,%!"9!##53%$-!9"%$)30%.3%$7)4(
2EFUSALTOPLEAD
!MBIGUITYINPLEA
/BSTRUCTIVEANDROWDYBEHAVIOUR
-ENTALLYDISABLEDACCUSED
%NQUIRYINTERMSOFSCAPACITYTOUNDERSTAND
PROCEEDINGSMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALLYDISABILITY
ANDCRIMINALRESPONSIBILITY
&INDINGSANDDIRECTIONSINTERMSOFSCAPACITYTO
UNDERSTANDPROCEEDINGS
&INDINGSANDDIRECTIONSINTERMSOFSMENTALILLNESS
ORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYANDCRIMINALRESPONSIBILITY
/BJECTIONSTOTHECHARGE
0,%!"!2'!).).'
4RADITIONALPLEABARGAINING
3TATUTORYPLEABARGAINING
0,%!37()#(-!9"%2!)3%$"9!##53%$
0LEASMENTIONEDINTHE!CT
'UILTYPLEA
'ENERAL
1UESTIONINGBYTHEPRESIDINGOFFICIAL
!CCUSEDmSVERSION
4HEPROSECUTORmSROLE
3TATEMENTBYACCUSEDINSTEADOFQUESTIONING


#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
%VIDENCEORQUESTIONINGWITHREGARDTOSENTENCE

#ORRECTIONOFPLEAOFGUILTY
#OMMITTALFORSENTENCEBYREGIONALCOURT
!MENDMENTOFPLEAFROMlGUILTYmTOlNOTGUILTYm
.OTGUILTYPLEA
%XPLANATIONOFPLEA
!DMISSIONSMADEINTHECOURSEOFEXPLANATIONOFPLEA
!CCUSEDmSPARTICIPATION
#OMMITTALTOREGIONALCOURT
!MENDMENTOFPLEAOFNOTGUILTY
4HEPROCEDUREINESSENCE
0LEAOFPRIORCONVICTIONORACQUITTAL
'ENERALPRINCIPLES
4HE#ONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONrS P OF
THE#ONSTITUTION
"ASICNOTIONSOFFAIRNESS FINALITYANDJUSTICETO
THEACCUSEDRELEVANTTOTHEPLEAOFDXWUHIRLV
DFTXLWORDXWUHIRLVFRQYLFW
4HECOMMONLAWANDTHESTATUTORYPROVISIONS
0LEAOFXWUHIRLVDFTXLW
4HECONCEPTOFlTHESAMEOFFENCEm
5PONTHEMERITS
4HECONCEPTOFlCOMPETENTCOURTm
0LEAOFDXWUHIRLVFRQYLFW
3ECTIONANDTHEPLEAOFDXWUHIRLVDFTXLWFRQYLFW
7HICHPLEAISAPPROPRIATE
0ARDONBYTHE0RESIDENT
0LEATOTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHECOURT
$ISCHARGEOFWITNESSFROMPROSECUTION
,ACKOFAUTHORITYORTITLEOFTHEPROSECUTORTOPROSECUTE
/LVSHQGHQV
0LEASINTHECASEOFCRIMINALDEFAMATION
0LEAASTOANORDEROFCOURTONANUNREASONABLEDELAYINATRIAL
!&4%20,%!$).' !##53%$%.4)4,%$4/6%2$)#4

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
E TOHAVEADEQUATETIMEANDFACILITIESTOPREPAREADEFENCE
G TOHAVETHEIRTRIALBEGINANDCONCLUDEWITHOUTUNREASONABLEDELAY
H TOBEPRESENTWHENBEINGTRIED
I TOCHOOSE ANDBEREPRESENTEDBY ALEGALPRACTITIONER ANDTOBEINFORMEDOF
THISRIGHTPROMPTLY
J TO HAVE A LEGAL PRACTITIONER ASSIGNED TO THE ACCUSED PERSON BY THE STATE AND
ATSTATEEXPENSE IFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULT ANDTOBEIN
FORMEDOFTHISRIGHTPROMPTLY
CEEDINGS

P NOTTOBETRIEDFORANYOFFENCEINRESPECTOFANACTOROMISSIONFORWHICHTHAT
PERSONHASPREVIOUSLYBEENEITHERACQUITTEDORCONVICTED
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr#HILDREN
%VERYCHILDHASTHERIGHTr

K TO HAVE A LEGAL PRACTITIONER ASSIGNED TO THE CHILD BY THE STATE AND AT STATE
EXPENSE INCIVILPROCEEDINGSAFFECTINGTHECHILD IFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULD
OTHERWISERESULT
!CHILDmSBESTINTERESTSAREOFPARAMOUNTIMPORTANCEINEVERYMATTERCONCERNINGTHE
CHILD
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0OWERSANDFUNCTIONSOF0RESIDENT
4HE0RESIDENTHASTHEPOWERSENTRUSTEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDLEGISLATION INCLUD
ING THOSE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF (EAD OF 3TATE AND HEAD OF THE
NATIONALEXECUTIVE
4HE0RESIDENTISRESPONSIBLEFORr

M PARDONINGORREPRIEVINGOFFENDERSANDREMITTINGANYFINES PENALTIESORFORFEI
TURES
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
3ECTIONr#HILDJUSTICECOURTSANDCONDUCTOFTRIALSINVOLVINGCHILDREN
D !
NYCHILDWHOSEMATTERHASBEENREFERREDTOTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTINTERMSOF
SECTION MUSTAPPEARBEFOREACOURTWITHTHEREQUISITEJURISDICTIONTOBE
DEALTWITHINTERMSOFTHIS#HAPTER
E !CHILDJUSTICECOURTMUSTAPPLYTHERELEVANTPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCE
DURE!CTRELATINGTOPLEAANDTRIALOFACCUSEDPERSONS ASEXTENDEDORAMENDED
BYTHEPROVISIONSASSETOUTINTHIS#HAPTERAND#HAPTER
7HEREACHILDANDANADULTARECHARGEDTOGETHERINTHESAMETRIALINRESPECTOFTHE
SAMESETOFFACTSINTERMSOFSECTIONS ANDOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT ACOURTMUSTAPPLYTHEPROVISIONSOFr
A THIS!CTINRESPECTOFTHECHILDAND
B THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINRESPECTOFTHEADULT
"EFOREPLEAINACHILDJUSTICECOURT THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUST INTHEPRESCRIBED
MANNERr
A INFORMTHECHILDOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONSAGAINSTHIMORHER
B INFORMTHECHILDOFHISORHERRIGHTSAND
C EXPLAINTOTHECHILDTHEFURTHERPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOFTHIS!CT
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTMUST DURINGTHEPROCEEDINGS ENSURETHATTHEBESTINTERESTS
OFTHECHILDAREUPHELD ANDTOTHISENDr
A MAYELICITADDITIONALINFORMATIONFROMANYPERSONINVOLVEDINTHEPROCEEDINGS
AND
B MUST DURING ALL STAGES OF THE TRIAL ESPECIALLY DURING CROSS EXAMINATION OF A
CHILD ENSURETHATTHEPROCEEDINGSAREFAIRANDNOTUNDULYHOSTILEANDAREAP
PROPRIATETOTHEAGEANDUNDERSTANDINGOFTHECHILD
.OPERSONMAYBEPRESENTATANYSITTINGOFACHILDJUSTICECOURT UNLESSHISORHER
PRESENCEISNECESSARYINCONNECTIONWITHTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHECHILDJUSTICECOURT
ORTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERHASGRANTEDHIMORHERPERMISSIONTOBEPRESENT
3ECTION OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTAPPLIESWITHTHECHANGESREQUIREDBY
THECONTEXTREGARDINGTHEPUBLICATIONOFINFORMATION
.OTEONSECTION OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT)N#ENTREFOR#HILD,AWV-EDIA
,IMITED 3!#23#! ADECLARATIONOFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYWASGRANT
EDBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALINRESPECTOFS BECAUSEITFAILEDTOPROTECT
THE ANONYMITY OF CHILDREN AS VICTIMS OF CRIME AT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS !LTHOUGH THE
SECTIONITSELFGRANTEDANONYMITYTOANACCUSEDORWITNESSUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSAT
CRIMINALPROCEEDINGS ITOFFEREDNOPROTECTION ATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS TOTHEVICTIMALSO
UNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS.OTE HOWEVER THATlTHEPRESIDINGJUDGEORJUDICIALOFFICER
MAYAUTHORISETHEPUBLICATIONOFSOMUCHOFSUCHINFORMATIONASHEMAYDEEMFITIFTHE
PUBLICATIONTHEREOFWOULDINHISOPINIONBEJUSTANDEQUITABLEANDINTHEINTERESTOFANY
PARTICULARPERSONm
4HECOURTAMENDEDTHESECTIONBYEXTENDINGTHEPROTECTIONOFTHEIDENTITYOFACHILD
ALSOTOTHEVICTIMOFCRIMEUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS INTHESAME
MANNER AS THAT OF THE ACCUSED OR WITNESS UNDER THE AGE OF YEARS 0ARLIAMENT WAS
ORDEREDTOREMEDYTHEAFORESAIDCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYWITHINMONTHSOFTHEORDER
FAILINGWHICH THEAMENDMENTISTOBECOMEFINAL
3EE BELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr2EFERRALOFCHILDRENINNEEDOFCAREANDPROTECTIONTOCHILDRENmSCOURT
)FITAPPEARSTOTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERDURINGTHECOURSEOFPROCEEDINGSATACHILDJUSTICE
COURTTHATACHILDISACHILDINNEEDOFCAREANDPROTECTIONREFERREDTOINSECTION THE
COURTMUSTACTINACCORDANCEWITHTHATSECTION
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr#HILDJUSTICECOURTMAYDIVERTMATTER
D !
CHILDJUSTICECOURTMAY ATANYTIMEBEFORETHECONCLUSIONOFTHECASEFORTHE
PROSECUTION MAKE AN ORDER FOR DIVERSION IN RESPECT OF A CHILD IN ACCORDANCE
WITHTHEPROVISIONSOFSECTION
E ! CHILD JUSTICE COURT THAT MAKES A DIVERSION ORDER MUST POSTPONE THOSE PRO
CEEDINGS PENDINGTHECHILDmSCOMPLIANCEWITHTHEDIVERSIONORDERANDWARN
THECHILDTHATANYFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHEDIVERSIONORDERMAYRESULTINANY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTOFRESPONSIBILITYBEINGRECORDEDASANADMISSIONINTHEEVENT
OFTHETRIALBEINGPROCEEDEDWITHASREFERREDTOINSECTION E
4HECHILDJUSTICECOURTMUST ONRECEIPTOFAREPORTFROMTHEPROBATIONOFFICERTHAT
ACHILDHASSUCCESSFULLYCOMPLIEDWITHTHEDIVERSIONORDER ANDIFTHECHILDJUSTICE
COURTISSATISFIEDTHATTHECHILDHASCOMPLIED MAKEANORDERTOSTOPTHEPROCEEDINGS
3EEALSO BELOW
!22!)'.-%.4!.$'%.%2!,02).#)0,%3
4HETERM@ARRAIGNMENTISNOTDEFINEDINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF
)TISDESCRIBEDASFOLLOWSIN+ERRV2%#$
4HEBRINGINGOFTHEACCUSEDTOCOURT INFORMINGHIMOFTHEOFFENCEWITHWHICHHEIS
CHARGED CALLINGUPONTHEACCUSEDFORHISPLEAANDENTERINGITCONSTITUTETHEARRAIGN
MENTOFTHEACCUSEDANDWHENHISPLEAHASBEENRECORDEDHEISSAIDTOSTANDARRAIGNED
!RRAIGNMENTDOESNOTEMBRACEPROCEDURALASPECTSONLY BUTFROMAFUNDAMENTAL
PERSPECTIVE THEPROCESSMUSTCOMPLYWITHTHEBROADERDEMANDSOFS A nM
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION WHICHPROVIDESTHATEVERYACCUSEDPERSONHASARIGHTTOA
FAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHTTOBEINFORMEDOFTHECHARGEWITHSUFFICIENT
DETAILTOANSWERIT TOHAVEADEQUATETIMEANDFACILITIESTOPREPAREADEFENCE TO
HAVEAPUBLICTRIALBEFOREANORDINARYCOURT TOHAVEHISORHERTRIALBEGINAND
CONCLUDEWITHOUTUNREASONABLEDELAY TOBEPRESENTWHENBEINGTRIED ANDTOHAVE
LEGALCOUNSELEITHEROFHISORHEROWNCHOICEORASSIGNEDTOHIMORHERATSTATE
EXPENSE IFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULT4HEBASICCONCEPTOFOUR
LEGALSYSTEMISTHATANACCUSEDMUSTBEFAIRLYTRIED4HATPRESUPPOSESTHATTHETRIAL
BECONDUCTEDINACCORDANCEWITHTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDTHERULESANDPRINCIPLES
OFTHELAWOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE!TRIALSHOULDNOTBETAINTEDBYANIRREGULAR
ITYORILLEGALITYTHATISADEPARTUREFROMTHEFORMALITIES RULESANDPRINCIPLESOF
PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO WHICH OUR LAW REQUIRES A CRIMINAL TRIAL TO BE INITIATED
ORCONDUCTED2UDMAN 3!! 4HERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALISTHEREFORE
BROADERANDENCOMPASSESRIGHTSOTHERTHANTHOSETHATARESPECIFICALLYSETOUTIN
S A nM OFTHE#ONSTITUTION SUCHASMAINTAININGTHEINTEGRITYOFTHEADMIN
ISTRATIONOFJUSTICE WHICHISANIMPORTANTPRINCIPLEOFFUNDAMENTALJUSTICE$U
4OITV4HE-AGISTRATE 3!#23#! )TISTHEREFOREALSOTHEFUNDAMENTAL

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
TASK OF A PRESIDING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE RIGHTS OF AN UNREPRESENTED ACCUSED AT
THEOUTSETOFTHEPROCEEDINGSBEFOREPLEADINGANDTORECORDTHECONTENTOFSUCH
EXPLANATION4HEPRESIDINGOFFICERALONEHASTODISCHARGETHISDUTYITCANNOTIN
ANADVERSARIALCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMBEDELEGATEDTOTHEPROSECUTOR-BATHSHA
3!#2%#' ORTOTHEINTERPRETER-ALATJI 3!#27
#OURTSAREOBLIGEDTOACTASGUIDESTOTHEUNDEFENDEDACCUSEDATALLSTAGESOFTHE
TRIALPROCESS2AMULIFHO 3!#23#! ANDEVENTOGUIDETHEINEXPE
RIENCEDPROSECUTOR1HAYISO 3!#2%#" ORTOASSISTTHEOBVIOUSLY
INEXPERIENCEDLEGALCOUNSEL-USIKER 3!#23#! (OWEVER WHERE
THE UNDEFENDED ACCUSED WILL NOT SUFFER SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE THE RIGHT TO LEGAL
REPRESENTATIONISNOTABSOLUTEBUTSUBJECTTOREASONABLELIMITS)TDOESNOTALLOW
ANUNDEFENDEDACCUSEDTOABUSETHISCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTWHERETHECOURTASSISTED
THEACCUSEDTHROUGHOUTTHETRIAL BUTTHEACCUSEDSCONDUCTFLUCTUATEDBETWEEN
DEFENDINGHIMSELFANDREQUESTINGLEGALREPRESENTATION-OYCE 3!#2
7##
.OTHINGINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPRESCRIBESTHEPLACEWHERETHEACCUSED
SHOULD STAND !S A MATTER OF PRACTICE THE ACCUSED STANDS IN THE DOCK BUT THE
COURT HAS A DISCRETION TO ALLOW HIM OR HER TO STAND AT ANOTHER SUITABLE PLACE
)FANACCUSEDHASSOMEOBJECTIONTOBEINGSEATEDINTHEDOCK ANDIFHISORHER
OBJECTION IS A GENUINE ONE AND NOT TAKEN SIMPLY WITH THE OBJECT OF DEFYING OR
BEINGCONTEMPTUOUSOFTHECOURT THECOURTINTHEEXERCISEOFITSDISCRETIONSHOULD
ALWAYS ACCEDE TO THE ACCUSEDS REQUEST-POFU 3! 2 !N ACCUSED
SHOULDBEADDRESSEDCOURTEOUSLYANDNOTAS@!CCUSED4YEBELA 3!!
7HEREACHILDAPPEARSBEFOREACHILDJUSTICECOURTINTERMSOF#HAPTERANDIS
NOTREPRESENTEDBYALEGALREPRESENTATIVEOFHISORHEROWNCHOICE ATHISORHER
OWNEXPENSE THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTREFERTHECHILDTO,!3!FORTHEMATTER
TOBEEVALUATEDBYTHE"OARDASPROVIDEDFORINS B OFTHE,EGAL!ID3OUTH
!FRICA!CT .OPLEAMAYBETAKENUNTILACHILDOFFENDERHASBEENGRANTEDA
REASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTOOBTAINALEGALREPRESENTATIVEORALEGALREPRESENTATIVE
HASBEENAPPOINTED
7HERE A NUMBER OF ACCUSED ARE CHARGED WITH THE SAME OFFENCE ON SEPARATE
CHARGES EACH INDIVIDUAL CHARGE MUST BE READ OUT TO EACH OF THE ACCUSED 4HE
PRESIDINGOFFICERSHOULDENSURETHATEACHACCUSEDKNOWSEXACTLYWHATHEORSHEIS
REQUIREDTOPLEADTO'WEBU 8ABA 3!4
!CONVICTIONWILLBESETASIDEIFANACCUSEDISARRAIGNEDONASERIOUSCHARGEAT
SUCHSHORTNOTICETHATHEORSHECOULDNOTHAVEBEENAFFORDEDSUFFICIENTTIMETO
PREPAREHISORHERDEFENCEORTOSEEKLEGALREPRESENTATION-ASILELA 3!#2
4
4HEHOLDINGOFA@MASSTRIALOFANUMBEROFACCUSEDATONEANDTHESAMETIME
ONCHARGESWHICHAREINNOWAYRELATEDTOEACHOTHERISHIGHLYIRREGULAR-ARIMO
.DHLOVU 3!2
4HE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE 3OUTH !FRICAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS THAT THE
ACCUSED MUST BE INFORMED OF THE CHARGE IN OPEN COURT AND REQUIRED TO PLEAD
INSTANTLY THERETO SUBJECT TO SS AND ! S 4HE PUBLIC MAY BE
EXCLUDEDINCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSSHALLNOTTAKE
PLACEINOPENCOURT ASSETOUTINSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTANDSOF
THE#HILD*USTICE!CT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
&ORMALOBJECTIONSTOTHEINDICTMENTORCHARGEMUSTBETAKENBEFORETHEACCUSED
HASPLEADED NOTAFTERWARDSS 4HEDEFECT IFANY CAN HOWEVER BERECTIFIED
DURINGTHETRIALINTERMSOFSORS)FNOT THEPOINTCANSTILLBERAISEDATTHE
ENDOFTHETRIALASAREASONFORACQUITTAL$AVIDV6AN.IEKERK 3!4
7HENANACCUSEDISREQUESTEDTOPLEADHEORSHECANDOSOHIM ORHERSELFORHIS
ORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVECANPLEADONHISORHERBEHALFPROVIDEDHEORSHEIS
DULYINSTRUCTEDANDNOTPROHIBITEDBYLAWFROMAPPEARING-PONGOSHE
3!!
7HENTHELEGALADVISERREPLIESINWRITINGORORALLYTOANYQUESTIONBYTHECOURT
INTERMSOFS SEETHEDISCUSSIONOFTHEPLEAOFNOTGUILTY THEACCUSEDMUST
ALSOCONFIRMTHIS3EE-BUYISA 3!#23#! ONTHECONTENTOFSUCH
STATEMENT
!N ACCUSEDS PLEA MUST BE RECORDED OTHERWISE A CONVICTION CANNOT STAND
"RANDT 0((3.# CONTRA7ILLIAMS;=7,2#! WHERETHE
%NGLISH#OURTOF!PPEALHELDTHATWHEREANACCUSEDINTENDEDTOPLEADNOTGUILTY
BUTBYANOVERSIGHTHADNOTBEENASKEDTOPLEAD THEDEFECTIVEARRAIGNMENTHAD
NOTINVALIDATEDTHEENSUINGTRIAL
7HEREACHILDANDANADULTARECHARGEDTOGETHERINTHESAMETRIALINRESPECTOF
THESAMESETOFFACTSINTERMSOFSS ANDOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT ACOURTMUSTAPPLYTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTINRESPECTOFTHE
CHILDANDTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINRESPECTOFTHEADULT"EFOREPLEADINGINA
CHILDJUSTICECOURT THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTINFORMTHECHILDOFHISORHERRIGHTS
ANDTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONSAGAINSTHIMORHERANDALSOEXPLAINTOTHECHILD
THEFURTHERPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTS
$URING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS THE COURT MUST ENSURE THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THECHILDAREUPHELD ANDTOTHISENDTHECOURTMAYELICITADDITIONALINFORMATION
FROM ANY PERSON INVOLVED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND MUST DURING ALL STAGES OF THE
TRIAL ESPECIALLYDURINGCROSS EXAMINATIONOFACHILD ENSURETHATTHEPROCEEDINGS
AREFAIRANDNOTUNDULYHOSTILEANDAREAPPROPRIATETOTHEAGEANDUNDERSTAND
INGOFTHECHILDSEESOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTAND$E2EUCKV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS 7ITWATERSRAND,OCAL$IVISION 3!## AT;=-EDIA
,IMITEDV.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY-AHLANGU;=:!'00(#
3!#2'.0
7
(%.0,%!"9!##53%$-!9"%$)30%.3%$7)4(
2EFUSALTOPLEAD
4HECOURTSHALLENTERAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYIFTHEACCUSEDWILLNOTPLEADORANSWER
DIRECTLYTOTHECHARGE-ONNANYANE 3!/ 3UCHAPLEAENTEREDBY
THECOURTHASTHESAMEEFFECTASIFTHEACCUSEDHADACTUALLYPLEADEDS )N
-OTHOPENG 3!4 THEOPINIONWASEXPRESSEDTHATTHEPROVISIONSOF
SSHOULDNOTBEINVOKEDWHEREANACCUSEDBONAFIDEREFUSESTOPLEAD7HERE
THE CASE WAS FORMALLY POSTPONED TO A CERTAIN DATE BUT THEREAFTER BROUGHT ON
BEFORESUCHDATE ANDTHEACCUSED ONBEINGREQUIREDTOPLEAD REFUSEDTODOSO
BECAUSE HE WOULD THEREBY HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED IN HIS RIGHT TO REQUEST FURTHER
PARTICULARS OR TO OBJECT TO THE CHARGE SHEET THE CORRECT PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
BEENNOTTOENTERAPLEAOFNOTGUILTY BUTTOLETTHEMATTERSTANDDOWNUNTILTHE
DATETOWHICHITHADORIGINALLYBEENPOSTPONED
4OINSISTTHATANACCUSEDSHOULDPLEADAFTERHEORSHEHASINFORMEDTHECOURT
THATHEORSHEWISHESTOCONSULTALEGALREPRESENTATIVECONSTITUTESAGROSSDEPARTURE
FROMTHEESTABLISHEDRULESOFPROCEDURE ANDISINCONFLICTWITHTHEFUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTOFANACCUSEDTOHAVELEGALASSISTANCE-KHIZE 3!4
!
MBIGUITYINPLEA
)F UPONBEINGREQUIREDTOPLEAD THEACCUSEDDOESNOTDOSODIRECTLY BUTMAKESA
STATEMENTINWHICHHEADMITSCERTAINFACTS ORPLEADSGUILTYADDINGRESERVATIONS
ANDREFUTATIONSEG@GUILTY BUTHEATTACKEDMEFIRST THECOURTSHOULDENTERAPLEA
OFNOTGUILTYANDTHENQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDINTERMSOFSTOASCERTAINWHAT
FACTSHEORSHEISPREPAREDTOADMIT
/BSTRUCTIVEANDROWDYBEHAVIOUR
)FTHEACCUSEDSREFUSALTOPLEADISACCOMPANIEDBYSUCHIMPROPERBEHAVIOURTHAT
ITOBSTRUCTSTHECONDUCTOFTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHECOURT THECOURTMAYORDERTHE
ACCUSEDTOBEREMOVEDANDMAYDIRECTTHETRIALTOPROCEEDINHISORHERABSENCE
S 4HIS POWER MUST BE EXERCISED WITH CIRCUMSPECTION ! WARNING TO THE
EFFECTTHATIFTHEACCUSEDSHOULDDISRUPTTHEPROCEEDINGS ITWOULDBECOMPETENT
FORTHEJUDICIALOFFICERTOCOMPLETETHETRIALINHISORHERABSENCEMUST IFPOSSIBLE
BEGIVENTOTHEACCUSED ASITMIGHTINFLUENCETHEACCUSEDTOCHANGEHISORHER
ATTITUDEANDSTATEHISORHERCASE-OKOA 3!/
-ENTALLYDISABLEDACCUSED
)F WHEN THE ACCUSED IS CALLED UPON TO PLEAD TO A CHARGE OR AT ANY STAGE OF THE
PROCEEDINGSGENERALLYBEFORESENTENCING ITAPPEARSTOBEUNCERTAINWHETHERHE
OR SHE IS CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE TRIAL BASED ON HIS OR
HERMENTALSTATE SOASTOBEABLETOMAKEAPROPERDEFENCE THECOURTMUSTDIRECT
ANENQUIRYINTOHISORHERMENTALSTATEINORDERFORTHECOURTTOMAKEAFINDING
ANDISSUEDIRECTIONSASTOHOWTODEALWITHTHEACCUSED3EES ANDSOF
THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT 3ECTIONDEALSWITHTHEPANELFORPURPOSESOFTHE
ENQUIRYANDREPORTSUNDERBOTHSSAND3EEPARBELOWINRESPECTOF
THEENQUIRYINTERMSOFS
)FITISALLEGEDATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSATANYSTAGEGENERALLYBEFORESENTENCING
THATTHEACCUSEDISBYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYORFORANY
OTHERREASONNOTCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORTHEOFFENCECHARGED ORIFITAPPEARSTO
THECOURTATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHATTHEACCUSEDMIGHTFORSUCHAREASONNOTBE
SORESPONSIBLE THECOURTSHALLINTHECASEOFANALLEGATIONORAPPEARANCEOFMENTAL
ILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYDIRECTTHATTHEMATTERBEENQUIREDINTOINORDER
FORTHECOURTTOMAKEAFINDINGANDISSUEDIRECTIONSASTOHOWTODEALWITHTHE
ACCUSED3EES ANDSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
#ERTAINSUBSECTIONSOFSS ANDOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTHAVEBEEN
AMENDEDBYTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!MENDMENT!CTOF4HEAMENDMENT
BY!CTOFREPLACEDTHEWORDS@MENTALDEFECTINTHESESECTIONSWITH@INTEL
LECTUALDISABILITYANDINTHE!FRIKAANSTEXTREPLACEDTHEWORD@GEESTESGEBREKWITH

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
@INTELLEKTUELE DEFEK 4HE FORMER TERM OF @MENTAL DEFECT SIGNIFIED IN COMMON
PARLANCE@MENTALRETARDATION7HATTHETERM@INTELLECTUALDISABILITY ADMITTEDLY
LESSOFFENSIVE DENOTESISNOTDEFINEDINTHE-ENTAL(EALTH#ARE!CTOF)T
ISSUBMITTEDTHAT@INTELLECTUALDISABILITYFITSINWITHTHETERM@INTELLECTUALDEFECT
OR@INTELLECTUALINCAPACITY@)NTELLECTUALDISABILITYTHENSIGNIFIESTHATAPERSONHAS
COGNITIVE PROBLEMS WITH LEARNING UNDERSTANDING PROCESSING INFORMATION AND
PROBLEMSOLVINGWHICHCOULDBECLASSIFIEDONLEVELSCONFORMINGTOITSSEVERITYAND
NATURE4HEREMAYALSOBEDIFFICULTIESWITHCOMMUNICATION SOCIALSKILLSANDGENERAL
LIVINGSKILLS3EETHEARTICLEBY*AMES3LEIGHATHTTPWWWCAMPHILLORGZAARTICLES
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY AND MENTAL ILLNESS
!LTHOUGHTHEREARESOMESIMILARITIESBETWEENTHEPROVISIONSOFSSAND
THEREISACLEARDISTINCTIONINPURPOSEBETWEENTHEPROVISIONSOFTHESESECTIONS
ALTHOUGH THE OUTCOME MIGHT IN EFFECT BE THE SAME 3ECTION PERTAINS TO AN
ACCUSEDWHOISNOTCAPABLEOFUNDERSTANDINGTHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSBYREASONOF
MENTAL ILLNESS OR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY )NEVITABLY SUCH AN ACCUSED CANNOT AND
SHOULDNOTENTERAPLEAATTHESTARTOFTHETRIAL4HEQUESTIONOFHISORHERCRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITYATTHETIMEOFTHEALLEGEDOFFENCEMUSTBEDETERMINEDINACCORDANCE
WITHS3ECTION PROVIDESTHATANACCUSEDWHOATANYSTAGEOFTHEPROCEED
INGS BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY IS FOUND NOT CAPABLE
OF UNDERSTANDING THE PROCEEDINGS MAY OR MAY NOT ALSO HAVE LACKED CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITYATTHETIMETHATHEORSHEPERPETRATEDTHEALLEGEDOFFENCEEITHER
WAY SUCHANACCUSEDMUSTBEDEALTWITHINACCORDANCEWITHS ANDNOTS)F
ITISINTHEINTERESTOFTHEACCUSED ANDDEPENDINGONTHEACCUSEDSLEVELOFINCA
PACITY THE COURT MAY INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE OFFENCE
(OWEVER THISDOESNOTMEANTHATTHEACCUSEDCANBEFOUNDEITHER@GUILTYOR@NOT
GUILTYANDCONSEQUENTLY NOSENTENCECANBEENTERED)NSTEADAJUDICIALDIRECTION
MUST BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OR OTHER PLACEMENT OF THE
ACCUSED INACCORDANCEWITHEITHERS A I ORS A II DEPENDINGONTHE
NATUREOFTHECRIMECOMMITTED
#ONVERSELY ATALATERSTAGEDURINGTHEPROCEEDINGSIFANACCUSEDISUNABLETOUNDER
STANDTHEPROCEEDINGS HASINDEEDPLEADEDANDHASBEENFOUNDGUILTYBUTBEFORE
BEING SENTENCED BASED ON AN ENQUIRY WHERE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE
ACCUSEDLACKSTHECAPABILITYTOUNDERSTANDTHEPROCEEDINGS ANDTHECOURTMAKES
SUCH A FINDING IN TERMS OF S A THE COURT MUST IN TERMS OF S B AS
AMENDED SETTHECONVICTIONASIDE ANDIFTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADEDGUILTY ITSHALL
BEDEEMEDTHATHEORSHEHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTY4HEPROCEDURE FINDINGSAND
DIRECTIONSARESETOUTINPARAGRAPH BELOW
3ECTIONCONCERNSANACCUSEDWHODUETOAMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABIL
ITYISNOTCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORSUCHACTOROMISSIONCOMMITTEDBYHIMOR
HER IFHEORSHEWASINCAPABLEOFAPPRECIATINGTHEWRONGFULNESSOFHISORHERACT
OROMISSIONOROFACTINGINACCORDANCEWITHANAPPRECIATIONOFTHEWRONGFULNESS
OFTHATACTOROMISSION3ECTIONS! AND" PROVIDETHATEVERYPERSONIS
PRESUMEDNOTTOSUFFERFROMAMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYSOASNOTTO
BECRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEINTERMSOFS UNTILTHECONTRARYISPROVEDONABAL
ANCEOFPROBABILITIES ANDANACCUSEDWHOPUTSHISORHERCRIMINALRESPONSIBILITY
INISSUEBEARSTHEBURDENOFPROVINGTHELACKOFCRIMINALRESPONSIBILITY3ECTION
APPLIES AFTER THE PROCEDURE IN TERMS OF S HAS BEEN APPLIED PURSUANT

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY HAVING BEEN RAISED AS AN ISSUE OR IT APPEARED TO THE
COURTTHATBYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYTHEACCUSEDISNOT
RESPONSIBLE)FTHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDCOMMITTEDTHEACTINQUESTIONAND
THATHEORSHEATTHETIMEOFSUCHCOMMISSIONWASBYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSOR
INTELLECTUALDISABILITYNOTCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORSUCHACT THECOURTWILLDIRECT
THEINSTITUTIONALISATIONOROTHERPLACEMENTOFTHEACCUSEDINACCORDANCEWITHTHE
PROVISIONS OF EITHER S A OR S B I OR S B II DEPENDING ON THE
NATUREOFTHECRIMECOMMITTED4HEPROCEDURE FINDINGSANDDIRECTIONSARESET
OUTINPARAGRAPH BELOW
.OTETHECORRESPONDENCEBETWEENTHESELECTIONOFPOSSIBLECOURTORDERSREGARD
INGINSTITUTIONALISATIONORPLACEMENTOFTHEACCUSEDINTERMSOFTHEPROVISIONSOF
BOTHS ANDS
$URINGPROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFSS AND BECAUSEOFTHENATUREAND
GRAVITY OF THE CHARGE ON WHICH THE PERSON IS TO BE TRIED A COURT MAY ORDER IF
IT IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE MAY FOLLOW WITHOUT THE BENEFIT
OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION THAT THE ACCUSED BE ASSISTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT
STATEEXPENSE INTERMSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE,!3!!CTANDSOFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTS!
4HEPROCEEDINGSOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYMAYBEPOSTPONEDFORAPERIODDETER
MINEDBYTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEINTHECASEWHEREACHILDHASBEENREFERREDFORA
DECISIONRELATINGTOMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYINTERMSOFSSOR
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
( QTXLU\LQWHUPVRIVFDSDFLW\WRXQGHUVWDQGSURFHHGLQJVPHQWDOLOOQHVVRU
LQWHOOHFWXDOGLVDELOLW\DQGFULPLQDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\
7HEREACOURTISSUESADIRECTIONFORANENQUIRYREGARDINGTHEACCUSEDSCAPACITY
TOSTANDTRIALUNDERS ORADIRECTIONFORENQUIRYINRESPECTOFTHEACCUSEDS
CRIMINALRESPONSIBILITYUNDERS THERELEVANTENQUIRYSHALLBECONDUCTEDAND
BEREPORTEDON
A WHERETHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEOTHERTHANONEREFERREDTOIN
PARAGRAPHB ;BELOW=
I BY THE HEAD OF THE DESIGNATED HEALTH ESTABLISHMENT DESIGNATED BY THE
COURTOR
II BYANOTHERPSYCHIATRISTDELEGATEDBYTHEHEADCONCERNEDS A OR
B WHERETHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHMURDERORCULPABLEHOMICIDEORRAPEOR
COMPELLEDRAPEASPROVIDEDFORINSOROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/F
FENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT RESPECTIVELY ORANOTHER
CHARGEINVOLVINGSERIOUSVIOLENCE ORIFTHECOURTCONSIDERSITTOBENECESSARY
INTHEPUBLICINTEREST ORWHERETHECOURTINANYPARTICULARCASESODIRECTS
I BYTHEHEADOFTHEDESIGNATEDHEALTHESTABLISHMENT ORBYANOTHERPSY
CHIATRISTDELEGATEDBYTHEHEADCONCERNED
II BYAPSYCHIATRISTAPPOINTEDBYTHECOURT
III BYAPSYCHIATRISTAPPOINTEDBYTHECOURT UPONAPPLICATIONANDONGOOD
CAUSESHOWNBYTHEACCUSEDFORSUCHAPPOINTMENTAND
IV BYACLINICALPSYCHOLOGISTWHERETHECOURTSODIRECTSS B

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEPROSECUTORUNDERTAKINGTHEPROSECUTIONOFTHEACCUSEDORANYOTHERPROSECU
TORATTACHEDTOTHESAMECOURTSHALLINTERMSOFS! FORTHEPURPOSESOFTHIS
ENQUIRY ISSUEAREPORTTOPROVIDETHEPERSONSWHO INTERMSOFSUB S HAVE
TOCONDUCTTHEENQUIRYANDREPORTONTHEACCUSEDSMENTALCONDITIONORMENTAL
CAPACITY WITHAREPORTINWHICHTHEFOLLOWINGARESTATED NAMELY
A WHETHERTHEREFERRALISTAKINGPLACEINTERMSOFSORS
B ATWHOSEREQUESTORONWHOSEINITIATIVETHEREFERRALISTAKINGPLACE
C THENATUREOFTHECHARGEAGAINSTTHEACCUSED
D THESTAGEOFTHEPROCEEDINGSATWHICHTHEREFERRALTOOKPLACE
E THEPURPORTOFANYSTATEMENTMADEBYTHEACCUSEDBEFOREORDURINGTHECOURT
PROCEEDINGS THAT IS RELEVANT WITH REGARD TO HIS OR HER MENTAL CONDITION OR
MENTALCAPACITY
F THEPURPORTOFEVIDENCETHATHASBEENGIVENTHATISRELEVANTTOTHEACCUSEDS
MENTALCONDITIONORMENTALCAPACITY
G INSOFARASITISWITHINTHEKNOWLEDGEOFTHEPROSECUTOR THEACCUSEDSSOCIAL
BACKGROUNDANDFAMILYCOMPOSITIONANDTHENAMESANDADDRESSESOFHISOR
HERNEARRELATIVESAND
H ANYOTHERFACTTHATMAYINTHEOPINIONOFTHEPROSECUTORBERELEVANTINTHE
EVALUATIONOFTHEACCUSEDSMENTALCONDITIONORMENTALCAPACITY
4HECOURTMAYFORPURPOSESOFTHEENQUIRYCOMMITTHEACCUSEDTOAPSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITALINTOLAWFULCUSTODYFORPERIODSNOTEXCEEDINGDAYSATATIME7HENTHE
PERIODOFCOMMITTALISEXTENDEDFORTHEFIRSTTIME SUCHEXTENSIONMAYBEGRANTED
INTHEABSENCEOFTHEACCUSEDUNLESSTHEACCUSEDORHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVE
REQUESTSOTHERWISES A nB 4HEREPORTOFTHEENQUIRYMUSTMENTIONTHE
NATUREOFTHEENQUIRYANDINCLUDEADIAGNOSISOFTHEMENTALCONDITIONOFTHEAC
CUSEDANDIFTHEREPORTISINTERMSOFS AFINDINGASTOWHETHERTHEACCUSEDIS
CAPABLEOFUNDERSTANDINGTHEPROCEEDINGSSOASTOMAKEAPROPERDEFENCES
A nC )FTHEENQUIRYISINTERMSOFS THEREPORTMUSTINCLUDEAFINDINGAS
TOTHEEXTENTTOWHICHTHECAPACITYOFTHEACCUSEDTOAPPRECIATETHEWRONGFULNESS
OFTHEACTINQUESTIONORTOACTINACCORDANCEWITHANAPPRECIATIONOFTHEWRONG
FULNESSOFTHATACTWAS ATTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONTHEREOF AFFECTEDBYMENTAL
ILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYORBYANYOTHERCAUSES D (OWEVER THE
REPORTMUSTBEAHOLISTICASSESSMENTOFALLTHERELEVANTFACTSANDCIRCUMSTANCES
ASSESSING THE ACCUSED FOR ONE DAY ONLY DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN
SS AND #HAUKE 3!#23#! 4HEREPORTMUSTBESUBMITTED
TOEITHERTHEREGISTRAROFTHE(IGH#OURTORTHECLERKOFTHECOURT WHOMUSTMAKE
ACOPYTHEREOFAVAILABLETOTHEPROSECUTORANDTHEACCUSEDS
)F THE FINDING IN THE REPORT IS UNANIMOUS AND IS NOT DISPUTED BY EITHER THE
PROSECUTORORTHEACCUSED THECOURTMAYDETERMINETHEMATTERWITHOUTHEARING
FURTHEREVIDENCE BUTIFTHEFINDINGISNOTUNANIMOUS ORISDISPUTEDBYTHEPROSE
CUTORORTHEACCUSED THECOURTMUSTDETERMINETHEMATTERAFTERHEARINGEVIDENCE
)N EITHER CASE THE ACCUSED MUST HOWEVER BE PRESENT IN COURT%YDEN
3!4 +AHITA 3!# !STATEMENTMADEBYTHEACCUSEDDURING
THERELEVANTENQUIRYSHALLNOTBEADMISSIBLEASEVIDENCEAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDIN
SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT TO THE
DETERMINATIONOFTHEACCUSEDSMENTALCONDITIONS

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
)LQGLQJVDQGGLUHFWLRQVLQWHUPVRIVFDSDFLW\WRXQGHUVWDQGSURFHHGLQJV
)FTHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDISCAPABLEOFUNDERSTANDINGTHEPROCEEDINGS
THEPROCEEDINGSCONTINUEINTHEORDINARYWAY)FTHECOURTWHICHHASJURISDICTION
IN TERMS OF S TO TRY THE CASE FINDS THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT CAPABLE OF UNDER
STANDINGTHEPROCEEDINGSSOASTOMAKEAPROPERDEFENCE THECOURTMAYIFITIS
OFTHEOPINIONTHATITISINTHEINTERESTSOFTHEACCUSED TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHE
NATUREOFTHEACCUSEDSINCAPACITYCONTEMPLATEDINSUB S ANDUNLESSITCANBE
PROVEDONABALANCEOFPROBABILITIESTHAT ONTHELIMITEDEVIDENCEAVAILABLE THE
ACCUSEDCOMMITTEDTHEACTINQUESTION ORDERTHATSUCHINFORMATIONOREVIDENCE
BEPLACEDBEFORETHECOURTASITDEEMSFIT SOASTODETERMINEWHETHERTHEACCUSED
HASCOMMITTEDTHEACTINQUESTIONANDTHECOURTMAYDIRECTTHATTHEACCUSED
I INTHECASEOFACHARGEOFMURDERORCULPABLEHOMICIDEORRAPEORCOMPELLED
RAPEASCONTEMPLATEDINSOROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND
2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT RESPECTIVELY ORACHARGEINVOLVINGSE
RIOUSVIOLENCEORIFTHECOURTCONSIDERSITTOBENECESSARYINTHEPUBLICINTEREST
WHERETHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDHASCOMMITTEDTHEACTINQUESTION OR
ANYOTHEROFFENCEINVOLVINGSERIOUSVIOLENCE BE
AA DETAINEDINAPSYCHIATRICHOSPITAL
BB TEMPORARILYDETAINEDINACORRECTIONALHEALTHFACILITYOFAPRISONWHERE
A BED IS NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE IN A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL AND BE
TRANSFERREDWHEREABEDBECOMESAVAILABLE IFTHECOURTISOFTHEOPIN
IONTHATITISNECESSARYTODOSOONTHEGROUNDSTHATTHEACCUSEDPOSES
ASERIOUSDANGERORTHREATTOHIMSELFORHERSELFORTOMEMBERSOFTHE
PUBLIC
PENDINGTHEDECISIONOFAJUDGEINCHAMBERSINTERMSOFSOFTHE-ENTAL
(EALTH#ARE!CT
CC ADMITTED TO AND DETAINED IN A DESIGNATED HEALTH ESTABLISHMENT STATED
INTHEORDERASIFHEORSHEWEREANINVOLUNTARYMENTALHEALTHCAREUSER
CONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE-ENTAL(EALTH#ARE!CT
DD RELEASEDSUBJECTTOSUCHCONDITIONSASTHECOURTCONSIDERSAPPROPRIATE
OR
EE REFERREDTOA#HILDRENS#OURTASCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE#HILD*US
TICE!CT !CTOF ANDPENDINGSUCHREFERRALBEPLACEDIN
THECAREOFAPARENT GUARDIANOROTHERAPPROPRIATEADULTOR FAILINGTHAT
PLACEDINTEMPORARYSAFECAREASDEFINEDINSOFTHE#HILDRENS!CT
OF S A I OR
II INTHECASEWHERETHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDHASCOMMITTEDANOFFENCE
OTHERTHANONECONTEMPLATEDINS I ABOVE ORTHATTHEACCUSEDHASNOTCOM
MITTEDANYOFFENCEBE
AA A DMITTEDTOANDDETAINEDINADESIGNATEDHEALTHESTABLISHMENTSTATED
INTHEORDERASIFTHEACCUSEDWEREANINVOLUNTARYMENTALHEALTHCARE
USERCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE-ENTAL(EALTH#ARE!CT
BB R ELEASEDSUBJECTTOSUCHCONDITIONSASTHECOURTCONSIDERSAPPROPRIATE
CC RELEASEDUNCONDITIONALLYOR
DD REFERRED TO A #HILDRENS #OURT AS CONTEMPLATED IN S OF THE #HILD
*USTICE!CT ANDPENDINGSUCHREFERRALBEPLACEDINTHECAREOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
A PARENT GUARDIAN OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ADULT OR FAILING THAT PLACED

INTEMPORARYSAFECAREASDEFINEDINSOFTHE#HILDRENS!CT
SA II x
)FTHECOURTDIRECTSASISMEANTINS A I ORII ABOVE AFTERTHEACCUSEDHAS
PLEADEDTOTHECHARGE THEACCUSEDSHALLNOTBEENTITLEDUNDERS TOBEAC
QUITTEDORTOBECONVICTEDINRESPECTOFTHECHARGEINQUESTION3ECTION B
PROVIDESTHATIFTHECOURTMAKESAFINDINGINTERMSOFS A AFTERTHEACCUSED
HASBEENCONVICTEDOFTHEOFFENCECHARGEDBUTBEFORESENTENCEISPASSED THECOURT
SHALL SET THE CONVICTION ASIDE AND IF THE ACCUSED HAS PLEADED GUILTY IT SHALL BE
DEEMEDTHATHEORSHEHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTY
!NACCUSEDISPERMITTEDTOAPPEALAGAINSTAFINDINGTHATHEORSHEWASCAPA
BLEOFUNDERSTANDINGTHEPROCEEDINGSIFHEORSHEISSUBSEQUENTLYCONVICTED OR
AGAINSTAFINDINGTHATHEORSHEISINCAPABLE PROVIDEDTHATHEORSHEDIDNOTHIM
ORHERSELFALLEGETHISATTHETRIAL7HEREANAPPEALAGAINSTAFINDINGISALLOWED
THECOURTOFAPPEALSHALLSETASIDETHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEANDREMITTHECASE
TOTHECOURTWHICHMADETHEFINDING WHEREUPONTHATCOURTMUSTDEALWITHTHE
PERSONCONCERNEDINACCORDANCEWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFS
4HE SO CALLED PSYCHOPATH IS GENERALLY CAPABLE OF STANDING TRIAL AS WELL AS
BEINGCRIMINALLYLIABLEHEDOESNOTFALLUNDERTHEPROVISIONSOFSSTO
-NYANDA 3!! 0IETERSE 3!! ,AWRENCE 3!#2
! SEE#),3!n
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOGHYHORSPHQWRIV
)N$E6OS./V-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2
## THEPROVISIONSOFS A I ANDS A II WERECHALLENGEDONTHEBASISOF
CONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITY4HECOURTFOUNDTHESEPROVISIONSTOBEUNCONSTITUTIONAL
ANDINVALIDBECAUSETHEYPROVIDEFORCOMPULSORYINCARCERATIONORINSTITUTIONALI
SATIONOFTHEACCUSEDPERSONWITHMENTALDISABILITIES)TISCLEARFROMSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONTHATONECANNOTREMOVEPERSONSWITHMENTALILLNESSESORINTELLEC
TUALDISABILITIESFROMSOCIETYFORTHEMEREFACTTHATTHEYHAVEMENTALILLNESSESOR
INTELLECTUALDISABILITIES&URTHERMORE THEPROTECTIONSAVAILABLETOOTHERACCUSED
PERSONSMUSTEQUALLYBEAVAILABLETOTHEM4HECOURTFOUNDTHAT INRESPECTOF
CHILDREN A PRESIDING OFFICER MUST BE AFFORDED A DISCRETION SO AS TO ENSURE THAT
DETENTIONISUNDERTAKENASALASTRESORTANDFORTHESHORTESTPOSSIBLEPERIOD)NRE
SPECTOFOTHERACCUSED IMPRISONMENTSHOULDONLYBEAVAILABLEFORACCUSEDPERSONS
WHOPOSEASERIOUSDANGERTOSOCIETYORTHEMSELVES)FANACCUSEDPERSONDOESNOT
POSEASERIOUSDANGERTOSOCIETYORTOHIM ORHERSELF HEORSHESHOULDNOTBEKEPT
INPRISON4HECOURTFOUNDTHATTHEMANDATORYDETENTIONOFCHILDRENINPRISONIN
TERMSOFS A I ISUNCONSTITUTIONALANDTHEPEREMPTORYPROVISIONFAILEDTO
APPRECIATETHECOMPLEXITYOFMENTALDISABILITY4HEORDEROFUNCONSTITUTIONALITY
WASSUSPENDEDFORMONTHSPENDINGLEGISLATION,EGISLATIONCAMEABOUTTHENIN
THEFORMOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!MENDMENT!CTOF
!N INSTANCE WHERE THE ACCUSED WAS FOUND TO BE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTAND
INGTHEPROCEEDINGSBYREASONOFINSANITYISTHECASEOF0RATT 3!4
WHOWASINDICTEDFORTHEATTEMPTEDASSASSINATIONOFTHETHEN0RIME-INISTER $R
6ERWOERD(EWASDECLAREDINSANEANDSENTTOAPSYCHIATRICINSTITUTION!SIMILAR

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
FINDINGWASMADEINTHECASEOF4SAFENDAS WHOASSASSINATED$R6ERWOERDIN
THECASEISNOTREPORTED BUTAFULL TRANSLATEDVERSIONOFTHEJUDGMENTISPRINTED
IN'#3TEYL2EGTERSAANDIE7OORD
) LQGLQJVDQGGLUHFWLRQVLQWHUPVRIV0HQWDOLOOQHVVRULQWHOOHFWXDOGLVDELOLW\
DQGFULPLQDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\
!PERSONWHOCOMMITSANACTORMAKESANOMISSIONWHICHCONSTITUTESANOFFENCE
ANDWHOATTHETIMEOFSUCHCOMMISSIONOROMISSIONSUFFERSFROMAMENTALILLNESS
ORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYWHICHMAKESHIMORHERINCAPABLE
A OFAPPRECIATINGTHEWRONGFULNESSOFHISORHERACTOROMISSIONOR
B OFACTINGINACCORDANCEWITHANAPPRECIATIONOFTHEWRONGFULNESSOFHISOR
HERACTOROMISSION
SHALLNOTBECRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORSUCHACTOROMISSIONS
)FITISALLEGEDATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHATTHEACCUSEDISBYREASONOFMENTALILL
NESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYORFORANYOTHERREASONNOTCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLE
FORTHEOFFENCECHARGED ORIFITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHAT
THEACCUSEDMIGHTFORSUCHAREASONNOTBESORESPONSIBLE THECOURTSHALLINTHE
CASEOFANALLEGATIONORAPPEARANCEOFMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITY AND
MAY INANYOTHERCASE DIRECTTHATTHEMATTERBEENQUIREDINTOANDBEREPORTED
ONINACCORDANCEWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFSS
)FITAPPEARSREASONABLYPOSSIBLETHATANACCUSEDMIGHTNOTHAVEBEENCRIMI
NALLYRESPONSIBLEATTHETIMEWHENHEORSHECOMMITTEDTHEOFFENCEOR ATLEAST
THATTHEACCUSEDSMORALBLAMEWORTHINESSMIGHTHAVEBEENCONSIDERABLYREDUCED
HAVING REGARD TO HIS OR HER MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENCE THECOURTISOBLIGEDBYS OFTHE!CTTODIRECTTHATANENQUIRYINTO
THEMENTALCONDITIONOFTHEACCUSEDBEUNDERTAKEN4OM 3!#2"
6OLKMAN 3!#2# )NANYOTHERCASEWHICHDOESNOTRELATETOTHEMENTAL
ILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYOFTHEACCUSED THECOURTHASADISCRETIONWHETHERTOREFER
THEACCUSEDINTERMSOFS
)N TERMS OF S IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE ACT IN
QUESTION AND THAT HE OR SHE AT THE TIME OF SUCH COMMISSION WAS BY REASON OF
MENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYNOTCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORSUCHACT
A THECOURTSHALLFINDTHEACCUSEDNOTGUILTYBYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSORINTEL
LECTUALDISABILITY ASTHECASEMAYBE ANDDIRECT;ASBELOWINI ORII = OR
B IF THE COURT SO FINDS AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THE OFFENCE
CHARGEDBUTBEFORESENTENCEISPASSED THECOURTSHALLSETTHECONVICTIONASIDE
AND FIND THE ACCUSED NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITY ASTHECASEMAYBE ANDDIRECT;ASBELOWINI ORII =
I INACASEWHERETHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHMURDERORCULPABLEHOMICIDE
ORRAPEORCOMPELLEDRAPEASCONTEMPLATEDINSSOROFTHE#RIMINAL
,AW 3EXUAL /FFENCES AND 2ELATED -ATTERS !MENDMENT !CT RE
SPECTIVELY ORANOTHERCHARGEINVOLVINGSERIOUSVIOLENCE ORIFTHECOURT
CONSIDERSITTOBENECESSARYINTHEPUBLICINTERESTTHATTHEACCUSEDBE
AA DETAINEDINAPSYCHIATRICHOSPITAL
BB TEMPORARILY DETAINED IN A CORRECTIONAL HEALTH FACILITY OF A PRISON

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
WHEREABEDISNOTIMMEDIATELYAVAILABLEINAPSYCHIATRICHOSPITAL
ANDBETRANSFERREDWHEREABEDBECOMESAVAILABLE IFTHECOURTISOF
THEOPINIONTHATITISNECESSARYTODOSOONTHEGROUNDSTHATTHE
ACCUSEDPOSESASERIOUSDANGERORTHREATTOHIMSELFORHERSELFORTO
MEMBERSOFTHEPUBLIC
PENDINGTHEDECISIONOFAJUDGEINCHAMBERSINTERMSOFSOFTHE-ENTAL
(EALTH#ARE!CT
CC ADMITTEDTOANDDETAINEDINADESIGNATEDHEALTHESTABLISHMENTSTATED
INTHEORDERANDTREATEDASIFHEORSHEWEREANINVOLUNTARYMENTAL
HEALTHCAREUSERCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE-ENTAL(EALTH#ARE!CT

DD RELEASEDSUBJECTTOSUCHCONDITIONSASTHECOURTCONSIDERSAPPROPRI
ATE
EE RELEASEDUNCONDITIONALLYOR
FF REFERREDTOA#HILDRENS#OURTASCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CT ANDPENDINGSUCHREFERRALBEPLACEDINTHECAREOFA
PARENT GUARDIANOROTHERAPPROPRIATEADULTOR FAILINGTHAT PLACEDIN
TEMPORARYSAFECAREASDEFINEDINSOFTHE#HILDRENS!CT OR
II INANYOTHERCASETHANACASECONTEMPLATEDINSUBPARAGRAPHI ;ABOVE=
THATTHEACCUSEDBE
AA ADMITTED TO AND DETAINED IN A DESIGNATED HEALTH ESTABLISHMENT
STATEDINTHEORDERANDTREATEDASIFHEORSHEWEREANINVOLUNTARY
MENTALHEALTHCAREUSERCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE-ENTAL(EALTH
#ARE!CT
BB x;DELETED=
CC RELEASEDSUBJECTTOSUCHCONDITIONSASTHECOURTCONSIDERSAPPROPRI
ATE
DD RELEASEDUNCONDITIONALLYOR
EE REFERREDTOA#HILDRENS#OURTASCONTEMPLATEDINSOFTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CT ANDPENDINGSUCHREFERRALBEPLACEDINTHECAREOFA
PARENT GUARDIANOROTHERAPPROPRIATEADULTOR FAILINGTHAT PLACEDIN
TEMPORARYSAFECAREASDEFINEDINSOFTHE#HILDRENS!CT
4HEACCUSEDMAYWITHLEAVEOFTHECOURTAPPEALAGAINSTADECISIONMADEINTERMS
OFS IFSUCHADEFENCEOFMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYHASNOTBEEN
RAISEDBYTHEACCUSEDS
)FTHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDATTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEACTIN
QUESTION WAS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACT BUT THAT HIS OR HER CAPACITY TO
APPRECIATETHEWRONGFULNESSOFTHEACTORTOACTINACCORDANCEWITHANAPPRECIA
TIONOFTHEWRONGFULNESSOFTHEACTWASDIMINISHEDBYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSOR
INTELLECTUALDISABILITY THECOURTMAYTAKETHEFACTOFSUCHDIMINISHEDRESPONSIBIL
ITYINTOACCOUNTWHENSENTENCINGTHEACCUSEDS
/BJECTIONSTOTHECHARGE
"EFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT OBJECTIONS TO A
CHARGE OR INDICTMENT WENT UNDER VARYING APPELLATIONS DEPENDING UPON THE
DEFECTOROMISSIONCOMPLAINEDOF4HUS INTHECASEOFAFORMALDEFECTEGTHEAC

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
CUSEDWASINCORRECTLYNAMED ONEHASTOOBJECTTOTHECHARGE FOREXAMPLE WHERE

THECHARGEDISCLOSEDNOOFFENCE7HERETHECHARGEWASLACKINGINPARTICULARITY
SOASTOPREJUDICEOREMBARRASSTHEACCUSEDINHISORHERDEFENCE HEORSHEHADTO
BRINGAMOTIONTOQUASHIT4HISANTIQUATEDTERMINOLOGYHASNOWBEENABOLISHED
ANDTHETERM@OBJECTIONEMBRACESALLTHESEINSTANCES
3ECTION PROVIDES
!NACCUSEDMAY BEFOREPLEADINGOBJECTTOTHECHARGEONTHEGROUND
A THATTHECHARGEDOESNOTCOMPLYWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFTHIS!CTRELATINGTOTHE
ESSENTIALSOFACHARGE
B THATTHECHARGEDOESNOTSETOUTANESSENTIALELEMENTOFTHERELEVANTOFFENCE
C THATTHECHARGEDOESNOTDISCLOSEANOFFENCE
D THATTHECHARGEDOESNOTCONTAINSUFFICIENTPARTICULARSOFANYMATTERALLEGEDINTHE
CHARGE
0ROVIDEDTHATSUCHANOBJECTIONMAYNOTBERAISEDTOACHARGEWHENHEISREQUIRED
INTERMSOFSOR!TOPLEADTHERETOINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTOR
E THATTHEACCUSEDISNOTCORRECTLYNAMEDORDESCRIBEDINTHECHARGE
2EASONABLENOTICEMUST HOWEVER BEGIVENTOTHEPROSECUTIONTHATTHEACCUSED

INTENDSRAISINGANOBJECTION)FTHECOURTUPHOLDSTHEOBJECTIONITMAYORDERTHE
PROSECUTIONTOAMENDTHECHARGEORTODELIVERPARTICULARSTOTHEACCUSED7HERE
THE PROSECUTION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SUCH AN ORDER THE COURT MAY QUASH THE
CHARGES .ATHANIEL 3!37! !SAMATTEROFPROCEDURE AN
OBJECTIONINTERMSOFSSHOULDPROPERLYHAVEBEENRAISEDBEFORETHEACCUSED
PLEADED TO THE CHARGE (OWEVER THERE IS NOTHING WHICH PRECLUDES AN ACCUSED
FROMRAISINGSUCHAPOINTOFLAWATTHECLOSEOFTHECASEFORTHEPROSECUTION#F
-AYEKISO 3!7
%XAMPLESOFNOTORIOUSCASESWHERETHECOURTQUASHEDANINDICTMENTARE"ASSON
3!#2## AND!NDREWS 3!3PEC#RIM#T 4HEACCUSED
IN!NDREWSHADBEENCHARGEDWITHSEDITION)NREPLYTOAREQUESTFORFURTHERPAR
TICULARSASTO@THEACTSBYWHICHITWASALLEGEDTHATTHEVARIOUSACCUSEDTOOKPART
INTHESEDITIOUSACTSALLEGED THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSHADREFERREDTHE
ACCUSEDTOTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONRECORD"EFOREPLEADING ALLTHEACCUSED
OBJECTED TO THE INDICTMENT 4HE COURT HELD THAT AS THE INDICTMENT WAS EMBAR
RASSINGTOALLTHEACCUSED THECOURTWASBOUNDEITHERTOQUASHTHEINDICTMENT
OR TO ORDER IT TO BE AMENDED IN THE MANNER APPLIED FOR BY THE #ROWN 3TATE
!CCORDINGLY THECOURTHELDTHATASTHEAMENDMENTWOULDCAUSEPREJUDICETOTHE
ACCUSED THEINDICTMENTSHOULDBEQUASHEDANDLEAVEGRANTEDTOTHE#ROWNTO
FRAMEANINDICTMENTAFRESH3EEALSO# 3!4
)N THE GREAT TREASON TRIAL BEFORE A SPECIAL COURT IN 0RETORIA DURING THE S
IN WHICH A LARGE NUMBER OF ACCUSED WERE CHARGED THE DEFENCE OBJECTED TO THE
INDICTMENTONTHEGROUNDTHATTHEACCUSEDPERSONSWOULDBEPREJUDICEDBYITS
LACK OF PARTICULARITY 5PON THE FACTS THE COURT QUASHED ONE OFTHE CHARGES BUT
REFUSED AT THAT STAGE TO QUASH THE REMAINING CHARGES PROVIDED THAT THE 3TATE
DELIVEREDFURTHERPARTICULARS!DAMS 3!3PEC#RIM#T
3ECTIONDISCUSSEDABOVE DOESNOTAFFECTTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOOBJECTTOAN
INDICTMENT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
0,%!"!2'!).).'
0LEA BARGAINING IN THE FORM OF TRADITIONAL PLEA NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT BE
TWEENTHEPARTIESHAVEALWAYSTAKENPLACEINPRACTICEINVARIOUSFORMATS)TSMAIN
OBJECTISTOLIGHTENTHEBURDENWHICHTHEACCUSEDHASTOBEARINTHESENSETHAT
THEACCUSEDFACESLESSSERIOUSIMPLICATIONSASFARASSENTENCEISCONCERNED ANDTO
SPARETHE3TATETHETIMEANDEXPENSEINVOLVEDINALENGTHYCRIMINALTRIALWITHALL
OF ITS ATTENDANT EVIDENTIARY RISKS 3TATUTORY PLEA BARGAINING OR NEGOTIATION WAS
INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 3OUTH !FRICAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW BY THE
INSERTION OF S ! INTO THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT OF BY WAY OF THE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE3ECOND!MENDMENT!CTOF4HEOPERATIONOFATRADI
TIONALINFORMALPLEABARGAININGSYSTEMINOURCRIMINALPROCESSBYMEANSOFPLEAS
OFGUILTYUNDERS ANDTHEESTABLISHEDPRACTICEOFACCEPTINGPLEASOFGUILTYON
THEBASISOFBONAFIDECONSENSUSREACHED HAVENOTBEENSUPPLANTEDBYTHESTATU
TORYREGIMEINCORPORATEDBYTHESTATUTORYAMENDMENTIN3TEYLV.ATIONAL
$IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS ;= :!'00(# *UNE
UNREPORTEDDECISIONINTHE'AUTENG(IGH#OURT 0RETORIA ANDQUOTEDWITHAP
PROVALIN6AN(EERDENV2EGIONAL#OURT-AGISTRATE 0AARL ;=:!3#!
3EPTEMBER AT;=4HEFACTISTHATTHEREARETWOINDEPENDENTSYS
TEMSOFNEGOTIATIONWITHINTHE3OUTH!FRICANCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMA FORMAL
NEGOTIATIONSUNDERSTATUTE%STERHUIZEN 3!#24 !RMUGGA
3!#2. ATB ANDB INFORMALNEGOTIATIONSMOSTLYBASEDONTRUST%!
3!#2.#+
4RADITIONALPLEABARGAINING
4OACHIEVETHISOBJECTAPLEATOALESSEROFFENCEWHICHMAYBEANOFFENCEWHICH
ISACOMPETENTVERDICTTOTHEOFFENCECHARGED ORANALTERNATIVECHARGE ISNEGOTI
ATEDBETWEENTHEACCUSEDORHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVEANDTHEPROSECUTOR IN
WHICHTHELATTERAGREESTOACCEPTTHEPLEATENDERED FOREXAMPLE ANACCUSEDWHOIS
CHARGEDWITHMURDERTENDERSAPLEAOFGUILTYTOCULPABLEHOMICIDE!LTERNATIVELY
THEACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTYTOTHECHARGE BUTONADIFFERENTBASISFROMTHATALLEGED
BYTHE3TATE FOREXAMPLE THEACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITHMURDERCOMMITTEDWITH
DOLUSDIRECTUS ANDTENDERSAPLEAOFGUILTYONTHEBASISOFDOLUSEVENTUALISINSTEAD
)NBOTHTHESEEXAMPLESANAGREEMENTISREACHEDWITHTHEPROSECUTORONTHEFACTS
WHICHARETOBEPLACEDBEFORETHECOURTTOJUSTIFYACONVICTIONONTHEBASISAGREED
TO
!NOTHERFORMOFPLEABARGAININGOCCURSWHENMORETHANONEACCUSEDSTANDS
ARRAIGNEDONAPARTICULARCHARGEORCHARGES ANDANAGREEMENTISREACHEDWHEREIN
ITISSTATEDTHATTHEACCUSED WHOISUNDOUBTEDLYGUILTY WILLPLEADGUILTYINRETURN
FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER ACCUSED !N ACCUSED MAY
ALSO UNDERTAKE TO SUPPLY VITAL INFORMATION TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER WHICH
EXPEDITESANDISNECESSARYFORTHEPROPERINVESTIGATIONOFTHECASE ONTHEUNDER
STANDING THAT THE ACCUSED WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED 4HIS WOULD ENTAIL THAT THE
INVESTIGATINGOFFICERISAPPROACHED WITHTHECONSENTOFTHEPROSECUTOR TOINITIATE
NEGOTIATION 7HERE AN ACCUSED FACES NUMEROUS CHARGES AN AGREEMENT CAN BE
REACHEDWITHTHEPROSECUTORTHATTHEACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTYTOASPECIFIEDNUMBER
OFCHARGES INRETURNFORANUNDERTAKINGTHATTHEREMAININGCHARGESWILLBEWITH

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
DRAWN4HISPROCEDUREISOFTENFOLLOWEDTOAVOIDALENGTHYANDEXPENSIVETRIALOR
WHENSTATUTORYNEGOTIATIONSFAILEDORTHEPROCESSISNOLONGERAVAILABLEDURINGTHE
TRIALAFTERTHEPLEA
4HEDISADVANTAGEOFENTERINGINTOANINFORMALPLEAAGREEMENTISTHATTHEPROS
ECUTOR AND ACCUSED CANNOT REACH A BINDING AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS
ANDSENTENCETOBEIMPOSEDWITHOUTTHECO OPERATIONOFTHEPRESIDINGOFFICER!T
MOST THEPARTIESCANREACHANINFORMALAGREEMENTINTERMSOFWHICHTHEPROSECU
TORUNDERTAKESTORECOMMENDTHATAREDUCEDSENTENCEBEIMPOSEDORUNDERTAKES
NOTTOMOTIVATEFORAHARSHERSENTENCE4HEPROSECUTORANDTHEDEFENCECANNOTBIND
THECOURTTOASENTENCE 4HEPROSECUTORMAY HOWEVER AGREETOSUGGESTTOTHECOURT
APOSSIBLELIGHT ORLIGHTER SENTENCEFOREXAMPLE AFINEANDNOTIMPRISONMENT
4HENEGOTIATINGPROCESSMAYINSOMEINSTANCESBESIMPLE4HELEGALREPRESENTATIVE
WILLMAKEANOFFERTHATTHEACCUSEDWILLPLEADGUILTYTOTHELESSEROFFENCE WHICH
WILLTHENBEACCEPTEDBYTHEPROSECUTOR)NMOREINVOLVEDMATTERSTHENEGOTIATING
PROCESSMAYTAKEMONTHSTOCOMPLETE
)NACCORDANCEWITHNOTIONSOFBASICFAIRNESSANDJUSTICE THE3TATEISTOBEHELD
TOAPLEABARGAINITHASMADESEE.ORTH7ESTERN$ENSE#ONCRETE##V$IRECTOROF
0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS7ESTERN#APE 3!#2# AND6AN%EDENV$IRECTOR
OF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS #APEOF'OOD(OPE 3!#2#
3TATUTORYPLEABARGAINING
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE3ECOND!MENDMENT!CTOFINSERT
ED S ! INTO THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT AND FORMALISED THE PROCESS OF PLEA
BARGAINING IN TERMS OF THAT !CT )T IS IN ESSENCE A CODIFICATION OF THE AGE OLD
PRACTICEDESCRIBEDABOVE4HECENTRALINNOVATIONISTHATTHEPROSECUTORCANNOW
ALSOREACHANAGREEMENTWITHTHEDEFENCEONTHESENTENCETOBEIMPOSED#ERTAIN
MANDATORY FORMALITIES ARE PRESCRIBED SUCH AS THAT THE WHOLE AGREEMENT MUST
BEINWRITING4HETIMEFORENTERINGINTOANAGREEMENTORAGREEMENTS ISBEFORE
THECOMMENCEMENTOFTHETRIAL IEBEFOREPLEA3ECTION!DOESNOTAPPLYTOA
CHARGEORCHARGESONACCEPTANCEOFPLEADURINGTRIAL)TISALSOAONCE OFFSITUA
TIONIFTHECOURTHASRULEDFORADENOVOTRIALONTHEMERITSORTHESENTENCE THE
PARTIESMAYNOTENTERINTOAPLEAANDSENTENCEAGREEMENTINRESPECTOFACHARGE
ARISINGOUTOFTHESAMEFACTS)NDETERMININGWHETHERAPLEAAGREEMENTCOMPLIES
WITHTHEREQUIREMENTSSTIPULATEDINS! ACOURTWILLALSOEXAMINESUB S
B III WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF THE COMPLAINANTVICTIM3ASSIN
;=!LL3!.# .OTETHATTHERIGHTOFTHEVICTIMTOPARTICIPATEINTHE
PLEAANDSENTENCEAGREEMENTDOESNOTEXTENDTOARIGHTHAVINGSTANDING NORIS
ITANUNQUALIFIEDRIGHTTOGIVEEVIDENCE ORTOHANDUPPAPERS NORTOBEHEARDON
DEMAND7ICKHAMV-AGISTRATE 3TELLENBOSCH 3!#2## 4HEMANDA
TORYFORMALSCHEMEOFS!ISBROADLYASFOLLOWS
!N @AUTHORISED PROSECUTOR THAT IS A PROSECUTOR WHO HAS BEEN AUTHORISED IN
WRITINGBYTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS ANDALEGALLYREPRESENTED
ACCUSED MAY NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT ON PLEA AND SENTENCE .ON REPRESENTED
ACCUSEDAREEXCLUDEDFROMTHEPROVISION4HEJUDICIALOFFICERISNOTTOPARTICIPATE
INTHENEGOTIATIONS)TMAYBEASKEDWHATTHEAMBITOFTHEPROHIBITIONIS)TWOULD
BEAPITYIFITWERETOPRECLUDETHEPARTIESFROMOBTAININGANINTIMATIONFROMTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
JUDICIALOFFICERASTOWHETHERHEORSHEWOULDBEWILLINGTOCONSIDER FOREXAMPLE
ANON CUSTODIALSENTENCE
)NCOURTTHEJUDICIALOFFICERMUSTQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDONTHECONTENTSOFTHE
AGREEMENTTOASCERTAINWHETHERHEORSHEISINFACTADMITTINGALLTHEALLEGATIONS
INTHECHARGE)FTHECOURTISSATISFIED ITPROCEEDSTOTHESENTENCINGPHASEWITHOUT
FORTHEMOMENT RECORDINGACONVICTION7HENCONSIDERINGTHESENTENCEAGREE
MENT THECOURTMUSTBESATISFIEDTHATTHESENTENCEAGREEMENTISJUST ANDIFSO
THECOURTCONVICTSTHEACCUSEDANDIMPOSESUPONTHEACCUSEDTHESENTENCEAGREED
UPON
)FTHECOURTISNOTSOSATISFIED ITINFORMSTHEPARTIESOFTHESENTENCEWHICHTHE
COURTCONSIDERSJUST!TRIALCOURTMAYNOTIMPOSEASENTENCECONTRARYTOTHATCON
TAINEDINAPLEAAGREEMENTWITHOUTADVISINGTHE3TATEANDTHEACCUSEDTHATITIS
OFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEPROPOSEDSENTENCEISUNJUST ASCONTEMPLATEDINS!
OFTHE!CT*ANSENV4HE3TATE 3!#23#! )NTHELATTEREVENT TWO
POSSIBILITIESARISE
I THEPROSECUTORANDTHEACCUSEDMAYELECTTOABIDEBYTHEAGREEMENTONTHE
MERITSANDTHECOURTTHENCONVICTSTHEACCUSEDANDPROCEEDSTOCONSIDERSEN
TENCEINTHENORMALWAY
II THEOTHERPOSSIBILITYISTHATTHEPARTIESORONEOFTHEM MAYOPTTOWITHDRAW
FROMTHEAGREEMENT4HISWILLMEANTHATTHETRIALMUSTSTARTDENOVOBEFORE
ANOTHERJUDICIALOFFICER
/NCEATRIALSTARTSDENOVO S!DICTATESTHATTHEAGREEMENTISPRONONSCRIPTO
.OREGARDMAYBEHAD ORREFERENCEMADE TOANYPRECEDINGNEGOTIATIONSONTHE
AGREEMENTITSELF ALTHOUGHTHEACCUSEDMAYCONSENTTOALLORCERTAINOFTHEAD
MISSIONS MADE BY HIM OR HER EITHER IN THE AGREEMENT OR IN THE COURSE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS4HEPARTIESMAYNOT HOWEVER PLEABARGAININTERMSOFS!INRE
SPECTOFACHARGEARISINGFROMTHESAMEFACTS4HIS NONETHELESS DOESNOTPRECLUDE
TRADITIONALPLEABARGAININGASITEXISTSINPRACTICE
)N!RMUGGA 3!#2. ATAnC THECOURTNOTEDTHAT
;P=LEABARGAININGCOULDBEDEFINEDASTHEPROCEDUREWHEREBYTHEACCUSEDRELINQUISHES
HISRIGHTTOGOTOTRIALINEXCHANGEFORAREDUCTIONINSENTENCE4HESYSTEMINVOLVESBAR
GAININGONBOTHSIDES THEACCUSEDBARGAININGAWAYHISRIGHTTOGOTOTRIAL INEXCHANGE
FORAREDUCEDSENTENCEANDTHEPROSECUTORBARGAININGAWAYTHEPOSSIBILITYOFACONVIC
TIONINEXCHANGEFORAPUNISHMENTWHICHHEFEELSWOULDBERETRIBUTIVELYJUSTANDCOST
THELEASTINTERMSOFTHEALLOCATIONOFRESOURCES)NTHEPROCESSOFBARGAINING NUMEROUS
ASSUMPTIONSAREMADEANDMISTAKESAREBOUNDTOHAPPEN;4=HEFACTTHATTHEASSUMP
TIONSTURNOUTTOBEFALSEDOESNOTENTITLESUCHAPARTYTORESILEFROMTHEAGREEMENT
)N$E+OKER 3!#27## PLEABARGAININGISDESCRIBEDASTHESETTLE

MENTOFTHELISBETWEENTHE3TATEANDTHEACCUSEDONCEANDFORALL
0,%!37()#(-!9"%2!)3%$"9!##53%$
0LEASMENTIONEDINTHE!CT
3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATTHEACCUSEDMAYPLEAD
A THATHEORSHEISGUILTYOFTHEOFFENCECHARGEDOROFANYOFFENCEOFWHICHHE
ORSHEMAYBECONVICTEDONTHECHARGE

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
B THATHEORSHEISNOTGUILTY
C THAT HE OR SHE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE IS
CHARGEDAUTREFOISCONVICT
D THATHEORSHEHASALREADYBEENACQUITTEDOFTHEOFFENCEWITHWHICHHEORSHE
ISCHARGEDAUTREFOISACQUIT
E THATHEORSHEHASRECEIVEDAFREEPARDONFROMTHE0RESIDENTFORTHEOFFENCE
CHARGED
F THATTHECOURTHASNOJURISDICTIONTOTRYTHEOFFENCE
G THATHEORSHEHASBEENDISCHARGEDFROMPROSECUTIONINTERMSOFSAFTER
GIVINGSATISFACTORYEVIDENCEFORTHE3TATE
H THATTHEPROSECUTORHASNOTITLETOPROSECUTEOR
I THATTHEPROSECUTIONMAYNOTBERESUMEDORINSTITUTEDOWINGTOANORDERBY
ACOURTUNDERS! C
4HE SECTION FURTHER PROVIDES THAT TWO OR MORE PLEAS MAY BE PLEADED TOGETHER
EXCEPTTHATTHEPLEAOFGUILTYCANNOTBEPLEADEDWITHANYOTHERPLEATOTHESAME
CHARGE3ECTION PROVIDESTHATEXCEPTFORTHEPLEATHATTHECOURTLACKSJURIS
DICTION ORWHERETHECOURTENTERSAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYONBEHALFOFTHEACCUSED AN
ACCUSEDWHOPLEADSTOTHECHARGESHALLBEENTITLEDTOACONVICTIONORANACQUIT
TALSEEBELOW
4RUTHANDPUBLICBENEFIT)NTERMSOFSTHEACCUSEDMAYPLEADTHISWHERETHE
CHARGEISONEOFCRIMINALDEFAMATION4HISDEFENCEMUSTBESPECIALLYPLEADEDAND
MAY BE PLEADED WITH ANY OTHER PLEA EXCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY )T IS NOTEWORTHY
THATTHE!CTDOESNOTMAKEPROVISIONFORTHEPLEATHATTHEDEFAMATORYWORDSWERE
EXCUSEDASFAIRCOMMENTORTHATTHEYWEREPRIVILEGEDORSPOKENINJEST
,ISPENDENSTHATTHEISSUEBEFORETHECOURTISTHESUBJECTOFADJUDICATIONBEFORE
ANOTHERCOURT 4HISISNOTSPECIALLYPROVIDEDFORINTHE!CTANDTHEADMISSIBILITY
OFSUCHAPLEAWILLBEDISCUSSEDBELOW
'UILTYPLEA
*HQHUDO
'ENERALLYSPEAKING WHEREANACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTYATHISORHERTRIALTHEREISNO
ISSUEBETWEENTHEACCUSEDANDTHE3TATEANDHEORSHEMAYBECONVICTEDANDSEN
TENCED THEREANDTHEN ONHISORHERPLEA
"EFORE THE COMING INTO OPERATION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT OF AN
ACCUSEDWHOPLEADEDGUILTYBEFOREA(IGH#OURTTOANYOFFENCE OTHERTHANMUR
DER COULDBECONVICTEDWITHOUTANYEVIDENCEBEINGLED!STHEJUDGEGENERALLY
HADTHEPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONRECORDBEFOREHIMORHER HEORSHEWOULDHAVE
BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE IN A POSITION TO PASS
SENTENCE ! LOWER COURT ON THE OTHER HAND HAVING NO PREPARATORY EXAMINA
TIONRECORD COULDGENERALLYONLYCONVICTANACCUSEDWHOPLEADEDGUILTYWHERE
THEREWASPROOFINTHEFORMOFEVIDENCE THATTHEOFFENCEHADBEENCOMMITTED
THOUGHITWASNOTNECESSARYTOSHOWTHATITWASTHEACCUSEDWHOHADCOMMITTED
IT4HISLATTERPROVISIONWASCOMMONLYKNOWNASTHE@EVIDENCEALIUNDERULE
4HEABOVEPROCEDURESWEREREPLACEDINBYS WHICHABOLISHESTHEDIS
TINCTIONBETWEENPROCEEDINGSBEFORETHEHIGHERANDLOWERCOURTS ASWELLASTHE
ALIUNDERULE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTION LAYSDOWNTWODIFFERENTPROCEDURESWHEREANACCUSEDATASUM
MARYTRIALINANYCOURTPLEADSGUILTYTOTHEOFFENCECHARGED ORTOANOFFENCEOF
WHICHHEORSHEMAYBECONVICTEDONTHECHARGE ANDTHEPROSECUTORACCEPTSSUCH
PLEA ONE FOR SERIOUS AND ONE FOR LESS SERIOUS OFFENCES 3ECTION PROVIDES AS
FOLLOWS
7HERE AN ACCUSED AT A SUMMARY TRIAL IN ANY COURT PLEADS GUILTY TO THE OFFENCE
CHARGED ORTOANOFFENCEOFWHICHHEORSHEMAYBECONVICTEDONTHECHARGEAND
THEPROSECUTORACCEPTSTHATPLEA
A THEPRESIDINGJUDGE REGIONALMAGISTRATEORMAGISTRATEMAY IFHEORSHEISOF
THEOPINIONTHATTHEOFFENCEDOESNOTMERITPUNISHMENTOFIMPRISONMENTOR
ANYOTHERFORMOFDETENTIONWITHOUTTHEOPTIONOFAFINEOROFAFINEEXCEED
INGTHEAMOUNTDETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERFROMTIMETOTIMEBYNOTICEIN
THE'AZETTE;2SINCE*ANUARY'OVERNMENT.OTICE2IN''
= CONVICTTHEACCUSEDINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCETOWHICHHEORSHEHAS
PLEADEDGUILTYONHISORHERPLEAOFGUILTYONLYAND
I IMPOSEANYCOMPETENTSENTENCE OTHERTHANIMPRISONMENTORANYOTHER
FORMOFDETENTIONWITHOUTTHEOPTIONOFAFINEORAFINEEXCEEDINGTHE
AMOUNT;2=DETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERFROMTIMETOTIMEBYNO
TICEINTHE'AZETTEOR
II DEALWITHTHEACCUSEDOTHERWISEINACCORDANCEWITHLAW
B T HE PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL MAGISTRATE OR MAGISTRATE SHALL IF HE OR SHE IS
OFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEOFFENCEMERITSPUNISHMENTOFIMPRISONMENTORANY
OTHERFORMOFDETENTIONWITHOUTTHEOPTIONOFAFINEOROFAFINEEXCEEDINGTHE
AMOUNT;OF2ASFROM*ANUARY=DETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERFROM
TIMETOTIMEBYNOTICEINTHE'AZETTE ORIFREQUESTEDTHERETOBYTHEPROSECUTOR
QUESTIONTHEACCUSEDWITHREFERENCETOTHEALLEGEDFACTSOFTHECASEINORDERTO
ASCERTAINWHETHERHEORSHEADMITSTHEALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGETOWHICHHE
ORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY ANDMAY IFSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTYOFTHE
OFFENCETOWHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY CONVICTTHEACCUSEDONHISOR
HERPLEAOFGUILTYOFTHATOFFENCEANDIMPOSEANYCOMPETENTSENTENCE;%MPHASIS
ADDED=
)FANACCUSEDORHISLEGALADVISERHANDSAWRITTENSTATEMENTBYTHEACCUSEDINTO
COURT INWHICHTHEACCUSEDSETSOUTTHEFACTSWHICHHEADMITSANDONWHICHHE
HASPLEADEDGUILTY THECOURTMAY INLIEUOFQUESTIONINGTHEACCUSEDUNDERSUB S
B CONVICTTHEACCUSEDONTHESTRENGTHOFSUCHSTATEMENTANDSENTENCEHIMAS
PROVIDEDINTHESAIDSUBSECTIONIFTHECOURTISSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTYOF
THEOFFENCETOWHICHHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY0ROVIDEDTHATTHECOURTMAYINITSDISCRE
TIONPUTANYQUESTIONTOTHEACCUSEDINORDERTOCLARIFYANYMATTERRAISEDINTHESTATEMENT
;%MPHASISADDED=
.OTHINGINTHISSECTIONSHALLPREVENTTHEPROSECUTORFROMPRESENTINGEVIDENCEONANY
ASPECT OF THE CHARGE OR THE COURT FROM HEARING EVIDENCE INCLUDING EVIDENCE OR A
STATEMENTBYORONBEHALFOFTHEACCUSED WITHREGARDTOSENTENCE ORFROMQUESTION
INGTHEACCUSEDONANYASPECTOFTHECASEFORTHEPURPOSESOFDETERMININGANAPPROPRIATE
SENTENCE;%MPHASISADDED=
)FTHEPRESIDINGOFFICIALISOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEOFFENCEDOESNOTMERITIMPRIS
ONMENT OR ANY OTHER FORM OF DETENTION WITHOUT THE OPTION OF A FINE OR A FINE
EXCEEDINGTHEAMOUNTDETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTERFROMTIMETOTIMEBYNOTICE
INTHE'AZETTETHEAMOUNTOF2WASSODETERMINEDIN HEORSHEMAY
CONVICTTHEACCUSEDONHISORHERPLEAOFGUILTYONLYANDIMPOSEASENTENCEOTHER
THANTHOSEMENTIONEDABOVES A II 3ECTION A MUSTBEUSEDSPAR
INGLYANDONLYWHEREITISCERTAINTHATNOINJUSTICEWILLRESULTFROMITSAPPLICATION
)TISSTILLINTENDEDFORMINORMATTERS ASITSPREDECESSORALWAYSWAS!DDABBA
3!#24

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
)FTHEPRESIDINGOFFICIALISOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEOFFENCEDOESMERITONEOFTHE
ABOVE MENTIONEDSENTENCES ORIFHEORSHEISREQUESTEDTHERETOBYTHEPROSECUTOR
HEORSHEMUSTQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDWITHREFERENCETOTHEALLEGEDFACTSOFTHECASE
INORDERTOASCERTAINWHETHERTHEACCUSEDADMITSTHEALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGETO
WHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY)FSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTYOFTHE
OFFENCETOWHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMAYCONVICT
ANDSENTENCETHEACCUSEDS B
3ECTION NOTONLYREQUIRESASERIESOFADMISSIONSBUTALSOTHEFACTSUPON
WHICHTHOSEADMISSIONSAREBASED" 3!#2. )TIS THEREFORE ON
ACHARGEOFRECKLESSDRIVINGNOTENOUGHFORTHEACCUSEDTOADMITTHATHEORSHE
DROVERECKLESSLY)TISNECESSARYTOADMITFACTSFROMWHICHTHECOURTCANDRAWTHE
CONCLUSIONTHATTHEACCUSEDDIDINFACTDRIVERECKLESSLY-ORRIS 3!#2
! !NACCUSEDMAYALSOADMITANELEMENTOFANOFFENCEOFWHICHHEORSHEBEARS
NOPERSONALKNOWLEDGE FOREXAMPLE ACERTIFICATEINDICATINGTHEALCOHOLLEVELIN
HISORHERBLOOD-ARTINS 3!4 'ORAS 3!/
!STATEMENTTENDEREDONBEHALFOFACHILDMUSTINVIEWOFACHILDOFFENDERS
AGEANDCRIMINALCAPACITYCOMPLYWITHS OFTHE!CTTOSATISFYTHECOURTOF
THECHILDSGUILT(ENCE WHEREACHILDOFFENDERISBETWEENANDYEARSOFAGE
THECOURT PROSECUTORANDDEFENCECOUNSELMUSTBEALIVETOTHEFACTTHEOFFENDER
IS REBUTTABLY PRESUMED TO BE CRIMINALLY NON RESPONSIBLE 4HE BURDEN OF REBUT
TINGTHISPRESUMPTIONRESTSONTHEPROSECUTION4HEPROSECUTIONWOULDOBVIOUSLY
HAVEBEENRELIEVEDOFTHATOBLIGATIONHADANAPPROPRIATEADMISSIONBEENMADEBY
THEACCUSEDINTHESTATEMENTINTERMSOFS !NIMPORTANTSTEPINS
PROCEEDINGS IS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CHILDS DEVELOPMENT WAS SUFFICIENT TO
REBUT THE PRESUMPTION 4HE STATEMENT MUST INFORM THE PRESIDING OFFICER ABOUT
THECHILDSSTATEOFMINDATTHETIMEOFCOMMITTINGTHEOFFENCEOROFHISORHER
LEVELOFPERCEPTIONTHEN ORWHETHERTHECHILDWASMATUREENOUGHTOANSWERFOR
HISORHERBEHAVIOUR&ROMTHISFACTUALBASISTHECOURTMUSTBESATISFIEDASTOTHE
GUILTOFTHEACCUSED!SIMPLEREGURGITATIONOFWHATMUSTHAVEBEENTHECONTENT
OFTHECHARGESHEETINTHESTATEMENTDOESNOTCOMPLYWITHS -SHENGUV
THE3TATE 3!#23#!
.OTETHEFOLLOWINGASPECTSWITHREGARDTOS
1
UESTIONINGBYTHEPRESIDINGOFFICIAL
!NUNEDUCATEDANDUNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDMAYPLEADGUILTYTOANOFFENCE MEAN
INGNOMORETHANTHATHEORSHEPERFORMEDTHEACTEGSTABBING ALLEGEDINTHE
CHARGESHEET7ITHTHEPROVISIONINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFFOR
QUESTIONINGANACCUSEDWHOPLEADSGUILTY THEDANGEROFAWRONGCONVICTIONHAS
BEENCONSIDERABLYDIMINISHED
4HIS PROCEDURE SHOULD BE APPLIED WITH CAUTION6AN $EVENTER 3!
4 0HIKWA 3! % 4HE MAGISTRATES QUESTIONS MUST BE DIRECTED AT
SATISFYINGHIM ORHERSELFTHATANACCUSEDFULLYUNDERSTANDSALLTHEELEMENTSOF
THECHARGEWHENPLEADINGGUILTYANDTHATHISORHERANSWERSREVEALTHATHEORSHE
HASINFACTCOMMITTEDTHEACTUALOFFENCETOWHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY
4SHUMI 3!. *ACOBS 3!% ,EBOKENG 3!
/ -THETWA 3!. *ACOBS 3!# 4ITO 3!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
#K .AIDOO 3!. ,ONDI 3!% 4HISISESPECIALLYTHE

CASEWHENANACCUSEDISILLITERATEANDUNSOPHISTICATEDANDHASNOLEGALASSISTANCE
ANDEVENMORESOWHENHEORSHEISAYOUNGCHILDWITHALIMITEDGRASPOFTHE
PROCEEDINGS- 3!. 4HEPRIMARYPURPOSEOFTHISQUESTIONINGIS
TOPROTECTANACCUSEDAGAINSTTHECONSEQUENCESOFANINCORRECTPLEAOFGUILTY)T
ISNOTCORRECTTORELYONINFERENCESINORDERTODETERMINETHEGUILTOFTHEACCUSED
4HEACCUSEDSANSWERSCANNOTBEUSEDAS@EVIDENCETODRAWUNFAVOURABLEINFER
ENCESWHICHESTABLISHTHEREQUIREDCONVICTIONTHATHEORSHEISGUILTY.AGEL
3!#2/ 4HEPROVISIONSOFS B AREINTENDEDTOELIMINATETHENEED
TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND THEREBY UNNECESSARY COSTS 4HE INTENTION IS CERTAINLY
NOTTOMAKEATRIALAMEREFORMALITYWHENANACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTY4HEPRESIDING
JUDICIAL OFFICER MUST STILLPARTICULARLY IN CASES WHERE HEAVY SENTENCES ARE POS
SIBLEENSURE THAT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS PLACED BEFORE HIM OR HER TO ENABLE
HIMORHERTOIMPOSESENTENCEPROPERLY3ERUMALA 3!.#
7HERE POSSIBLE QUESTIONS FROM THE BENCH SHOULD BE AS FEW AS POSSIBLE AND
PREFERABLYONLYTHOSENECESSARYA TOELUCIDATEWHATTHEACCUSEDHASVOLUNTEERED
B TOCANVASSANYALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGENOTMENTIONEDBYTHEACCUSED AND OF
COURSE C TOCONFINETHEACCUSEDTOTHERELEVANTDETAIL,EADINGQUESTIONSSHOULD
ASFARASPOSSIBLE BEAVOIDED)TISTOTALLYINADEQUATEFORTHECOURTSIMPLYTOASK
THEACCUSEDWHETHERHEORSHEADMITS ONEBYONE EACHOFTHEALLEGATIONSINTHE
CHARGE-KHIZE 3!. )TMUSTBECLEARTHATTHEACCUSEDUNDERSTANDS
THENATUREOFTHEOFFENCE ITSELEMENTSANDTHENATUREANDEFFECTOFTHEADMISSIONS
HEORSHEHASMADE)NQUESTIONINGTHEACCUSEDNOPURPOSEISSERVEDBYPUTTING
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS TO HIM OR HER &ACTS MUST BE ESTABLISHED WHICH CAN FORM THE
BASISFORLEGALCONCLUSIONS. 3!#2#K $E+LERK 3!#2
7 -ORRIS 3!#2!
)N3HIBURI 3!#23#! AT;=THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALONCE
MOREEXPLAINEDTHEPURPOSEOFTHEQUESTIONINGINTERMSOFS B ASFOLLOWS
7HENQUESTIONINGTHEACCUSEDINTERMSOFS B THECOURTSDUTYISTODETERMINE
WHETHER AN ACCUSEDS FACTUAL STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS IN HIS OR HER PLEA OF GUILTY AD
EQUATELYSUPPORTTHECONVICTIONONTHECHARGE)TISNOTTHECOURTSFUNCTIONTOEVALUATE
THEPLAUSIBILITYOFTHEANSWERS ORTODETERMINETHEIRTRUTHFULNESSATTHISSTAGEOFTHE
PROCEEDINGS)NSTEAD FORTHEPURPOSESOFTHESECTION THEACCUSEDSEXPLANATIONMUSTBE
ACCEPTEDASTRUE/NTHATPREMISE THECOURTSHOULDCONSIDERWHETHERTHEEXPLANATION
DISCLOSESAPOSSIBLEDEFENCEINLAWTOTHECHARGEHEORSHEPLEADEDGUILTYTO!SISPLAIN
FROMTHETEXTOFTHESECTION THEPRESENCEOFDOUBTISAJURISDICTIONALFACTORTOTRIGGER
THEAPPLICATIONOFTHEPROCEDURELAIDDOWNINS4HUS ONCEABASISFORDOUBTEXISTS
OBJECTIVELYCONSIDERED THECOURTHASNORESIDUALDISCRETIONBUTTOAPPLYTHEPROCEDURE
SETOUTINS
3ECTIONAPPLIESNOTONLYWHEREAPLEAOFGUILTYISTENDEREDBEFORETHECOM
MENCEMENTOFATRIALBUTALSOWHENANACCUSEDCHANGESHISORHERPLEATOONEOF
GUILTYDURINGTHECOURSEOFTHETRIAL!BRAHAMS 3!# 3ETHOGA
3!!
1UESTIONINGINTERMSOFS B ISMANDATORYANDCANALSOOPERATEINFAVOUR
OFTHEACCUSED&AILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHEREQUIREMENTSOFTHISSECTIONWILLRESULT
IN THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BEING SET ASIDE &IKIZOLO 3! .#
-OLAUZI 3!4 ORINTHECASEBEINGREMITTEDUNDERS INORDER
TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S 'OVENDER V "UYS 3! .

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
-ALIKHETHLA 3!/ 'ABRIEL 3!37! -MATLI 3!

4 !DMISSIONSMADEATTHEFIRSTTRIALMAYBEUSEDASPARTOFTHEEVIDENTIAL
MATERIALATTHEDENOVOTRIAL-BOTHOMA 3!/ #OURTDECISIONSTHAT
HELDTHATANACCUSEDISNOTREQUIREDTOBEINFORMEDOFHISORHERRIGHTTOREMAIN
SILENTWHENPLEADINGGUILTYTOACHARGESHOULDBEREVISEDINTHELIGHTOFTHECON
STITUTIONALADVANCESREQUIRINGCRIMINALTRIALSTOBECONDUCTEDACCORDINGTOBASIC
NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE$IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS .ATAL V -AGIDELA
3!#23#!
)F INTHECOURSEOFQUESTIONINGOFTHEACCUSED ITAPPEARSTHATHEORSHEISNOT
GUILTYOFTHEOFFENCECHARGED BUTADMITSHISORHERGUILTTOALESSEROFFENCE THE
COURTSHOULDRECORDAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYINTERMSOFSIFTHEPLEAOFGUILTYON
THELESSERCHARGEISNOTACCEPTEDBYTHE3TATE4LADI 3!/ AT"n#
#FALSO-ABASO 3!. 3IBIYA 3!. ANDSEEBELOW
4HEUSEOFARONEOEDFORMSTANDARDISEDFORM FORTHEQUESTIONINGOFANACCUSED
IN TERMS OF S B IS HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE.TOMANE 3! 4 3EE
ALSO"ARON 3!#
#O ACCUSEDSHOULDBEQUESTIONEDSEPARATELY&ABER 3!.# 4HE
QUESTIONSTOANSWERSMUSTBEFULLYRECORDED-AXEKWA 3!/ +HIBA
3!/
!CCUSEDmSVERSION
!NACCUSEDSHOULDBEENCOURAGEDTOTELLHISORHERVERSION4HECOURTSFUNCTION
ISNOTTOEVALUATETHEANSWERSASIFITWEREWEIGHINGEVIDENCEORTOJUDGETHEIR
TRUTHFULNESS OR PLAUSIBILITY )T IS SIMPLY TO INTERPRET THEM TO SEE WHETHER THEY
SUBSTANTIATETHEPLEA4HETEST INSHORT ISWHATTHEACCUSEDHASSAID NOTWHATTHE
COURTTHINKSOFIT-KHIZE 3!. 3EEALSO-KHAFU 3!
/ $OUD 3!/ 3OMYALI 3!%
)F THE ACCUSEDS VERSION DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THAT OF THE 3TATE A PLEA OF NOT
GUILTYMUSTBEENTEREDSEESBELOW EXCEPTWHERETHEDISPUTEDOESNOTCON
CERN THE CRUX OR SUBSTANCE OF THE OFFENCE AND AFFECTS SENTENCE ONLY"ALEPILE
3!.# #FALSO3!##$E)URE4HEJUDICIALOFFICER
MUSTDETERMINEWHETHERTHEACCUSEDADMITSTHEALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGECON
CERNINGTHETIMEANDPLACEOFTHEOFFENCE INCORPORATEDINTHECHARGEINTERMSOF
S EVENIFSUCHALLEGATIONSARENOTELEMENTSOFTHEOFFENCECHARGED3ECTION
SHOULDBEAPPLIEDWHERESUCHALLEGATIONSARENOTADMITTED(EUGH
3!#2%
!SINTHECASEOFSSEEBELOWNOTEINPARTICULAR-ATHOGO 3!
/ THECOURTSHOULDALSO INASPROCEDURE EXPLAINTOANUNDEFENDEDACCUSED
THATEXCULPATORYSTATEMENTS MADEINCONSEQUENCEOFTHECOURTSSQUESTION
ING DO NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE THE LATTER CAN BE GIVEN IN THE
USUALWAYONLYAFTERTHE3TATESCASECF!FRIKA 3!#
4
HEPROSECUTORmSROLE
4HEPROSECUTORSHOULDGIVETHECOURTABRIEFSUMMARYOFTHE3TATESCASE)FTHE
SUMMARYREVEALSTHEOFFENCECHARGED THEMAGISTRATEISOBLIGEDTOQUESTIONTHE
ACCUSED7ITHOUTSUCHSUMMARYTHECOURTHASNOIDEAOFTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
OFFENCE ONWHICHTOASSESSANAPPROPRIATESENTENCE4HEFACTTHATSUCHASUM
MARY HAS BEEN FURNISHED AS WELL AS ITS CONTENTS MUST BE NOTED ON THE RECORD
BECAUSEITISPARTOFTHEPROCEEDINGSINCOURT3EJAKE 3!/ !ND
IFTHEACCUSEDDISPUTESTHEDETAILSOFTHE3TATESCASE THEPROSECUTORWILLHAVETO
TENDEREVIDENCETOPROVETHEM.GOBE 3!.# 2AKANANG 3!
.# 3IKHINDI 3!. 3EEALSO7ITBOOI 3!4 &ABER
3!.# )N-KHIZEV4HE3TATE 3!. ITWASSTATEDTHATIN
NEARLYALLCASESITWOULDBEFARBETTERFORTHECOURTTOHEARWHATTHEACCUSEDHASTO
SAYWITHREFERENCETOTHECHARGEBEFOREINVITINGTHEPROSECUTORTOOUTLINETHECASE
4HEACCEPTANCEOFAPLEAOFGUILTYBYTHEPROSECUTORISOFIMPORTANCEONLYWHERE
THEACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTY NOTTOTHEOFFENCEWITHWHICHHEORSHEISCHARGED BUT
TOANOFFENCEOFWHICHHEORSHECANBECONVICTEDONTHECHARGE ANDTHEPROSECU
TORDOESNOTWISHTOPROCEEDWITHTHEOFFENCECHARGED)F HOWEVER THEPROSECUTOR
WISHES TO PROCEED WITH THE OFFENCE CHARGED AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT THE
PLEA THEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERMUSTNOTEAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYANDACTINTERMS
OFS0HUNDULA 3!4 4HEWORDINGOFS MAKESITCLEARTHAT
THE PROSECUTORS ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA AT THE TIME OF PLEADING IS NECESSARY ONLY
WHEREANACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTY NOTTOTHEOFFENCECHARGED BUTTOALESSEROFFENCE
OF WHICH HE OR SHE CAN ON THE CHARGE BE CONVICTED 4HUS WHEN AN ACCUSED
PLEADSGUILTYTOTHEOFFENCECHARGED ACCEPTANCEOFTHEPLEABYTHEPROSECUTORIS
UNNECESSARY.YAMBE 3!.# )N3ETHOGA 3!! AT"
THECOURTHELDTHATAPLEAOFGUILTYTENDEREDAFTERANINITIALPLEAOFNOTGUILTYTHAT
WASPURPORTEDLYACCEPTEDBYTHE3TATEAFTEREVIDENCEHADBEENLEDWASVIEWEDDIF
FERENTLYFROMAPLEATENDEREDATTHECOMMENCEMENTOFTHETRIAL ASTHECOURTWAS
DURINGTHETRIAL AFTERPLEADINGSANDEVIDENCEHADBEENPRESENTED SEIZEDWITHTHE
DUTYOFDETERMININGALLTHEISSUESRAISEDBYTHEINITIALPLEAOFNOTGUILTY4HECOURT
HELDTHATTHEACCEPTANCEBYTHEPROSECUTOROFAPLEAOFGUILTYTOALESSEROFFENCE
ATTHATSTAGEDOESNOTHAVETHESAMEEFFECTASTHEACCEPTANCEOFSUCHAPLEABEFORE
THECOMMENCEMENTOFTHETRIAL
)TMAYHAPPENTHATONARRAIGNMENT ANACCUSEDTENDERSAPLEAOFGUILTYTOA
LESSEROFFENCEWHICHISACOMPETENTVERDICTSEEBELOW ONTHEMAINCHARGEEG
APLEAOFGUILTYTOCOMMONASSAULTWHERETHECHARGEISASSAULTWITHINTENTTODO
GRIEVOUSBODILYHARM (ERE THEPROSECUTORMAYACCEPTTHEPLEAOFGUILTYWITH
OUTTHELEAVEOFTHECOURT#ORDOZO 3!/ 4HEPOSITIONISTHESAME
WHERE THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO AN ALTERNATIVE COUNT"OKOPANE 3!
/ 4HEACCEPTANCEOFAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYTOASERIOUSCHARGEEGMURDER AND
THEACCEPTANCEOFAPLEAOFGUILTYTOALESSSERIOUSCHARGEEGCULPABLEHOMICIDE IS
NEITHERAWITHDRAWALOFTHEMAINCHARGEINTERMSOFSA NORASTOPPINGOFTHE
PROSECUTIONINTERMSOFSB )TISRATHERASUIGENERISACTPERFORMEDBYTHEPROS
ECUTORWHICHLIMITSTHEEXTENTOFTHELISBETWEEN3TATEANDACCUSED INACCORDANCE
WITHTHEACCUSEDSPLEA4HEACCUSEDCANTHUSONLYBECONVICTEDOFTHELESSSERIOUS
OFFENCE3EE(LOKULU 3!# /NCETHETRIALISINPROGRESS HOWEVER
THESITUATIONISDIFFERENT4HELEAVEOFTHECOURTISTHENNECESSARYIFTHEPROSECUTOR
WISHESTOACCEPTASUBSEQUENTPLEAOFGUILTYTOALESSERORANALTERNATIVEOFFENCE
4HEPROSECUTORCANNOTCOMPELTHECOURTTOCONVICTINSUCHACASE+OMO
3!. -LANGENI 3!4 #ONTRA"OKOPANEABOVE 0APENFUS
3!4 -OKOENA 3!/ 0ROKUREUR GENERAAL 6ENDAV-AGISTRAAT

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
3TREEKAFDELING 3!6 3ETHOGA 3!! +ETHANI

3!#2#K
6 WDWHPHQWE\DFFXVHGLQVWHDGRITXHVWLRQLQJ
4HECOURTMAY INLIEUOFTHEQUESTIONINGUNDERS B CONVICTTHEACCUSED
ANDSENTENCEHIMORHERINTERMSOFTHISSUBSECTION ONTHESTRENGTHOFAWRIT
TENSTATEMENTBYTHEACCUSEDHANDEDINTOCOURTBYTHEACCUSEDORHISORHER
LEGALADVISER INWHICHHEORSHESETSOUTTHEFACTSWHICHHEORSHEADMITSANDON
WHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY4HECOURTMUSTBESATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSED
ISGUILTYOFTHEOFFENCETOWHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY ANDMAYPUTANY
QUESTIONTOTHEACCUSEDINORDERTOCLARIFYANYMATTERRAISEDINTHESTATEMENT
S !WRITTENSTATEMENTWHICHISSIMPLYAREGURGITATIONOFWHATAPPEARSIN
THECHARGESHEETORAREPETITIONOFTHEALLEGATIONSISUNDESIRABLE-BUYISA
3!#23#! 4HESTATEMENTMUSTSETOUTNOTONLYASERIESOFADMISSIONS
BUTALSOTHEFACTSUPONWHICHTHOSEADMISSIONSAREBASED" 3!#2
. 4HEWRITTENPLEAISAIMEDATENSURINGTHATTHECOURTISPROVIDEDWITHANAD
EQUATEFACTUALBASISTOMAKEADETERMINATIONONWHETHERTHEADMISSIONSMADE
BYANACCUSEDSUPPORTTHEPLEAOFGUILTYTENDERED/NCETHEPLEAOFGUILTYAND
THESTATEMENTINEXPLANATIONTHEREOFARETENDEREDANDACCEPTEDBYTHE3TATE AND
THECOURTISSATISFIEDTHATTHEADMISSIONSSUPPORTTHECONVICTION THETRIALCOURTIS
ENTITLEDTOCONVICTACCORDINGLY7HEREALLTHEELEMENTSOFANOFFENCEAREADMIT
TEDINAWRITTENPLEAOFGUILTYINTERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
EVENANADMISSIONINTHESTATEMENTREGARDINGTHETENDERAGEOFTHECOMPLAINANT
WHERETHEAGEOFTHECOMPLAINANTISAPREREQUISITEFORTHEOFFENCE ANACCUSEDMAY
BECONVICTEDACCORDINGLYONTHEBASISOFTHEPLEA$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
'AUTENG$IVISION 0RETORIAV(AMISI 3!#23#!
!STATEMENTBYTHEACCUSEDMADEVERBALLYBYHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVEIS
NOTASTATEMENTASINTENDEDBYS #ALITZ 3!37! 3ECTION
DOES NOT STIPULATE WHO SHOULD DRAFT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ! STATEMENT
PREPAREDBYTHEPROSECUTORANDSIGNEDBYTHEACCUSEDTHEORETICALLYCOMPLIESWITH
THEREQUIREMENTSOFS BUTDUETOTHEINHERENTDANGEROFABUSE STRICTSAFE
GUARDSAREREQUIREDWHENRESORTINGTOTHISPROCEDURE3ELLARS 3!#2
. /NCE THE 3TATE HAS ACCEPTED THE PLEA TENDERED BY THE ACCUSED IN TERMS OF
S ITISBOUNDBYITSACCEPTANCE $00 0RETORIAV"ENBELKACEM;=:!3#!
(YLGHQFHRUTXHVWLRQLQJZLWKUHJDUGWRVHQWHQFH
&ORTHEPURPOSESOFANAPPROPRIATESENTENCE THEPROSECUTORMAYPRESENTEVIDENCE
ONANYASPECTOFTHECHARGE ANDTHECOURTMAYHEAREVIDENCEINCLUDINGEVIDENCE
ORASTATEMENTBYORONBEHALFOFTHEACCUSED ORQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDONANY
ASPECTOFTHECASES 4HISSUBSECTIONRELATESONLYTOEVIDENCE4HECOURTIS
NOTENTITLEDTOHAVEREGARDTOEVIDENCEGIVENINTERMSOFS INCONSIDERING
WHETHERORNOTTHEACCUSEDISGUILTY+HUMALO 3!. "ALEPILE
3!.# 1UINTA 3!/ 0HAKATI 3!4 4HECOURT
IS NOT ENTITLED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AGAINST AN ACCUSED WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN
CONVICTEDONTHEBASISOFFACTSCONTAINEDINTHEWRITTENEXPLANATIONOFPLEAIN
TERMSOFS CONTRADICTORYEVIDENCEADDUCEDBYTHESTATEUNDERS IN

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
AGGRAVATIONOFSENTENCE*ANSEN 3!#2# 7HEREAMAGISTRATEHAS

CONVICTEDANACCUSEDINTERMSOFS ANOTHERMAGISTRATEMAY INTHEABSENCEOF
THEAFOREMENTIONED SENTENCETHEACCUSEDATALATERSTAGES#FALSO(ARBOUR
3!4
&RUUHFWLRQRISOHDRIJXLOW\
)FTHECOURTATANYSTAGEOFTHEPROCEEDINGSUNDERSANDBEFORESENTENCEISPASSED
ISINDOUBTWHETHERTHEACCUSEDIS
INLAWGUILTYOFTHEOFFENCETOWHICHHEORSHEHASPLEADEDGUILTY ORISSATIS
FIEDTHAT
THEACCUSEDDOESNOTADMITANALLEGATIONINTHECHARGE OR
THEACCUSEDHASINCORRECTLYADMITTEDANYSUCHALLEGATION OR
THEACCUSEDHASAVALIDDEFENCETOTHECHARGE OR
THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAT THE ACCUSEDS PLEA OF
GUILTYSHOULDNOTSTAND
THECOURTSHALLRECORDAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYANDREQUIRETHEPROSECUTORTOPROCEED
WITH THE PROSECUTIONS 4HE CONVICTION APPARENTLY LAPSES AUTOMATICALLY
/SBORNE 3!# 3EEALSO$U0LESSIS 3!# /LCKERS
3!37! ,UKELE 3!4 #HETTYV#RONJE 3!/
!RANOFF 3!4 -AZWI 3!4 *ADA 3!%
!DMISSIONS ALREADY MADE STAND AS PROOF OF THE RELEVANT FACTS 7HERE SUCH
ADMISSIONS EMBRACE ALL THE FACTS THE 3TATE MUST PROVE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE
OFFENCEANDTHEGUILTOFTHEACCUSEDINRESPECTTHEREOF THEACCUSEDCANBECON
VICTED.CUBE 3!4 4HECOURTMUSTWEIGHTHEACCUSEDSADMISSIONS
ANDHISORHERFAILURETOTESTIFYINORDERTODECIDEWHETHERALLTHEELEMENTSOFTHE
OFFENCE HAVE BEEN PROVED-ATHE 3! .# ! PROSECUTOR MAY NOT
SUBSTANTIALLYCONTRADICTTHEVERSIONOFANACCUSEDWHOHASPLEADEDGUILTY UNLESS
APLEAOFNOTGUILTYISNOTED3WARTS 3!# .OTETHATDOUBTANDNOT
APROBABILITYISSUFFICIENTTOCOMPELTHECOURTTORECORDAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYAND
THATTHEPROVISIONSOFSAREMANDATORY/NTHEOTHERHAND THEPHRASE@ISSATIS
FIEDINS POSTULATESNOOTHERTESTTHANTHATTHECOURTMUSTBEINREASONABLE
DOUBTWHETHERTHEACCUSEDADMITSANALLEGATIONINTHECHARGE ORHASCORRECTLY
ADMITTEDSUCHALLEGATION ORISREASONABLYLEFTINDOUBTWHETHERTHEACCUSEDHAS
AVALIDDEFENCETOTHECHARGE!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV"OTHA 3!#2
! 4HEQUESTIONWHETHERTHEACCUSEDSNON ADMISSIONOFANALLEGATIONIN
THECHARGESHEETISFALSEORNOTISNOTRELEVANTATTHISSTAGEOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
-ALILI 3!4 )NOTHERWORDS THEREASONSWHYTHEACCUSEDMADETHE
ALLEGATIONSARENOTRELEVANT-OKONOTOV2EYNOLDS./ 3!#24
!LLEGATIONSADMITTEDBYTHEACCUSEDUPTOTHESTAGEATWHICHTHECOURTRECORDS
APLEAOFNOTGUILTY OTHERTHANALLEGATIONSINCORRECTLYADMITTEDBYTHEACCUSED
STANDASPROOFINANYCOURTOFSUCHALLEGATIONS
7HEREANACCUSEDHASPLEADEDGUILTYTOTHECHARGEBUTAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYHAS
BEENENTERED THETRIALCOULDBERESUMEDBEFOREANOTHERMAGISTRATEINTERMSOF
S.DIWE 3!.# PROVIDEDNOEVIDENCEHASYETBEENTENDERED
S

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
4HEFOLLOWINGMAYSERVEASANEXAMPLEOFTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFSONA
CHARGEOFBEINGFOUNDINPOSSESSIONOFPROPERTYSUSPECTEDOFBEINGSTOLEN AND
FAILINGTOAFFORDAREASONABLEEXPLANATIONOFHISORHERPOSSESSION THEINABILITY
TOACCOUNTOFTHEFINDERACCUSED ISANELEMENTOFTHECASEFORTHE3TATE(EOR
SHESHOULDGIVEEVIDENCEALTHOUGHHEORSHEISNOTCOMPELLEDTODOSO ANDA
CONVICTIONINTERMSOFSWITHOUTEVIDENCEANDONLYONAPLEAOFGUILTYISNOT
POSSIBLE4HECOURTSHOULDRECORDAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYINTERMSOFSINORDERTO
HEARATLEASTTHEEVIDENCEOFTHEFINDER3HABALALA 3!4 4HECOR
RECTIONOFAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYMUSTBEEFFECTEDONTHEFRONTPAGEOFTHECHARGE
SHEET)NORDERTOGIVEATRUEREFLECTIONOFWHATTRANSPIRED THEPLEAMUSTBENOTED
ASFOLLOWS@'UILTYCHANGEDTO@@NOTGUILTYINTERMSOFS -UGWEDI
3!6 )FTHECOURTRECORDSAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYBEFOREANYEVIDENCEHASBEEN
LEDTHEPROSECUTIONSHALLPROCEEDONTHEORIGINALCHARGELAIDAGAINSTTHEACCUSED
UNLESSTHEPROSECUTOREXPLICITLYINDICATESOTHERWISES
&
RPPLWWDOIRUVHQWHQFHE\UHJLRQDOFRXUW
)FAMAGISTRATESCOURT AFTERCONVICTIONFOLLOWINGONAPLEAOFGUILTYBUTBEFORE
SENTENCE ISOFTHEOPINION THATTHEOFFENCEISOFSUCHANATUREORMAGNITUDE
THATITMERITSPUNISHMENTINEXCESSOFTHEJURISDICTIONOFAMAGISTRATESCOURT OR
THATTHEPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSOFTHEACCUSEDARESUCHTHATTHEOFFENCEMERITS
PUNISHMENTINEXCESSOFTHEJURISDICTIONOFAMAGISTRATESCOURT OR THATTHE
ACCUSEDISADANGEROUSCRIMINALASREFERREDTOINS! THECOURTSHALLSTOP
THEPROCEEDINGSANDCOMMITTHEACCUSEDFORSENTENCEBYAREGIONALCOURTHAVING
JURISDICTIONS 4HEACCUSEDISTHENSENTENCEDBYTHEREGIONALCOURT)FTHE
REGIONAL COURT IS SATISFIED HOWEVER THAT THE PLEA OF GUILTY BY THE ACCUSED WAS
INCORRECTLYRECORDEDORISNOTSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDISGUILTYOFTHEOFFENCEOR
HASNOVALIDDEFENCETOTHECHARGE THECOURTSHALLENTERAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYAND
PROCEEDWITHTHETRIALASASUMMARYTRIALS B
4HERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTIS UPONPROOFTHEREOF
INTHEREGIONALCOURT RECEIVEDBYTHELATTERCOURT ANDFORMSPARTOFTHERECORDOF
THATCOURTS #F,OGGERENBERG 3!%
.OTETHATTHEREISNOPROVISIONFORCOMMITTINGANACCUSEDTOADIVISIONOFTHE
(IGH #OURT FOR SENTENCE 4HIS IS BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE ACCUSED
INSUCHACASEWOULDBEARRAIGNEDBEFOREADISTRICTMAGISTRATESCOURTINTHEFIRST
PLACE)NTHEPASTITWASTHEPRACTICE WHEREANACCUSEDPLEADEDGUILTYTOMURDER
FORTHECOURTTOENTERAPLEAOFNOTGUILTY.ZUZA 3!! 4HISPRAC
TICEORIGINATEDIN%NGLAND WHERECONVICTIONONACHARGEOFMURDERRESULTEDINA
MANDATORYDEATHSENTENCE
$PHQGPHQWRISOHDIURPoJXLOW\pWRoQRWJXLOW\p
4HEACCUSEDMAY WITHTHELEAVEOFTHECOURT WITHDRAWHISORHERPLEAOFGUILTY
!TCOMMONLAW THISWILLBEALLOWEDONLYIFTHEACCUSEDCANGIVEAREASONABLE
EXPLANATIONWHYHEORSHEPLEADEDGUILTYANDNOWWISHESTOCHANGEHISORHER
PLEA!REASONABLEEXPLANATIONCOULDBE FOREXAMPLE THATTHEPLEAWASINDUCED
BYFEAR FRAUD DURESS MISUNDERSTANDINGORMISTAKE#F"RITZ 3!4
3EWELA 3!#27

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!NAPPLICATIONBYANACCUSEDWHOHADNOLEGALREPRESENTATIONWHENHEORSHE
PLEADED BUT IS REPRESENTED WHEN HIS OR HER TRIAL STARTS TO ALTER HIS OR HER PLEA
FROMGUILTYTONOTGUILTYSHOULDNOTSUCCEEDWHERETHEREISNOINDICATIONTHAT
THEACCUSEDDIDNOTUNDERSTANDTHECHARGEANDWHERETHETRIALCOURTOFFERSTHE
ACCUSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION BY WAY OF EVIDENCE WHICH THE
ACCUSED WITHOUTANYREASONFORHISORHERREFUSAL DECLINESTOUSE(ATTINGH
3!/ !NAPPLICATIONTOCHANGEAPLEAOFGUILTYTOONEOF@NOTGUILTYMAY
BEBROUGHTAFTERCONVICTIONBUTBEFORESENTENCE)NSUCHACASETHEREISANONUSON
THEACCUSEDTOSHOWONABALANCEOFPROBABILITIESTHATTHEPLEAWASNOTVOLUNTARILY
MADE$E"RUIN 3!# 3EEALSO"OOYSEN 3!% AT!
CONTRARYDECISIONWASGIVENINTHEFULLCOURTJUDGMENTIN"OTHA 3!
4 WHEREITWASHELDTHATATCOMMONLAW ANAPPLICATIONFORAMENDMENTOFA
PLEAOFGUILTY BROUGHTBEFORESENTENCING DOESNOTSHIFTTHEONUSTOTHEACCUSED
4HE EXPLANATION OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE REASONABLE AND MORE PERSUASIVE IF THE
APPLICATIONTOAMENDTHEGUILTYPLEAISBROUGHTATALATESTAGEINTHEPROCEEDINGS
4HE DECISION IN "OTHA WAS CONFIRMED ON APPEAL!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL V
"OTHA 3!#2! #FALSO&OURIE 3!#24 4HECOURTISNOT
FUNCTUSOFFICIOUNTILTHESENTENCEHASBEENIMPOSED6AN(EERDENV$E+OCK
3!%
%VENWHENANEXPLANATIONASTOWHYTHEACCUSEDPLEADEDGUILTYISSOMEWHAT
IMPROBABLE THECOURTSHOULDNOTREFUSEANAMENDMENTTOTHEPLEAUNLESSITISSAT
ISFIEDNOTONLYTHATTHEEXPLANATIONISIMPROBABLEBUTTHATITISBEYONDREASONABLE
DOUBTFALSE)FTHEREISANYREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYOFHISORHEREXPLANATIONBEING
TRUE THEN HE OR SHE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS OR HER PLEA OF GUILTY
+ANNIGAN 3!. 0ITSOV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE +RUGERSDORP 3!
4 :WELA 3!/
"EFORETHEAMENDMENTOFSIN THETESTWASONEOFREASONABLEDOUBT
IFTHECOURTHADAREASONABLEDOUBTWHETHERTHEACCUSEDHADACTUALLYORCORRECTLY
ADMITTEDTHEALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGE ORWHETHERTHEACCUSEDHADAVALIDDEFENCE
TOTHECHARGE ITWASOBLIGEDTOENTERAPLEAOFNOTGUILTY3IMILARLY ANACCUSED
WHOWISHEDTOWITHDRAWAPLEAOFGUILTYHADTOGIVEANEXPLANATIONASTOWHY
HEORSHEPLEADEDGUILTYANDNOWWISHEDTOCHANGETHATPLEA)FTHEEXPLANATION
WASREASONABLYPOSSIBLYTRUE THEACCUSEDWOULDBEALLOWEDTOWITHDRAWTHEPLEA
3INCE THE AMENDMENT THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLE DOUBT HAS BEEN REPLACED
WITHALIGHTERTEST)TISSUFFICIENTIFITWEREALLEGEDTHATTHEACCUSEDDIDNOTADMIT
OR INCORRECTLY ADMITTED AN ALLEGATION IN THE CHARGE OR THAT THE ACCUSED HAS A
VALIDDEFENCETOTHECHARGE3EE-OKONOTOV2EYNOLDS./ 3!#24
7HERETHEAPPLICATIONFORAMENDMENTOFPLEAFROMGUILTYTONOTGUILTYRESTS
UPON TWO BASES NAMELY COERCION ON THE ONE HAND AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE ON
THE OTHER THE MERITS OF THE MATTER IN RELATION TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE
ACCUSED MUST ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 4HE TRIAL COURT WILL AT LEAST HAVE TO
DECIDEWHETHERTHEREISAREASONABLEPOSSIBILITYTHATTHEACCUSEDISINNOCENTAND
THATTHEAPPLICATIONISBONAFIDE)TISPERMISSIBLETOHAVEREGARDTOTHEACCUSEDS
STATEMENTSDURINGEXPLANATIONOFPLEAINTERMSOFS B $E6ILLIERS
3!/
/NLYINTHEMOSTEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESWILLACHANGEOFPLEAFROMGUILTY
TO NOT GUILTY BE ALLOWED AFTER VERDICT #F /NWARD 0( ( 2 7HERE

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
HOWEVER THEACCUSEDPLEADSGUILTYTOCERTAINCHARGESANDABUSESTHEJUDICIALPRO
CESSINORDERTOOBTAINADVANTAGESWITHREGARDTOTHEOTHERCHARGES THECOURTMAY
REFUSETOALLOWTHEACCUSEDSUBSEQUENTLYTOCHANGEHISORHERPLEA.ATHANSON
3!. #FINGENERAL3IMBI 3!2! "OOYSEN 3!
% AT#
)N -AZWI 3! 4 THE VIEW TAKEN WAS THAT THE TEST TO BE APPLIED
INDECIDINGWHETHERTOGRANTANAPPLICATIONTOWITHDRAWAPLEAOFGUILTYISTHAT
SETOUTINSSEEABOVE ANDTHATTHEREISNOROOMFORACOMMON LAWWITH
DRAWALOFAPLEAOFGUILTY)N(AZELHURST 3!4 HOWEVER ITWASHELD
THATSISAPPLICABLEONLYINPROCEEDINGSINTERMSOFSIEINTHECOURSEOF
QUESTIONINGTHEACCUSEDTODETERMINEWHETHERHEORSHEADMITSTHEALLEGATIONS
INTHECHARGETOWHICHHEORSHEPLEADEDGUILTY ANDTHEMAGISTRATE WITHOUTAN
APPLICATIONONTHEPARTOFTHEACCUSED MUSTCHANGETHEPLEATOONEOFNOTGUILTY
IFCERTAINFACTSEMERGEFROMTHEQUESTIONING3ECTIONDOESNOTSUPERSEDEOR
EXCLUDETHECOMMONLAW!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV"OTHA 3!#2
! 7HEREAMATTERARISESFORWHICHSDOESNOTMAKEPROVISION THECOMMON
LAWPOSITIONSEEABOVE STILLAPPLIES4HEACCUSEDISTHENONLYREQUIREDTOOFFER
A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR HAVING INITIALLY PLEADED GUILTY 4HE COURT SHOULD
REJECTTHEEXPLANATIONONLYIFITISCONVINCEDBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTTHATITIS
FALSE"OTHA 3!4 4HEREISNOONUSONTHEACCUSED&OURIE
3!#24
.OTGUILTYPLEA
( [SODQDWLRQRISOHD
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFPROVIDESASFOLLOWS
0LEAOFNOTGUILTYANDPROCEDUREWITHREGARDTOISSUES
7HEREANACCUSEDATASUMMARYTRIALPLEADSNOTGUILTYTOTHEOFFENCECHARGED
THE PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL MAGISTRATE OR MAGISTRATE AS THE CASE MAY BE
MAYASKHIMWHETHERHEWISHESTOMAKEASTATEMENTINDICATINGTHEBASISOF
HISDEFENCE
A 7 HERE THE ACCUSED DOES NOT MAKE A STATEMENT UNDER SUBSECTION OR
DOESSOANDITISNOTCLEARFROMTHESTATEMENTTOWHATEXTENTHEDENIESOR
ADMITSTHEISSUESRAISEDBYTHEPLEA THECOURTMAYQUESTIONTHEACCUSED
INORDERTOESTABLISHWHICHALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGEAREINDISPUTE
B 4 HECOURTMAYINITSDISCRETIONPUTANYQUESTIONTOTHEACCUSEDINORDER
TOCLARIFYANYMATTERRAISEDUNDERSUBSECTION ORTHISSUBSECTION AND
SHALLENQUIREFROMTHEACCUSEDWHETHERANALLEGATIONWHICHISNOTPLACED
INISSUEBYTHEPLEAOFNOTGUILTY MAYBERECORDEDASANADMISSIONBYTHE
ACCUSEDOFTHATALLEGATION ANDIFTHEACCUSEDSOCONSENTS SUCHADMISSION
SHALLBERECORDEDANDSHALLBEDEEMEDTOBEANADMISSIONUNDERSECTION

7HERETHELEGALADVISEROFANACCUSEDONBEHALFOFTHEACCUSEDREPLIES WHETH
ERINWRITINGORORALLY TOANYQUESTIONBYTHECOURTUNDERTHISSECTION THE
ACCUSEDSHALLBEREQUIREDBYTHECOURTTODECLAREWHETHERHECONFIRMSSUCHREPLYOR
NOT;%MPHASISADDED=

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
7HEREANACCUSEDATASUMMARYTRIALPLEADSNOTGUILTY THEPRESIDINGOFFICIALMAY
ASKHIMORHERWHETHERHEORSHEWISHESTOMAKEASTATEMENTINDICATINGTHEBASIS
OFHISORHERDEFENCES 7HERETHEACCUSEDDOESNOTMAKEASTATEMENT
ASHEORSHEISENTITLEDTO-KHIZE 3!4 SEEALSO+HUMALO
3!4 ORDOESSOANDITISNOTCLEARFROMTHESTATEMENTTOWHATEXTENT
HEORSHEDENIESORADMITSTHEISSUESRAISEDBYTHEPLEA THECOURTMAYQUESTION
THEACCUSEDINORDERTOESTABLISHWHICHALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGEAREINDISPUTE
S A 4HISDISCRETIONISTOBEEXERCISEDJUDICIALLY(ERBST 3!
% -ASIKE 3!#24
4HECOURTMUSTINFORMTHEACCUSEDTHATHEORSHEISNOTOBLIGEDTOANSWERANY
QUESTIONS&AILURETODOTHISCONSTITUTESANIRREGULARITY THEEFFECTOFWHICHWOULD
DEPEND UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES 4HE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION THUS GIVEN BY
THECOURTTOTHEACCUSEDMUSTAPPEARCLEARLYFROMTHERECORD4HE3TATEISENTITLED
TO RECTIFY THE RECORD BY LEADING THE EVIDENCE OF THE MAGISTRATE AND INTERPRETER
IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE ACCUSEDS STATEMENT AND ADMISSIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE
.DLOVU 3! . 3PONTANEOUS ADMISSIONS MADE IMMEDIATELY AFTER
PLEA BEFORETHEACCUSEDHASBEENWARNEDOFHISORHERRIGHTTOREMAINSILENT ARE
ADMISSIBLE3HIKONGO 3!#2.M3
4HECOURTMAY INITSDISCRETION PUTANYQUESTIONTOTHEACCUSEDINORDERTO
CLARIFYANYMATTERWITHREGARDTOTHESTATEMENTMADETOINDICATETHEBASISOFHIS
OR HER DEFENCE OR HIS OR HER REPLIES TO QUESTIONS PUT TO HIM OR HER IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH WHICH ALLEGATIONS IN THE CHARGE ARE IN DISPUTES B 4HE QUES
TIONINGBYTHECOURTSHOULDNOTGOBEYONDTHEMATTERSINISSUEINTHECASEAND
SHOULDBELIMITEDTOTHOSEISSUESINRESPECTOFWHICHTHEACCUSEDSSTATEMENTIS
UNCLEAR AND REQUIRES CLARIFICATION 4O GO BEYOND THAT ONLY CREATES MATERIAL FOR
POSSIBLELATERCROSS EXAMINATION ANDTODOTHATISNOTPERMISSIBLE-SIBI
3!#27 4HECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEWILLBESETASIDEWHERETHEQUESTION
INGBYTHECOURTBORDEREDONCROSS EXAMINATION SERIOUSLYPREJUDICEDTHEACCUSED
ANDWOULDNOTBECATEGORISEDASQUESTIONSINCLARIFICATIONOFTHEPLEA-OLELEKENG
3!#24 4HEACCUSEDSHOULD NONETHELESS NOTBEINHIBITEDHAV
ING STOPPED AN ACCUSED FROM GIVING A FULL PLEA EXPLANATION THERE IS NO BASIS
UPONWHICHTHEJUDICIALOFFICIALCOULDPROPERLYDRAWANINFERENCEADVERSETOTHE
ACCUSED(LANGABEZO 3!#2%
)TISNOTREQUIREDOFANACCUSEDTHATHISORHERSTATEMENTINTENDEDTOINDICATE
THEBASISOFHISORHERDEFENCEBEMADEUNDEROATH8ABA 3!/
)TISIMPORTANTTHATPRESIDINGOFFICERSBRINGHOMETOACCUSED ESPECIALLYWHERE
THEYAREUNREPRESENTED THATTHESTATEMENTINCLARIFICATIONOFTHEPLEAISSTILLNOT
EVIDENCEUNDEROATH BUTONLYDIRECTEDATPREVENTINGUNNECESSARYEVIDENCEBEING
LED BY THE 3TATE-OTHLAPING 3! .# 4HE EXPLANATION OF PLEA IS
THEREFORE NOTEVIDENTIALMATERIALUPONWHICHACONVICTIONCANBEBASED/CTOBER
3!#2# 4HEMANNERINWHICHTHEACCUSEDOUGHTTOLAYHISORHER
ACCOUNTOFEVENTSBEFORETHECOURT IFHEORSHEWANTSTODOSO ISBYWAYOFGIVING
EVIDENCEAFTERTHE3TATESCASEHASBEENCLOSED-ATHOGOABOVE 3EEALSO$REYER
3! .# -KIZE 3! . 4HOMAS 3! "
-OGOREGI 3!/ -OLOYI 3!/ .KOSI 3!4
-OLELE 3!/

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
4HEPROCEDUREPRESCRIBEDINSMUSTBECOMPLETEDAFTERPLEAANDBEFORETHE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE 3TATES CASE 4HE MAGISTRATE SHOULD RECORD VERBATIM THE
QUESTIONSPUTBYHIMORHERTOTHEACCUSEDANDTHEACCUSEDSREPLYTOEACHQUES
TION -ETICULOUS CARE IN RECORDING BOTH SUCH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WILL LEAVE
NODOUBTASTOWHATFACTSHAVEBEENFORMALLYADMITTEDBYTHEACCUSEDANDWHAT
FACTSSTILLREMAINTOBEPROVEDBYTHELEADINGOFEVIDENCE-AYEDWA 3!
% 3EEALSO8UNGU 3!/ 3EMENYA 3!4 AT
2AKANANG 3!.# 3EPIRI 3!.#
3EE-OTHLAPING 3!.# FORTHECOURTSFINDINGSONTHEEVIDENTIAL
VALUEOFANEXPLANATIONOFPLEA
$
GPLVVLRQVPDGHLQWKHFRXUVHRIH[SODQDWLRQRISOHD
4HE COURT MUST ENQUIRE FROM THE ACCUSED WHETHER AN ALLEGATION WHICH IS NOT
PLACEDINISSUEBYTHEPLEAOFNOTGUILTYMAYBERECORDEDASANADMISSIONAND IF
THEACCUSEDCONSENTS SUCHADMISSIONISDULYRECORDEDS B 4HEACCUSED
CANREDUCETHETOTALNUMBEROFFACTSWHICHAREPUTINISSUEBYAPLEAOFNOTGUILTY
ANDWHICHHAVETOBEPROVEDBYTHE3TATE BYADMITTINGFACTSWHICHWILLTHENNO
LONGERBEINISSUE)FHEORSHECONSENTSTHERETO THATADMISSIONWILLBERECORDED
ANDDEEMEDTOBEANADMISSIONINTERMSOFS3UCHANADMISSIONISSUFFICIENT
PROOFOFTHERELEVANTFACTSANDABSOLVESTHE3TATEOFTHEBURDENOFPROVINGTHESE
FACTS 3UFFICIENT PROOF IS NATURALLY NOTCONCLUSIVEPROOF AND CANLATERBEREBUT
TEDBYTHEACCUSED FOREXAMPLE ONTHEGROUNDSOFDURESSORMISTAKEORBYOTHER
LEGALLYACCEPTABLEFACTS3ELEKE 3!! !NACCUSEDISNOTOBLIGEDTO
CONSENTTOHISORHERADMISSIONBEINGRECORDED7HEREHEORSHEDOESNOTCONSENT
THEONUSREMAINSONTHE3TATETOPROVEBYADMISSIBLEEVIDENCEALLTHEFACTSWHICH
WEREPUTINISSUEBYTHEPLEAOFNOTGUILTY4HEMEREFACTTHATANACCUSEDREFUSES
TOCONSENTTOTHERECORDINGOFANADMISSIONCANNOT HOWEVER AFFECTTHENATURE
OFHISORHERSTATEMENT3UCHANADMISSIONDOESNOTAPPLYASSUFFICIENTPROOFOF
THEFACTTOWHICHITHASREFERENCE!TTHEENDOFTHECASETHECOURTCONSIDERSTHE
EVIDENTIALVALUEOFTHEADMISSIONINTHELIGHTOFTHEEVIDENCEASAWHOLE3ESETSE
3!! 3EEALSO3HIVUTE 3!#2.M
4HEJUDICIALOFFICERISENTITLEDTOQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDONLYWHEREITISNOTCLEAR
FROMSUCHSTATEMENTTOWHATEXTENTTHEACCUSEDDENIESORADMITSTHEALLEGATIONS
WHICHCOMPRISETHECHARGEAGAINSTHIMORHER7HEREITISCLEARFROMTHEACCUSEDS
STATEMENTWHICHELEMENTSOFTHECHARGEHEORSHEADMITSANDWHICHHEORSHE
DENIES THEJUDICIALOFFICERISNOTENTITLEDTOQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDREGARDINGTHE
FACTSUPONWHICHHEORSHERELIESTOSUBSTANTIATEHISORHERDENIALOFTHECHARGEOR
ELEMENTSTHEREOF-UZIKAYIFANI 3!$ (ERBST 3!%
!DMISSIONOFFACTSMADEDURINGANEXPLANATIONOFPLEAANDFORMALLYRECORDED
ASADMISSIONSINTERMSOFSCONSTITUTESUFFICIENTPROOFOFSUCHFACTS@3UFFICIENT
PROOF DOES NOT MEAN @CONCLUSIVE PROOF BUT PROOF IN THE SENSE THAT NO FURTHER
ORBETTERPROOFISREQUIRED!NYFACTADMITTEDBYTHEACCUSED BUTNOTFORMALLY
RECORDEDWITHTHECONSENTOFTHEACCUSED WILLHAVETOBEPROVEDBYTHE3TATE
NOT AS CONCLUSIVELY PERHAPS AS AN ALLEGATION WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BE DISPUTED
HASTOBEPROVED BUT REGARDBEINGHADTOTHEONUSRESTINGUPONTHE3TATE TOSUCH
ADEGREE NEVERTHELESS ASTOAMOUNTTOTHEDISCHARGEOFTHATBURDEN)TAMOUNTS
TOPROBATIVEMATERIALANDTHEREISNOIMPEDIMENTPREVENTINGATRIALCOURTFROM

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
MAKING USE OF THE MATERIAL AFFORDED BY SUCH A STATEMENT AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3UCH INFORMAL ADMISSIONS DO NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PROOF BEFORE THEY MAY BE
USED AGAINST THE ACCUSED OBJECTS TO THE CHARGE AND IT IS NOT AMENDED BECAUSE
THEY ARE MADE IN COURT 7HAT IS STATED ABOVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHER STATE
MENTSMADEBYANACCUSEDATTHEENQUIRYINTERMSOFSHAVENOEVIDENTIAL
VALUEATALL/NTHECONTRARY THECOURTMUSTCONSIDERWHATEVERTHEACCUSEDHAS
SAID ANDSUCHSTATEMENTSFORMPARTOFTHEPROBATIVEMATERIAL-JOLI 3!
! 4HESTATEMENTINTERMSOFSMAY HOWEVER NOTBEUSEDINFAVOUR
OFANACCUSED)TISNOTEVIDENTIALMATERIALINHISORHERFAVOUR-OTHLAPING
3!.# !NACCUSEDMAYALSOBECROSS EXAMINEDREGARDINGTHECONTENTS
OFHISORHERSTATEMENTWHERE FOREXAMPLE SUCHACCUSEDLATERDEVIATESFROMITIN
HISORHEREVIDENCE ANDITCANHAVEANEFFECTONTHEACCUSEDSCREDIBILITY3ESETSE
3!! 3ELANE 3!4 #ONTRA HOWEVER -OGOREGI
3!/
7HENTHECOURTASKSTHEACCUSEDUNDERS B WHETHERANADMISSIONMAY
BERECORDED THEACCUSEDMUSTBEPROPERLYINFORMEDREGARDINGTHEEFFECTOFSUCHA
STEP ANDTHATHEORSHEISUNDERNOOBLIGATIONTOMAKEANYADMISSIONORTOASSIST
THE3TATEINPROVINGTHECASEAGAINSTHIMORHER3EE%VANS 3!# AND
$ANI¿LS 3!! CF3!##
$FFXVHGpVSDUWLFLSDWLRQ
)TISGENERALLYIRREGULARFORACOURTTOPUTQUESTIONSDIRECTLYTOANACCUSEDWHOIS
REPRESENTED!NACCUSEDISENTITLEDTOLEGALREPRESENTATION ANDTHELEGALPRACTITIO
NERISINFACTACTINGASASHIELD PRESENTINGHISORHEROWNKNOWLEDGEONBEHALF
OFHISORHERCLIENT(OWEVER ITAPPEARSTHATS AND PROVIDESFORACOURT
TO PUT QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO AN ACCUSED 3ECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
PRACTITIONERMAYACTONBEHALFOFHISORHERCLIENTANDANSWERQUESTIONS3ALIE
3!+ CONTRA+ 3!" .OTETHECONSEQUENCESWHERE
ANOTHERPERSONADVANCESAPLEAONBEHALFOFTHEACCUSED ASEXPRESSEDINS
(OWEVER WHEREALEGALADVISERREPLIESONBEHALFOFTHEACCUSED EITHERORALLYOR
INWRITING TOANYQUESTIONPUTBYTHECOURT THEACCUSEDISREQUIREDTODECLARE
WHETHERHEORSHECONFIRMSSUCHREPLYORNOTS 4HISPROVISIONREDUCESTHE
RISKOFANYMISUNDERSTANDINGBETWEENTHECOURT THEACCUSEDANDTHECOUNSEL
7HAT AN ACCUSED SAYS IN HIS OR HER EXPLANATION OF PLEA MAY UNDER NO CIR
CUMSTANCESBEUSEDAGAINSTACO ACCUSED EXCEPTWHENTHEACCUSEDREPEATSSUCH
ALLEGATIONS IN HIS OR HER EXPLANATION OF PLEA IN EVIDENCE UNDER OATH IN WHICH
EVENTITISINFACTEVIDENCE.GOBENI 3!" %VENANADMISSIONAS
ENVISAGEDBYS MADEDURINGPLEAEXPLANATION CANUNDERNOCIRCUMSTANCES
BEADMISSIBLEAGAINSTACO ACCUSED,ONG .#
7ITHREGARDTOTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOREMAINSILENT NOTETHATTHEPOSITIONWHERE
ANACCUSEDHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTYANDISTHENQUESTIONEDISQUITEDIFFERENTFROM
THATWHEREHEORSHEHASACTUALLYPLEADEDGUILTY/NTHEPLEAOFNOTGUILTYTHE
QUESTIONINGISPRIMARILYDIRECTEDATESTABLISHINGTHEISSUESINTHECASE ANDITIS
NECESSARYTHATTHEACCUSEDSHOULDBEPROTECTEDFROMINADVERTENTLYJEOPARDISING
HISORHERPLEAOFNOTGUILTY/NTHEPLEAOFGUILTYTHEACCUSEDHASALREADYADMIT
TED THE 3TATES CASE 4HE QUESTIONING BY THE COURT IS NOT PRIMARILY DIRECTED TO
SELF INCRIMINATION BY THE ACCUSED BUT INDEED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE ACCUSED

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
AGAINSTTHECONSEQUENCESOFANUNJUSTIFIEDPLEAOFGUILTY!NEXPLANATIONOFTHE
ACCUSEDSRIGHTTOREMAINSILENTWOULDCONFLICTWITHTHEWHOLESPIRITOFS
B .KOSI 3!!
3ECTIONHASADUALPURPOSEFIRST ANINVITATIONTOTHEACCUSEDTOINDICATE
THE BASIS OF HIS OR HER DEFENCE AND SECONDLY QUESTIONING TO ASCERTAIN WHICH
ALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGEAREINDISPUTE)NRESPECTOFBOTH THEACCUSEDMUSTBE
INFORMEDBYTHECOURTOFHISORHERRIGHTTOREMAINSILENT3ALIE 3!
#
-ERELYTOSTATEINANEXPLANATIONOFPLEATHAT@EVERYTHINGISINDISPUTEMEANSIN
EFFECT@.ONEOFTHETHINGSALLEGEDBYTHE3TATEHAPPENED)TISALLFABRICATED)FTHE
ACCUSEDSUBSEQUENTLYSAYSTHATSOMEOFTHEALLEGATIONSARETRUE HISORHERCRED
IBILITYWILLBESERIOUSLYAFFECTED)FTHEACCUSEDDOESNOTWISHTOREDUCETHEISSUES
INDISPUTE HEORSHEMUSTREFUSETOGIVEANEXPLANATIONOFHISORHERPLEA4HEN
THEACCUSEDEXPOSESHIM ORHERSELFTOANADVERSEINFERENCEALTHOUGH SHOULDTHE
ACCUSEDENTERTHEWITNESS BOX HEORSHEWILLBEGIVENANOPPORTUNITYTOEXPLAIN
HISORHERSILENCE-ATHOPE 3!" + 3!"
&RPPLWWDOWRUHJLRQDOFRXUW
7HEREANACCUSEDPLEADSNOTGUILTYINAMAGISTRATESCOURT THECOURTSHALL SUB
JECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFS ATTHEREQUESTOFTHEPROSECUTORMADEBEFOREANY
EVIDENCEISTENDERED REFERTHEACCUSEDFORTRIALTOAREGIONALCOURTHAVINGJURIS
DICTION4HERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTSHALLUPONPROOF
THEREOFINTHEREGIONALCOURTBERECEIVEDBYTHEREGIONALCOURTANDFORMPARTOF
THERECORDSOFTHATCOURTS!3EESREGARDINGTHECOMMITTALOFANACCUSED
FORSENTENCEBYAREGIONALCOURTAFTERCONVICTIONINAMAGISTRATESCOURTFOLLOWING
ONAPLEAOFNOTGUILTY.OTETHATTHEPROVISIONSREGARDINGTHECOMMITTALOFAN
ACCUSEDBYAMAGISTRATEOFAMAGISTRATESCOURTFORSENTENCEBYAREGIONALCOURT
INTERMSOFS ARETHESAMEASTHOSEINS 3EE3ELEBOGO 3!
.# #FFURTHER3ETHUNTSA 3!/ "RON 3!#
$PHQGPHQWRISOHDRIQRWJXLOW\
!NACCUSEDMAYATANYSTAGECHANGEHISORHERPLEAOFNOTGUILTYTOONEOF@GUILTY
TOTHEOFFENCECHARGED WITHTHELEAVEOFTHECOURT!LLI 3!# ,EAVE
ISSELDOMREFUSEDINSUCHCASES)NSUCHACASESISALSOAPPLICABLE!BRAHAMS
3! # 3ETHOGA 3! ! !FTER PLEADING NOT GUILTY AND
ONCE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED THE ACCUSED MAY CHANGE HIS OR HER PLEA TO ONE OF
GUILTY MAKEORALADMISSIONSANDTHENBEFOUNDGUILTY!DAM 3!#2
%
7HEREANACCUSEDPLEADSNOTGUILTYANDTHENSEEKSTOCHANGEHISORHERPLEA
TOGUILTYAFTEREVIDENCEHASBEENLED ACCEPTANCEBYTHEPROSECUTOROFTHEPLEAAT
THATSTAGEOFTHEPROCEEDINGSDOESNOTHAVETHESAMEEFFECTASACCEPTANCEOFAPLEA
BEFORECOMMENCEMENTOFTHETRIAL INTHATTHEPROSECUTORISNOLONGERDOMINUS
LITISANDTHECOURTISNOTBOUNDBYHISORHERACCEPTANCEOFTHEPLEAOFGUILTY/NCE
THEACCUSEDPLEADSNOTGUILTYITISTHECOURTSDUTYTODETERMINETHEISSUESRAISED
BETWEENTHE3TATEANDTHEACCUSEDBYTHELATTERSPLEAANDTHEPROSECUTORCANNOT
INTERFEREWITHTHATDUTYANDCOMPELTHECOURTTOENTERAPLEAOFGUILTYONALESSER

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CHARGE THEREBYSEEKINGTOLIMITTHELISBETWEENTHE3TATEANDTHEACCUSED!NY
ACCEPTANCE BY THE PROSECUTOR OF A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENCE CAN ACCORD
INGLYTAKEPLACEONLYWITHTHECOURTSCONSENT3ETHOGA 3!! 4HE
ISSUEOFWHETHERSISAPPLICABLEAFTERACHANGEOFPLEAFROMNOTGUILTYTOGUILTY
AFTEREVIDENCEHASBEENLEDWASADDRESSEDINANUMBEROFCASESANDCONFIRMED
IN"ROWN 3!#23#! )NTHISCASETHEACCUSEDINITIALLYPLEADEDNOT
GUILTYTOANUMBEROFCHARGESPREFERREDAGAINSTHIM!FTERSEVERALWITNESSESHAD
TESTIFIEDONBEHALFOFTHE3TATE HECHANGEDHISPLEATOONEOFGUILTYANDINDUE
COURSEWASCONVICTEDANDSENTENCEDONTWOCOUNTS ANDGIVENAVERYLENIENTSEN
TENCE AGAINSTWHICHTHESTATEAPPEALED4HEDISPUTEINTHISCASEHASITSORIGINS
INTHEACCEPTANCEBYTHE3TATE WITHTHEAPPROVALOFTHETRIALCOURT OFAPLEAOF
GUILTY INTHEMIDDLEOFTHETRIAL4HECOURTOFAPPEALHELDTHATTHETRIALCOURTHAD
BEENOBLIGED WHENTHEPLEAWASTENDERED TOCONSIDERWHETHERTHEPLEAOUGHTTO
BEACCEPTED WITHPARTICULARREGARDBEINGPAIDTOTHEEFFECTOFTHEEVIDENCELEDUP
UNTILTHATSTAGE)TCOULDHAVEPUTITTOCOUNSELTHATTHEEVIDENCEWASSUCHTHAT
IT COULD CONFIDENTLY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF THE CHARGES
ONTHEBASISOFDOLUSDIRECTUS CONTRARYTOHISSTATEMENTTHATHEACTEDWITHDOLUS
EVENTUALIS
7KHSOHDH[SODQDWLRQSURFHGXUHLQHVVHQFH
4HE @PLEA EXPLANATION A TERM ALSO ADOPTED BY THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL
THENTHE!PPELLATE$IVISION )MENE 3!! AT' PROCEDURECON
TAINEDINSWHICHORIGINATEDINTHEPROPOSALBY-R*USTICE(IEMSTRAIN
THATOURSYSTEMOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREBEREFORMEDTOBRINGITINTOLINEWITHTHE
#ONTINENTALINQUISITORIALPROCESSISUNDOUBTEDLYTHEMOSTCONTROVERSIALPROVI
SIONINTHE!CTANDMUSTBEAPPROACHEDWITHGREATCAUTION-ATHOGO
3!/ )TSPURPOSEISTOSHORTENTHEPROCEEDINGSBYMAKINGITUNNECESSARY
FORTHEPROSECUTORTOCALLEVIDENCEONMATTERSWHICHARENOTINDISPUTE)TSHOULD
BENOTEDTHATTHEQUESTIONINGISDISCRETIONARYONLY#F"EPELA 3!"
.O DOUBT IN MOST CASES A JUDICIAL OFFICER WOULD DEEM IT DESIRABLE TO INVITE AN
ACCUSEDTOINDICATETHEBASISOFHISORHERDEFENCE MOREPARTICULARLYWHERETHE
JUDICIALOFFICERFEELSTHATITMAYASSISTANUNDEFENDEDACCUSEDTOBRINGOUTHISOR
HERDEFENCEBEFOREANYEVIDENCEISLEDINORDERTHATTHECOURTMAYBEABLETOASSIST
SUCHACCUSEDBYENSURINGTHATTHEDEFENCEISPROPERLYPUTTO3TATEWITNESSESORTO
SAFEGUARDHIMORHERFROMTHESUGGESTIONTHATHEORSHEISFABRICATINGHISORHER
EVIDENCEIFHEORSHEWERETODEPOSETOFACTSNOTPUTBYHIMORHERTO3TATEWIT
NESSESINCROSS EXAMINATION(ERBST 3!% +IBIDO 3!
# /NETHINGSEEMSCLEAR%XTENSIVEQUESTIONINGOFANACCUSEDBYTHEPRESIDING
OFFICERWILLRESULTINTHESETTINGASIDEOFTHEPROCEEDINGSONAPPEAL ONTHEBASIS
THATTHELATTER@DESCENDEDINTOTHEARENACF9UILLV9UILL;=!LL%2)T
ISCLEARTHATSDOESNOTCONTEMPLATEANYFORMOFCROSS EXAMINATION7HATIS
CONTEMPLATEDISANOBJECTIVEATTEMPTATDETERMININGTHEFACTSWHICHAREREALLYIN
DISPUTE WITH IFNECESSARY QUESTIONSFORCLARIFICATION3ELEKE 3!!
7ITHREGARDTOBOTHTHEPLEASOFGUILTYANDOFNOTGUILTY SEEINGENERAL6AN
DER -ERWE "ARTON +EMP 0LEA 0ROCEDURES IN #RIMINAL 4RIALS 4IME AND
AGAIN THISWORKTOUCHESUPONTHESIGNIFICANCEOFSSANDINRELATIONTOTHE
INQUISITORIALAPPROACHTOCRIMINALPROCEDURE

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
0LEAOFPRIORCONVICTIONORACQUITTAL
*HQHUDOSULQFLSOHV
4
HE#ONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONrS M OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
%VERYACCUSEDPERSONHASTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHTNOTTOBE
TRIEDFOR ANOFFENCEINRESPECTOFANACTOROMISSIONFORWHICHTHATPERSONHAS
PREVIOUSLYBEENEITHERACQUITTEDORCONVICTED%MPHASISADDED
4HERIGHTTOBEPROTECTEDFROMTHEHARASSMENTOFASECONDTRIALONTHESAMECAUSE
OFACTIONGAVERISETOTHEABOVECONSTITUTIONALPROVISION KNOWNIN!MERICANJU
RISPRUDENCEASTHERULEAGAINSTDOUBLEJEOPARDY4HE,ATINMAXIMIS.EMODEBET
BISVEXARIPROUNAETEADEMCAUSANOPERSONSHALLBEHARASSEDTWICEFORTHESAME
CAUSEOR DIFFERENTLYSTATED NOPERSONSHALLBEPUTINJEOPARDYTWICEFORTHESAME
ORSUBSTANTIALLYTHESAMEOFFENCE
!NACCUSEDMAYEVADEASECONDPROSECUTION EVENTHOUGHHEORSHEWASACQUIT
TEDPREVIOUSLYONTHESAMECHARGE BYPLEADINGAUTREFOISACQUIT)FHEORSHEWAS
CONVICTEDINAPREVIOUSTRIAL THEACCUSEDMAYEVADEASECONDPROSECUTION EVEN
THOUGHHEORSHEWASCONVICTEDPREVIOUSLYONTHESAMECHARGE BYPLEADINGAUTRE
FOISCONVICT)NSHORT THESEAREPLEASINBARTOACRIMINALACTION ASECONDTRIAL
STATINGTHATTHEACCUSEDHASALREADYBEENINDICTEDANDTRIEDFORTHESAMEALLEGED
OFFENCEANDHASBEENACQUITTED
"
ASICNOTIONSOFFAIRNESS FINALITYANDJUSTICETOTHEACCUSED RELEVANTTO
THEPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITORAUTREFOISCONVICT
4HEINSTITUTIONOFASECONDPROSECUTIONONTHESAMEFACTSAGAINSTANACCUSEDFOR
THESAMEOFFENCEASINTHEFIRSTTRIALMAYFAILBYVIRTUEOFTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHE
PRINCIPLESOFEQUITYANDJUSTICEEVENTHOUGHTHEELEMENTSOFTHEPLEAOFAUTREFOIS
ACQUITORAUTREFOISCONVICTHAVENOTBEENPROVEDORRAISEDDURINGTHESECONDTRIAL
4HESEPRINCIPLESWEREAPPLIEDINTHEFOLLOWINGINSTANCES
A 4HEPROSECUTIONISNOTENTITLEDTOTRYACCUSEDINPIECEMEALFASHION
7HEREANACCUSEDCOULDHAVEBEENTRIEDFORTWOOFFENCES ORTHEMORESERIOUS
OFFENCEPREFERREDATTHEFIRSTTRIAL HEORSHESHOULDHAVEBEENSOCHARGED
+HOZA 3!4 -C)NTYRE 3!#24 )N-C)NTYRE THEAC
CUSEDHADBEENACQUITTEDINTHEFIRSTTRIALOFACHARGEOFASSAULTWITHINTENTTO
COMMITGRIEVOUSBODILYHARM(OWEVER THEPROSECUTIONINSTITUTEDASECOND
PROSECUTIONONTHESAMEFACTSONACHARGEOFMURDER)NTHISCASETHEVICTIM
HADDIEDOFTHEINJURIESSUSTAINEDDURINGTHEASSAULTONTHEDAYONWHICHTHE
ASSAULTTOOKPLACE4HEPROSECUTIONALLEGEDTHATTHEPOLICEHADNOTDISCLOSED
THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM DIED ON THE DAY OF THE ASSAULT THAT LED TO THE FIRST
TRIAL4HECOURTREJECTEDTHISALLEGATIONBECAUSEITHADBEENPOSSIBLEFORTHE
PROSECUTIONTOPREFERTHEMORESERIOUSCHARGEOFMURDERATTHETIMEWHENTHE
FIRSTTRIALWASINSTITUTED
B 0LEABARGAINING
7HERE THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY GAVE AN UNDERTAKING NOT TO PROSECUTE OR
MADEAREPRESENTATIONTOTHATEFFECTINEXCHANGEFORAPLEAORFULLCO OPERA
TION THEPROSECUTIONHASTOBEKEPTTOITSBARGAINANDCANNOTINSTITUTEANEW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TRIALONTHESAMEFACTS3EE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV:UMA
3!#23#! AT;=
C $IVERSION
/NCEACHILDHASSUCCESSFULLYCOMPLETEDADIVERSIONPROGRAMME THECHILDOF
FENDERCANNOTBYVIRTUEOFS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTBECHARGEDAGAINON
THESAMEFACTSFORTHESAMEOFFENCEONCEHEORSHEATTAINSMAJORITY(OWEVER
BEFORETHE#HILD*USTICE!CTCAMEINTOOPERATION THERATIOFORPREVENTINGA
TRIALONTHESAMEFACTSINRESPECTOFTHECHILDOFFENDERWASBASEDONTHECHILD
OFFENDERS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION THAT HE OR SHE WOULD NOT BE CHARGED AGAIN
AFTERHAVINGCOMPLETEDTHEPROGRAMME%! 3!#2 .#+
D 0REPARATORYEXAMINATION
3ECTION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT PROHIBITS THE PROSECUTION OF AN
ACCUSEDWHERETHE$00HASDECLINEDTOPROSECUTEAFTERAPREPARATORYEXAMI
NATIONHADBEENCONCLUDEDANDTHEACCUSEDADVISEDOFTHE$00SDECISION
E $ELAYS
4HERIGHTGIVENTOANACCUSEDTODEMANDANACQUITTALORDISCHARGEINTERMSOF
S SHOULDNOTBEDENIEDHIMORHERBYCARELESSORNEGLIGENTACTIONSBY
THE3TATEWHICHCAUSEINFINITEDELAYS,ETHOPA 3!#2/ ANDSEE
ALSO"ASSON 3!#2## AT;=n;=)N6AN(EERDENV.ATIONAL
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#23#! THECOURTHELDTHATTHE
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSOFTHEACCUSEDTOHAVEATRIALBEGINANDCONCLUDEWITH
OUTUNREASONABLEDELAYWEREINFRINGEDAFTERLENGTHYDELAYSOFTHEPROCEEDING
CAUSEDBYTHEPROSECUTIONANDTHEDISHONESTANDUNACCEPTABLECONDUCTBY
THEPROSECUTION ANDGRANTEDAPERMANENTSTAYOFPROCEEDINGS
4
HECOMMONLAWANDTHESTATUTORYPROVISIONS
4HEPLEATHATAPERSONHASALREADYBEENCONVICTEDORACQUITTEDOFTHESAMEOF
FENCEISKNOWNASTHECOMMON LAWDEFENCESOFAUTREFOISCONVICTORAUTREFOISACQUIT
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTRECOGNISESTHECOMMONLAWBYINCORPORATINGTHEM
INS C ANDD 4HEDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHEELEMENTSOFAUTREFOISACQUITAND
AUTREFOISCONVICTAREINSIGNIFICANTANDARESIMILARINRESPECTOFTHECONTENTOFTHE
ELEMENTS SUBJECT TO THE DIFFERENT PLEA APPELLATION 3ECTION PROVIDES AS
FOLLOWS
7HENANACCUSEDPLEADSTOACHARGEHEMAYPLEAD
x
C THATHEHASALREADYBEENCONVICTEDOFTHEOFFENCEWITHWHICHHEISCHARGEDOR
D THATHEHASALREADYBEENACQUITTEDOFTHEOFFENCEWITHWHICHHEISCHARGED
3ECTION PROVIDES THAT IF AN ACCUSED PLEADS ANY PLEA OTHER THAN THE PLEA OF
GUILTY HEISBYSUCHPLEAWITHOUTANYFURTHERFORMDEEMEDTOHAVEDEMANDED
THATTHEISSUESRAISEDBYSUCHPLEASHALLBETRIEDBYTHECOURT4HEONUSOFPROVID
INGPROOFFORAPLEAOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONORPREVIOUSACQUITTALRESTSUPONTHE
ACCUSED0ROOFOFTHEPREVIOUSTRIALISUSUALLYRENDEREDBYPRODUCINGTHERECORD
ORACOPYTHEREOF ANDBYORALEVIDENCETHATTHEACCUSEDISTHESAMEPERSONWHO
WASPREVIOUSLYTRIED
)TISEVENPOSSIBLETORAISETHISPLEAAFTERTHECOMMENCEMENTOFTHETRIALORON
APPEAL)TISEASILYCONCEIVABLETHATTHERECOULDBEACASEWHERETHEEXISTENCEOF

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
APREVIOUSACQUITTALCOULDBEDISCOVEREDDURINGTHECOURSEOFAHEARINGANDAFTER
THEACCUSEDHASPLEADED4HEACCUSEDWILLTHENBEENTITLEDTORAISEAPLEAOFPREVI
OUSACQUITTALATTHISSTAGE-KHUZANGEWE 3!/
)N"URNS3#ITWASHELDTHATAPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITCANNOTBERAISEDFOR
THEFIRSTTIMEONAPPEAL BUTIN-GILANE 3!4K THECOURTCORRECTLY
CONSIDEREDTHISRULE WHENAPPLIEDRIGIDLYANDESPECIALLYINTHECASEOFANUNSO
PHISTICATEDANDUNEDUCATEDPERSONWHOISNOTREPRESENTED TOBE@REPUGNANTTO
ONESFEELINGOFFAIRPLAYANDJUSTICE3EEALSO+GATLANE 3!4
5NLESSITISSHOWNTHATTHEACCUSEDKNOWINGLYWAIVEDHISORHERRIGHTTORELY
ATHISORHERTRIALONTHEPLEAOFAUTREFOISCONVICTACQUIT THEREISNOGOODREASONIN
LAWWHYHEORSHESHOULDNOTADVANCETHISDEFENCEFORTHEFIRSTTIMEINANAPPEAL
ORINREVIEWPROCEEDINGS-NGADI 3!#27
0
LEAOFAUTREFOISACQUIT
4HEESSENTIALSOFTHISPLEAASWITHTHETWINPLEAOFAUTREFOISCONVICT ARETHATTHE
ACCUSEDHASPREVIOUSLYBEENACQUITTED
A OFTHESAMEOFFENCE
B UPONTHEMERITS
C BYACOMPETENTCOURT
4
HECONCEPTOFlTHESAMEOFFENCEm
)N ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE OFFENCE IS THE SAME AS THAT OF WHICH THE AC
CUSEDHASPREVIOUSLYBEENFOUNDNOTGUILTY THECOURTWILLPAYATTENTIONTOTHE
TRUE ESSENCE OF THE OFFENCE AND NOT TO TECHNICALITIES IT IS THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF
THEPREVIOUSJUDGMENTWHICHISBINDING-ANASEWITZ!$!$
)TWILLBESUFFICIENTIFTHEOFFENCESARESUBSTANTIALLYTHESAME4HISTESTISNOTA
FORMALONE4HEQUESTIONISNOTWHETHERTHEAPPELLATIONNAMES OFTHERESPECTIVE
OFFENCESISTHESAME
4HE PLEA IS ALSO AVAILABLE WHERE THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH THE ACCUSED IS NOW
CHARGEDISALESSERONETHANTHATOFWHICHHEORSHEWASCONVICTEDORACQUITTED
AND THE CURRENT OFFENCE IS ONE OF WHICH HE OR SHE COULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
OR ACQUITTED ON THE PREVIOUS CHARGE,ONG 3! ! )F THE ACCUSED
HASPREVIOUSLYBEENCONVICTEDORACQUITTEDOFMURDER HEORSHECANNOTNOWBE
CHARGEDWITHCULPABLEHOMICIDE)FTHEACCUSEDHASPREVIOUSLYBEENCHARGEDWITH
MURDERANDCONVICTEDOFASSAULT HEORSHECANNOTNOWBECHARGEDWITHCULPABLE
HOMICIDE#ONVICTIONORACQUITTALONTHELATTERTWOOFFENCESISCOMPETENTUPON
ACHARGEOFMURDER
/NTHEOTHERHAND THEPLEAISNOTAVAILABLEWHEREITWASIMPOSSIBLEATTHEPRE
VIOUSTRIALTOPREFERTHEMORESERIOUSCHARGENOWPRESENTED4HUS IFTHEVICTIM
OF AN ASSAULT DIES AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF ASSAULT THE
ACCUSEDMAYBEINDICTEDFORMURDERORCULPABLEHOMICIDE,IKEWISE CONVICTION
OFNEGLIGENTDRIVINGOFAMOTORVEHICLEISNOTADEFENCEONACHARGEOFCULPABLE
HOMICIDE$AYZELL 7,$ 'ABRIEL 3! 2! AT n "UT
WHEREITWASPOSSIBLETOPREFERTHEMORESERIOUSCHARGE THEPLEASHOULDPREVAIL
FOREXAMPLEWHEREAPERSONISCHARGEDWITHMURDERAFTERHEORSHEHASALREADY

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
BEEN CONVICTED OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE #F 4IETIES 3! ! AND SEE IN
GENERAL3EPIRI 3!.#
4HEPLEACANALSOBERELIEDUPONWHERETHEOFFENCESARESUBSTANTIALLYTHESAME
)N,ONG 3!! THECOURTSTATED
)TISNOTENOUGHTOSUPPORTTHEPLEATHATTHEFACTSARETHESAMEINBOTHTRIALS4HEOFFENCES
CHARGED MUST BE THE SAME BUT SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY IS SUFFICIENT )F THE ACCUSED COULD
HAVEBEENCONVICTEDATTHEFORMERTRIALOFTHEOFFENCEWITHWHICHHEISSUBSEQUENTLY
CHARGEDTHEREISSUBSTANTIALIDENTITY SINCEINSUCHACASEACQUITTALONTHEFORMERCHARGE
NECESSARILYINVOLVESACQUITTALONTHESUBSEQUENTCHARGE
!NOTHERWAYOFPUTTINGITISTHATTHEACCUSEDMUSTLEGALLYHAVEBEENINJEOPARDY
ONTHEFIRSTTRIALOFBEINGCONVICTEDORACQUITTEDOFTHEOFFENCEWITHWHICHHEOR
SHEWASCHARGEDINTHESECONDTRIAL7ATSON 3!2
)FATTHETRIALTHEREISNOTASUBSTANTIALDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHEFACTSALLEGEDINTHE
CHARGEANDTHEFACTSPROVEDBYTHEEVIDENCE THEACCUSEDMAYBECONVICTEDATANY
RATE WHERETHECHARGEISAMENDED ANDSHOULDHEORSHEBEACQUITTED HEORSHE
MAYTHEREFOREPLEADAUTREFOISACQUITWHENSUBSEQUENTLYCHARGEDONANAMENDED
CHARGE3EE-ANASEWITZ!$ !$!NILLUSTRATIONOFTHISPRINCIPLE
ISTOBEFOUNDIN6ORSTER 3!/ 4HEACCUSEDWASINITIALLYCHARGED
WITHDRIVINGALORRY /0 IN2ABIE3TREET ,UCKHOFF WHILEDRUNK!CCORDINGTO
THEEVIDENCELEDATTHEFIRSTTRIALTHEACCUSEDATTEMPTEDTODRIVEANOTHERMOTOR
VEHICLE WITH A DIFFERENT REGISTRATION NUMBER 4HE PROSECUTOR STOPPED THE CASE
ANDTHEACCUSEDWASACQUITTED!TTHESECONDTRIALITWASALLEGEDTHATTHEACCUSED
DROVEALIGHTDELIVERYVAN /0 IN"ARNARD3TREET ,UCKHOFF ONTHESAMEDAY
(ISPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITWASUPHELDONAPPEALONTHEGROUNDTHATTHEVARIATION
BETWEENTHEAVERMENTSINTHECHARGESHEETSANDTHEEVIDENCELEDATTHEFIRSTTRIAL
WASNOTMATERIALANDTHATHESTOODINJEOPARDYOFBEINGCONVICTED
)FTHEACCUSEDHASPREVIOUSLYBEENACQUITTEDONANINDICTMENTFORMURDERAND
ISNOWINDICTEDONTHESAMESETOFFACTSANDCONVICTEDOFASSAULT HEORSHEMAY
AVOIDCONVICTIONWITHAPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUIT4HEREASONFORTHISISTHATONA
CHARGEOFMURDERHEORSHEMIGHTHAVEBEENCONVICTEDOFASSAULT4HEPRINCIPLE
HERE IS THAT THERE EXISTS SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER WHEN THE CRIME
CHARGEDINTHESECONDINDICTMENTWOULDHAVEBEENACOMPETENTVERDICTONTHE
FIRSTINDICTMENT"UTEVENTHOUGHTHEOFFENCEALLEGEDINTHESECONDINDICTMENT
WOULDNOTHAVEBEENACOMPETENTVERDICTONTHEFIRSTINDICTMENT ITISSTILLPOSSI
BLETHATTHEOFFENCESCHARGEDINTHETWOINDICTMENTSARESIMILARENOUGHTOFOUND
APLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUIT4HECOURTMUSTCONSIDERTHEESSENTIALINGREDIENTSOFTHE
CRIMINAL CONDUCT RESPECTIVELY CHARGED IN THE TWO INDICTMENTS AND APPLY THE
TESTUSEDIN+ERR %#$ NAMELYWHETHERTHEEVIDENCENECESSARYTO
SUPPORTTHESECONDINDICTMENTWOULDHAVEBEENSUFFICIENTTOPROCUREALEGALCON
VICTIONONTHEFIRSTINDICTMENT.DOU 3!! .YATI 3!4
%VENIFAPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITFAILSONTHELATTERGROUNDIEBECAUSETHEEVIDENCE
NECESSARYFORTHESECONDINDICTMENTWOULDNOTHAVEBEENSUFFICIENTTOPROCUREA
CONVICTIONONTHEFIRSTINDICTMENT THECOURTSTILLHASADISCRETIONTOPREVENTTHE
SECONDTRIALFROMPROCEEDINGONTHEBASISTHATATRIALSHOULDNOTBEALLOWEDTO
PROCEEDINPIECEMEALFASHIONTOTHEPREJUDICEOFTHEACCUSED4HEPOLICYISTHATIF
ANACCUSEDCOULDHAVEBEENCHARGEDWITHTHETWOOFFENCESATTHEFIRSTTRIAL HEOR

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
SHESHOULDHAVEBEENSOCHARGEDHEORSHESHOULDNOTBETRIEDINTWOSEPARATE
TRIALS3EE+HOZA 3!4
5
PONTHEMERITS
)TISREQUIREDTHATTHEACQUITTALMUSTHAVEBEEN@ONTHEMERITSINAFINALJUDG
MENT4HISMEANSTHATTHECOURTWHETHERATTHETRIALORULTIMATELYUPONAPPEAL
MUSTHAVECONSIDEREDTHEMERITSOFTHECASE WHETHERINFACTORINLAW ANDMUSTNOT
HAVEACQUITTEDTHEACCUSEDMERELYBECAUSEOFATECHNICALIRREGULARITYINTHEPROCE
DURE"EKKER#0$-ANASEWITZ!$-OODIE 3!!
.AIDOO 3!! 2UDMAN 3!#2!
7HERETHETRIALPROVESANULLITYBECAUSEOFSUCHAFATALIRREGULARITY THEACCUSED
MAYBEBROUGHTTOTRIALDENOVOANDTHEPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITCANNOTPREVAIL
%VEN WHERE THE MERITS HAVE IN FACT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT THE
IRREGULARITYMAYBEOFSUCHANATUREASTOPRECLUDEAVALIDCONSIDERATIONOFTHE
MERITS-OODIEAT!NACQUITTALIS@ONTHEMERITSEVENIFTHE3TATEHASLEDNO
EVIDENCEATALLSUCHASWHENTHESTATE AFTERTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADED ONAUTHOR
ITY OF THE $00 CLOSES ITS CASE WITHOUT LEADING ANY EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE REAL
DISTINCTIONISBETWEENANACQUITTALONTHEMERITSANDANACQUITTALONATECHNICAL
ITY-THETWA 3!. AT%n&
%VENWHENACOURTERREDINLAWINACQUITTINGANACCUSEDANDTHEEVIDENCEHAD
TO BE CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT THE LEGAL DECISION THE ACQUITTAL IS @ON THE MER
ITS"IZI 3!2! AT)TISNOTALWAYSEASYTODECIDEWHETHERAN
IRREGULARITY IS MERELY TECHNICAL OR NOT )N -OODIES CASE THERE WAS A TENTH MAN
PRESENTATTHEJURYSDELIBERATIONS4HECOURTOFAPPEALHELDTHATTHISCONSTITUTED
SUCHAGROSSDEPARTUREFROMESTABLISHEDRULESOFPROCEDURETHATTHEACCUSEDHAD
NOTBEENPROPERLYTRIED)NOTHERWORDS THECOURTHELDTHATTHETRIALWASANULLITY
ANDONTHATACCOUNTITDIDNOTCONSIDERTHEMERITSATALL#OMPARE2UDMAN
3!#2! &ORAFURTHEREXAMPLE SEE-KHISE 3!! WHERETHE
ACCUSEDS@LEGALREPRESENTATIVEFALSELYMASQUERADEDASANADVOCATE
)N.AIDOO 3!! THEINTERPRETERATTHETRIALWASNOTSWORNININ
RESPECTOFTHREEWITNESSES WITHTHERESULTTHATTHEIREVIDENCECOULDNOTBETAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT 4HIS IN ITSELF DID NOT CONSTITUTE SO GROSS A DEPARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED
RULESOFPROCEDUREASTORENDERTHETRIALPERSEANULLITY4HECOURTONAPPEALTHEREFORE
CONSIDEREDTHERESTOFTHEEVIDENCEWHICHHADBEENPROPERLYADDUCED ANDCAME
TOTHECONCLUSIONTHATITCOULDNOTBESAIDTHATTHEJURYWOULDINEVITABLYHAVE
CONVICTEDONTHATEVIDENCE)NTHISCASE THEREFORE THEPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITWAS
UPHELDWHENTHEACCUSEDWASRE INDICTED&ROMTHESECASESITCANBESEENTHATTHE
QUESTIONOFWHETHERTHEACQUITTALCANBESAIDTOHAVEBEENONTHEMERITSDEPENDS
TOALARGEEXTENTONTHENATUREOFTHEIRREGULARLY)N3AYED 3!#23#!
APLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITDIDNOTSUCCEEDTHECOURTOFAPPEALDIDNOTCONSIDERTHE
MERITS BUT SET THE CONVICTIONS ASIDE BECAUSE THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEED
INGSBEFORETHEREGIONALCOURTINTHEFIRSTTRIALWERESOGROSSTHATTHEYRENDERED
THEENTIRETRIALINVALID4HECOURTOFAPPEALHELDTHATAREASONABLEPERSON@WOULD
INFER BIAS AS THE MOST LIKELY REASON FOR THE REGIONAL COURT MAGISTRATES UNWAR
RANTED FINDINGS UTTERANCES AND HER JUDICIAL IMPATIENCE AND INTOLERANCE !FTER
TWOAPPEALSTOTHE(IGH#OURTAGAINSTTHECONVICTIONINTHEFIRSTTRIALANDINTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
RETRIAL THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALDISMISSEDTHEAPPEALONTHEQUESTIONOFTHE
SPECIALPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUIT
3ECTION PROVIDES AN INDICATION AS TO WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE LEGISLATURE
CONSIDEREDWOULDNOTQUALIFYTOPREVENTASECONDTRIAL DENOVO ANDAPLEAOFPRIOR
CONVICTIONWOULD ACCORDINGLY NOTBARSUCHATRIAL)TPROVIDES
7HENEVERACONVICTIONANDSENTENCEARESETASIDEBYTHECOURTOFAPPEALONTHEGROUND
A THATTHECOURTWHICHCONVICTEDTHEACCUSEDWASNOTCOMPETENTTODOSOOR
B THAT THE INDICTMENT ;OR CHARGE SHEET= ON WHICH THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED WAS
INVALIDORDEFECTIVEINANYRESPECTOR
C THATTHEREHASBEENANYOTHERTECHNICALIRREGULARITYORDEFECTINTHEPROCEDURE
PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME OFFENCE TO WHICH THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE RE
FERREDMAYAGAINBEINSTITUTEDEITHERONTHEORIGINALCHARGE SUITABLYAMENDEDWHERE
NECESSARY ORUPONANYOTHERCHARGEASIFTHEACCUSEDHADNOTPREVIOUSLYBEENARRAIGNED
TRIED AND CONVICTED 0ROVIDED THAT NO JUDGE OR ASSESSOR BEFORE WHOM THE ORIGINAL TRIAL
TOOKPLACESHALLTAKEPARTINSUCHPROCEEDINGS;%MPHASISADDED=
3ECTION PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY
WITHREFERENCETOANYCONVICTIONANDSENTENCEOFALOWERCOURTTHATARESETASIDE
ONAPPEALORREVIEWONANYGROUNDREFERREDTOINTHATSECTION 7HEREAQUESTION
OFLAWHASBEENRESERVEDONTHEAPPLICATIONOFAPROSECUTORINTHECASEOFANAC
QUITTAL ANDTHECOURTOFAPPEALHASGIVENADECISIONINFAVOUROFTHEPROSECUTOR
THECOURTOFAPPEALMAYORDERTHATSUCHOFTHESTEPSREFERREDTOINSBETAKEN
ASTHECOURTMAYDIRECTS
3ECTION PROVIDESTHATWHEREACONVICTIONANDSENTENCEARESETASIDEBY
THE COURT OF APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT A FAILURE OF JUSTICE HAS IN FACT RESULTED
FROMTHEADMISSIONAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDOFEVIDENCEOTHERWISEADMISSIBLEBUTNOT
PROPERLY PLACED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT BY REASON OF SOME DEFECT IN THE PROCEEDINGS
THECOURTOFAPPEALMAYREMITTHECASETOTHETRIALCOURTWITHINSTRUCTIONSTODEAL
WITHANYMATTER INCLUDINGTHEHEARINGOFSUCHEVIDENCE INSUCHMANNERASTHE
COURTOFAPPEALMAYTHINKFIT4HISINNOVATIONISTOOVERCOMETHEOBJECTIONSTO
THERESULTOFTHE.AIDOOCASE
7ITHREGARDTODEFECTIVECHARGESHEETS ITISSUBMITTEDTHATSAFFECTSTHEPLEA
OFAUTREFOISACQUIT0RIORTOTHEENACTMENTOFSTHEACCUSEDWASINNOJEOPARDY
OFBEINGCONVICTEDWHERETHECHARGEWASFATALLYMATERIALLY DEFECTIVE3INCETHE
ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION HOWEVER CONVICTION CAN LAWFULLY TAKE PLACE UNLESS
THE ACCUSED OBJECTS TO THE CHARGE AND IT IS NOT AMENDED )T CAN THEREFORE BE
SAIDTHATTHEACCUSEDISINJEOPARDYOFBEINGCONVICTEDONAMATERIALLYDEFECTIVE
CHARGE3HOULDHEORSHEBEACQUITTEDONTHEMERITSINTHESECIRCUMSTANCES THE
PLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITSHOULDBEUPHELD3EE-AKHUTLA 3!/ FORAN
EXAMPLE OF THE OPPOSITE SITUATION )N "ASSON 3! ## THE ACCUSED
DIDNOTSUCCEEDWITHHISARGUMENTTHATTHEQUASHINGOFSOMECHARGES ANDTHE
COURTHEARINGARGUMENTONTHEREASONSFORQUASHINGTHOSECHARGES WOULDOPEN
THEDOORTOAPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUIT SHOULDTHECHARGESBEREINTRODUCEDINANEW
TRIAL BECAUSEHEWASNEVERACQUITTEDONTHEMERITS ASHEHADNEVERPLEADEDON
THEQUASHEDCHARGES4HECOURTHELDASFOLLOWSAT;=
4HEREQUIREMENTTHATTHEPREVIOUSACQUITTALMUSTHAVEBEENONTHEMERITS ORTOPUT
ITDIFFERENTLY THATTHEACCUSEDMUSTHAVEBEENINJEOPARDYOFCONVICTION MEANSTHAT
IFTHEPREVIOUSPROSECUTIONWASVITIATEDBYIRREGULARITY THENITCANNOTFOUNDAPLEAOF
AUTREFOISACQUITINASUBSEQUENTPROSECUTION4HATISBECAUSETHEACCUSEDWASNOTAC

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
QUITTEDONTHEMERITSANDWASNEVERINJEOPARDYOFCONVICTIONBECAUSETHEPROCEEDINGS
WEREVITIATEDBYIRREGULARITY
3EEALSO"ASSON 3!#2## AT;=AND;=

)NTERMSOFSS AND WHEREADECISIONONAQUESTIONOFLAWRESERVED
HASBEENGIVENINFAVOUROFTHEPROSECUTOR THECOURTMAYORDERTHATPROCEEDINGS
BE REINSTATED AGAINST THE ACCUSED ON THE SAME OR DIFFERENT CHARGES 4HE COURT
POINTEDOUTTHATTHEQUESTIONISWHETHERTHESEPROVISIONSAREINCONFORMITYWITH
S M OF THE #ONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN ACCUSED PERSON HAS THE
RIGHTNOTTOBETRIEDFORANOFFENCEOFWHICHHEORSHEHASPREVIOUSLYBEENCON
VICTEDORACQUITTED(OWEVER WHENANACQUITTALWASBASEDONTHEWRONGANSWER
TO A LEGAL QUESTION A RETRIAL WOULD NOT INFRINGE S M )F AN ACQUITTAL WAS
BASEDONATRIALJUDGESFAILURETOCALLAWITNESSWHOSEEVIDENCEHEORSHETHOUGHT
WAS ESSENTIAL TO A JUST DECISION OF THE CASE THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO AN ERROR OF
LAWANDSUCHASERIOUSDEFECTINTHEPROCEEDINGSTHATITWOULDVITIATETHETRIAL
!CCORDINGLY THE ACCUSED HAD NOT BEEN IN JEOPARDY HIS ACQUITTAL WAS SET ASIDE
ANDTHEINSTITUTIONOFARETRIALBEFOREADIFFERENTBENCHORDERED$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAALV-TSHWENI 3!#23#!
4
HECONCEPTOFAlCOMPETENTCOURTm
4HEPLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITCANBESUSTAINEDEVENWHEREITISBASEDONTHEJUDG
MENTOFAFOREIGNCOURT0OKELA 3!% 4HECOURTINTHEFIRSTTRIAL
MUSTHAVEBEENCOMPETENTASTOITSCOMPOSITIONANDJURISDICTIONANDTHECOURT
MUSTHAVEHADTHEPOWERTOFINALLYABSOLVEORCONVICTTHEACCUSEDONTHECHARGE
ACOURTCONDUCTINGAMINIPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONDOESNOTHAVESUCHCOMPE
TENCY4HEPROCEDUREINTERMSOFSSEE#HAPTER ISNOTTOBEREGARDEDASTHE
BEGINNINGORPARTOFTHESUBSEQUENTTRIALBEFOREACOMPETENTCOURT3INGH
3!!
7KHSOHDRIAUTREFOISCONVICT
4HEESSENTIALSOFTHISPLEAOFAUTREFOISCONVICTARETHATTHEACCUSEDHASPREVIOUSLY
BEENCONVICTED
A OFTHESAMEOFFENCE
B BYACOMPETENTCOURT
C ONTHEMERITS
4HEELEMENTOF@ONTHEMERITSISSOMETIMESMENTIONED SOMEWHATSUPERFLUOUSLY
AS A PERSON IS NORMALLY CONVICTED ON THE MERITS 4HE ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN DIS
CUSSED ABOVE AND THE REQUISITES FOR THE PLEA OF AUTREFOIS CONVICT ARE THE SAME AS
THOSEOFAUTREFOISACQUITEXCEPTTHATTHEREQUIREMENTOFPREVIOUSLY@ACQUITTEDMUST
BEREPLACEDBYPREVIOUSLY@CONVICTED7HATISSTATEDABOVEAPPLIESMUTATISMUTAN
DISTOTHEPLEAOFAUTREFOISCONVICT/BVIOUSLYACONVICTIONANDANACQUITTALARENOT
THESAMEBUTBOTHCOULDBEBASEDONEITHERALEGALORAFACTUALDECISIONWHICH
COULDBERIGHTORWRONGINDECIDINGTHEMERITS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
6HFWLRQDQGWKHSOHDRIAUTREFOISACQUITRUAUTREFOISCONVICT
3ECTION PROVIDESTHATANACCUSEDWHOHASPLEADEDTOACHARGEISENTITLEDTO
DEMANDTHATHEORSHEBEACQUITTEDORCONVICTED4HISMAYRESULTINANACQUITTAL
@ONTHEMERITSEVENIFTHE3TATEDIDNOTLEADANYEVIDENCESEETHEREFERENCETO
-THETWA&ORINSTANCE THISMAYHAPPENIFTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADED THEREHAVE
BEEN SEVERAL POSTPONEMENTS THE 3TATE WITNESSES ARE STILL NOT AVAILABLE AND THE
COURTREFUSESAFURTHERPOSTPONEMENTINTHEREGULAREXERCISEOFITSDISCRETION BUT
NOTETHEPROVISIONSOFS!REGARDINGREFUSALOFFURTHERPOSTPONEMENTS WHICH
REQUIREANENQUIRYTOBEHELDBYTHECOURTWITHREGARDTOTHEREASONSFORTHEDELAY
BEFOREREFUSINGFURTHERPOSTPONEMENTS 4HEACCUSEDISACQUITTED@ONTHEMERITS
THEREBEINGSIMPLYNOEVIDENCEAGAINSTHIMORHER
4HEABOVESCENARIOCANOCCURONLYIFTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADEDBEFOREATRIBU
NALWHICHHASTHEPOWERTOFINDHIMORHERGUILTYORNOTGUILTYONAPARTICULAR
CHARGE IFTHETRIBUNALISHEARINGTHEACCUSEDWITHTHISINMIND)NOTHERWORDS
THEACCUSEDMUSTHAVEBEEN@INJEOPARDY3OMEOFTHEPLEAPROCEEDINGSWHICHWE
HAVEDEALTWITHDONOTCONFORMTOTHEAFOREGOINGANDCONSEQUENTLYCANNOTBE
USEDASASPRINGBOARDFORTHEPLEASOFAUTREFOISACQUITORAUTREFOISCONVICT FOREXAM
PLE APLEAINAMAGISTRATESCOURTONACHARGEJUSTICIABLEINASUPERIORCOURTS
ANDTHEEQUIVALENTPROCEDURERELATINGTOTHEREGIONALCOURTSS!n$ )FAN
ACCUSEDPLEADSNOTGUILTYINAMAGISTRATESCOURTINTERMSOFS! ANDISCOM
MITTEDFORTRIALINTHEREGIONALCOURTINTERMSOFS$ BUTTHECASEISWITHDRAWN
IN THE REGIONAL COURT AND THE MATTER IS SENT BACK FOR TRIAL IN THE MAGISTRATES
COURT APLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITSHOULDNOTSUCCEEDINTHELAST MENTIONEDCOURT
4HISISSIMPLYSO FIRST BECAUSENOEVIDENCEHASBEENLEDDURINGANYOFTHESEPRO
CEEDINGS ANDSECONDLY BECAUSEANYCOURTPRESIDINGINANYPRE TRIALEXAMINATION
DOESNOTHAVETHEJURISDICTIONTOCONDUCTTHEHEARINGSTOFINALITY IETOAVERDICT
4HE$00REMAINSDOMINUSLITISINDECIDINGTHECHARGEAFTERTHEEXAMINATION4HE
POSITIONAFTERCONDUCTINGAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONINTERMSOFSSnMIGHT
BEVIEWEDDIFFERENTLYBUTISDEBATABLEASPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONSAREALSONOT
TRIALS(OWEVER AVIABLEARGUMENTCOULDBESETFORTHONCETHEACCUSEDHASBEEN
INFORMEDTHATTHE$00DECLINEDTOPROSECUTEANDTHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDAGAIN A
PLEAOFAUTREFOISACQUITMIGHTSUCCEEDIFTHEACCUSEDCOULDSUCCESSFULLYRELYONTHE
CONSTITUTIONALPROTECTIONINS M OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDARGUETHATHEOR
SHEWASINJEOPARDYOFACONVICTIONDURINGTHEPROCEEDINGSBUTACQUITTEDONTHE
MERITSHEORSHEWASDISCHARGEDAFTEREVIDENCEHADBEENLED3EE!TTORNEY 'ENERAL
%ASTERN#APEV,INDA 3!% ,UBBE 3!4 3INGH
3!# (ENDRIX 3!$ 3INGH 3!!
:KLFKSOHDLVDSSURSULDWHWRSOHD"
7HICHPLEA AUTREFOISACQUITORAUTREFOISCONVICT WOULDBETHEAPPROPRIATEONETOBE
RAISEDINASECONDTRIAL SHOULDTHEACCUSEDBETRIEDAGAINFORTHESAMEOFFENCESIN
THEFOLLOWINGTHREEINSTANCES
I #ONVICTIONFOLLOWINGTHEFIRSTTRIAL
!CONVICTIONMAYFOLLOWBYWAYOFTHEFIRSTCOURTSVERDICTORMAYBECONFIRMED
AFTERANAPPEALORREVIEWAGAINSTTHECONVICTIONISDISMISSED4HELATTERMEANS

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
THATTHEACCUSEDSAPPEALORREVIEWAUTOMATICREVIEWORREVIEW INSTITUTEDBYTHE
ACCUSED AGAINST HIS OR HER CONVICTION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL AND THE CONVICTION IS
UPHELDBYTHEAPPEALORREVIEWCOURT!UTREFOISCONVICTWOULDBETHECORRECTPLEA
INTHESECONDTRIALINTHEEVENTOFTHEACCUSEDBEINGTRIEDAGAINFORTHESAMEOF
FENCE3EESBELOW ANDS )FTHECOURTOFAPPEALSETTHECONVICTIONASIDE
THEACCUSEDMAYPLEAAUTREFOISACQUITSHOULDTHEACCUSEDBETRIEDAGAINATASECOND
TRIALDEPENDINGONPROVINGTHEELEMENTSSETOUTABOVE
II !
CQUITTALFOLLOWINGTHEFIRSTTRIALORFOLLOWINGADECISIONBYASUPERIORCOURT
ONAPPEAL
!NACQUITTALMAYFOLLOWBYWAYOFTHEFIRSTCOURTSVERDICTORWHERETHE3TATEON
LEGALGROUNDSORONARESERVATIONOFAQUESTIONOFLAWAPPEALSAGAINSTTHEACQUIT
TALANDSUCCEEDS4HEACCUSEDWHOISCHARGEDAGAINWITHTHESAMEOFFENCEINTHE
SECONDTRIALWILLNOTSUCCEEDWITHEITHEROFTHETWOPLEAS ASTHECOURTOFAPPEAL
DOESNOTMAKEAFINDINGOFACONVICTIONORACQUITTALBUTMAKESAFINDINGONTHE
LAW4HEACCUSEDMAYPLEADAUTREFOISACQUITBECAUSEHEORSHEWAS@ACQUITTEDATTHE
FIRSTTRIALANDNOTCONVICTEDONAPPEALORREVIEW(OWEVER HISORHERCHANCESOF
SUCCESSWOULDBESLIM BECAUSEHEORSHEWASNEVERINJEOPARDYTOBETRIEDTWICE
BASEDONTHEFIRSTCOURTSINCORRECTAPPLICATIONANDACQUITTALONTHELAWSS
B AND
3ECTION OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPROVIDES
7HEREAQUESTIONOFLAWHASBEENRESERVEDONTHEAPPLICATIONOFAPROSECUTORINTHECASE
OFANACQUITTAL ANDTHECOURTOFAPPEALHASGIVENADECISIONINFAVOUROFTHEPROSECUTOR
THECOURTOFAPPEALMAYORDERTHATSUCHOFTHESTEPSREFERREDTOINSECTIONBETAKEN
ASTHECOURTMAYDIRECT%MPHASISADDED
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTSETSOUTGROUNDSONWHICHANEWTRIAL
MAYBEINSTITUTED SUCHASTHETRIALCOURTSLACKOFJURISDICTION THATTHEINDICT
MENTORCHARGESHEETWASDEFECTIVEORINVALID ORATECHNICALIRREGULARITYORDEFECT
INTHEPROCEEDINGSANEWTRIALMAYTHENBEINSTITUTEDASIFTHEACCUSEDHADNOT
PREVIOUSLYBEENARRAIGNED TRIEDANDCONVICTED
III 7HENTHECOURTOFAPPEALFOUNDTHATTHEIRREGULARITYOFTHEFIRSTTRIAL
VITIATEDTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHEFIRSTTRIAL
3EEABOVEFORTHEMEANINGOF@ONTHEMERITSANDSEE"ASSONABOVE$EPENDING
ONTHEGRAVITYOFTHEIRREGULARITYANDWHETHERORNOTTHEIRREGULARITYVITIATEDTHE
PROCEEDINGS THEPLEAWOULDTHENFOLLOWTHEDECISIONBYTHECOURTOFAPPEALOR
REVIEWGROSSIRREGULARITY ORIRREGULARITY BUTMERITSNEVERTHELESSASSESSED
0
ARDONBYTHE0RESIDENT
4HEACCUSEDMAYPLEADTHATHEORSHEHASRECEIVEDAPARDONFROMTHE0RESIDENT
FORTHEOFFENCECHARGEDSE 4HE0RESIDENTHASPOWERSVESTEDINHIMORHER
BY THE #ONSTITUTION AND LEGISLATION INCLUDING THOSE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE
FUNCTIONS OF HEAD OF STATE AND HEAD OF THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVES OF THE
#ONSTITUTION4HESEPOWERSINCLUDEPARDONINGORREPRIEVINGOFFENDERSANDREMIT
TINGANYFINES PENALTIESORFORFEITURESS J

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
0LEATOTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHECOURT
4HISPLEAINTERMSOFS F CANNOTBERAISEDANDDECIDEDASANOBJECTIONTO
THEJURISDICTIONOFTHECOURTPRIORTOTHEPLEAPROCEEDINGS ASINDOINGSOTHECOURT
ISASSUMINGJURISDICTIONINCIRCUMSTANCESWHEREITDOESNOTHAVEJURISDICTION
-AMASE 3!#23#!
3UCH A PLEA MAY BE BASED ON AN ALLEGATION THAT THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED
OUTSIDE THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OR THAT SOME CONDITION PRECEDENT
NECESSARYTOCONFERJURISDICTIONONTHECOURTHASNOTBEENSATISFIEDFOREXAMPLE
WHERETHEAUTHORITYOFTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTTOTRYCERTAINMILITARYOFFENCESWAS
DERIVEDBYLAWFROMTHEWRITTENDIRECTIONOFAMILITARYOFFICIAL ACONVICTIONWAS
QUASHEDINTHEABSENCEOFPROOFTHATSUCHADIRECTIONHADBEENGIVEN/#ARROLL
%#$
!PLEAOFDIPLOMATICIMMUNITYPRESUMABLYALSOFALLSUNDERTHISSUBSECTION
0ENROSE 3!. AT#0RESCRIPTIONOFANOFFENCEWOULDPROBABLYALSOBE
RAISEDBYTHISPLEA
)FDURINGATRIALITAPPEARSTHATTHEACCUSEDISBEFOREACOURTBYWHICHHEORSHE
ISNOTPROPERLYTRIABLE THEACCUSEDISNOTBYREASONTHEREOFENTITLEDTOANACQUITTAL
S BUTTHECOURTMAYATTHEREQUESTOFTHEACCUSEDDIRECTTHATHEORSHEBE
TRIEDBEFORETHEPROPERCOURTANDREMANDHIMORHERTOSUCHCOURT)FTHEACCUSED
FAILSTOREQUESTREMOVAL THETRIALMUSTPROCEEDANDTHEVERDICTANDJUDGMENTARE
VALID3EESAND-EYERS!$
4HISSECTIONDOESNOTAFFECTTHEPLEATOTHEJURISDICTIONASAFFECTINGTHERIGHTOF
THECOURTTOTRYACASEWHICHISBYLAWPLACEDBEYONDITSJURISDICTION)FTHEPLEA
TOTHEJURISDICTIONISDISMISSED THECOURTWILLNOTGRANTANINTERDICTRESTRAINING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE 4HE PROPER COURSE FOR THE
ACCUSEDTOFOLLOWISTOAPPEAL,AWRENCEV!2-*OHANNESBURG43"ASSON
"#,2## AT;=)N$E"EERV4HE3TATE;=3#!23! THE
KMRULEWASINCORRECTLYAPPLIEDTOEXTENDTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
BEYONDITSORDINARYTERRITORIALJURISDICTIONWITHINTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA
7HENTHEACCUSEDRAISEDAPLEAAGAINSTTHE(IGH#OURTSJURISDICTION THECOURT
INSTEADOFADJOURNINGTHECASETOTHECOURTHAVINGJURISDICTION ASITWASOBLIGED
TODOINTERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT DISMISSEDTHEOBJECTION
/N APPEAL AGAINST THE DISMISSAL BEFORE THE TRIAL THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL
UPHELD THE APPEAL AND PLEA AND ADJOURNED THE MATTER TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT
HAVINGJURISDICTION
$ISCHARGEOFWITNESSFROMPROSECUTION
3ECTION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT DEALS WITH THE IMMUNITY ACCORDED
TOACCOMPLICESWHOGIVESATISFACTORYEVIDENCEFORTHE3TATEINCRIMINALPROCEED
INGS)NTERMSOFTHISSECTION IFTHEPROSECUTORINFORMSTHECOURTTHATANYPERSON
CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE 3TATE WILL BE REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
WHICHMIGHTINCRIMINATEHIMORHER THECOURTMUSTINFORMSUCHWITNESSTHAT
HEORSHEWILLBEOBLIGEDTOANSWERSUCHQUESTIONSBUTTHATIFHEANSWERS@FRANKLY
AND HONESTLY HE OR SHE WILL BE DISCHARGED FROM LIABILITY TO PROSECUTION )F THE
WITNESSDOESINFACTANSWERTHEQUESTIONSPUTTOHIMORHERFRANKLYANDHONESTLY
THECOURTMUSTDISCHARGEHIMORHERFROMPROSECUTION#F7AITE 3!

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
/ "OSMAN 3!/ 3ULIMANV.ATIONAL$IRECTORATEOF3PECIAL/PERATIONS

3!#27## !NACCOMPLICESHOULDNOTBEGRANTEDADISCHARGEFROM
PROSECUTIONDIRECTLYAFTERTHECOMPLETIONOFHISORHEREVIDENCEANDBEFORETHE
CONCLUSIONOFTHECASE-NYAMANA 3!#2!
4HISSECTIONCONSTITUTESANEXCEPTIONTOTHERULETHATAWITNESSINCRIMINALPRO
CEEDINGSMAYNOTBECOMPELLEDTOANSWERANYQUESTIONWHICHMIGHTEXPOSEHIM
ORHERTOACRIMINALCHARGES&ORADISCUSSIONONTHEPROCEDUREINRESPECT
OFTHEENQUIRYRELATINGTOTHEWITNESSINDEMNITYORIMMUNITYFROMPROSECUTION
SEE+UYLER 3!#2&"
,ACKOFAUTHORITYORTITLEOFTHEPROSECUTORTOPROSECUTE
4HISPLEARELATESTOTHERIGHTORAUTHORITYORLOCUSSTANDIOFTHEPROSECUTORTOAP
PEAR AS A PROSECUTOR IN THE CASE 3EE .DLULI V 7ILKEN ./ 3! ! AT
#n$ )T CANNOT BE RAISED IF THE OBJECTION IS AGAINST THE PROSECUTORS ALLEGED
BIAS0ORRITTV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#23#! 4HE
.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSISEMPOWEREDONLYTOAUTHORISEPROSECU
TIONSINCERTAININSTANCES FOREXAMPLE UNDERTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED#RIME
!CTOFANDTHE)MPLEMENTATIONOFTHE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL
#RIMINAL#OURT!CTOF#LEARLY SUCHAPLEAISAVAILABLEIFTHEPROSECUTOR
HASNOTBEENPROPERLYAPPOINTED ANDINTHATCASETHEPROCEEDINGSAREANULLITY
!NADVOCATEAPPEARINGONBEHALFOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMAYBE
ASKEDFORHISORHERDELEGATIONTOPROSECUTE
,ISPENDENS
4HELISORCASEPENDINGINANOTHERCOURTAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDMUSTBEACRIMINAL
CASE4HISPLEAISNOTRECOGNISEDINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT BUTTHEGENERAL
POWERSOFPOSTPONEMENTOFTHETRIALCANBEEXERCISEDONSUCHAPLEA WHICHCAN
NOTHAVEANYTHINGBUTADELAYINGEFFECT)FTHEOTHERTRIALISCOMPLETEDANDAPLEA
OFAUTREFOISACQUITORCONVICTDOESNOTTHENBECOMEEFFECTIVE THEFACTTHATTHEOTHER
TRIALTOOKPLACEWILLBEIRRELEVANTATTHETRIALWHERETHEPLEAOFLISPENDENSHASBEEN
RAISED#F,UBISI 3!4 -OTSEPA 3!/ 3EEALSO-AYISA
3!4
0LEASINTHECASEOFCRIMINALDEFAMATION
4HESE PLEAS ARE THE SAME AS THE DEFENCES IN A CIVIL CASE SUCH AS TRUTH OF THE
DEFAMATORYMATTERANDPUBLICBENEFITTHATTHEMATTERSHOULDBEPUBLISHED BUT
SUBJECTTOTHEREMARKSALREADYMADE3ECTIONDOESNOTCOVERANYJUSTIFICATION
ASPARTOFTHEPLEASUCHASFAIRCOMMENTORWORDSSPOKENINJEST.OTETHATTHERE
ISAPOSSIBILITYTHATCRIMINALDEFAMATIONMAYBEREMOVEDASACRIME WHICHCOULD
HAVEANIMPACTONTHISPLEA
0LEAASTOANORDEROFCOURTONANUNREASONABLEDELAYINATRIAL
)N TERMS OF S ! A COURT BEFORE WHICH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING
MUST INVESTIGATE ANY DELAY IN THE COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH APPEARS TO
THECOURTTOBEUNREASONABLEANDWHICHCOULDCAUSESUBSTANTIALPREJUDICETOTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PROSECUTION THEACCUSEDORHISORHERLEGALADVISER THE3TATEORAWITNESS4HE

COURT MUST CONSIDER A NUMBER OF FACTORS SUCH AS THE REASONS ADVANCED FOR THE
DELAY WHETHERANYBODYISTOBLAME THEDURATIONFORTHEDELAY THEEFFECTOFTHE
DELAYONTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEORTHEACCUSEDORTHEWITNESSES ANDTHE
ADVERSEEFFECTSIFTHEPROSECUTIONISSTOPPEDORDISCONTINUED!LONGDELAYISNOT
PERSETOBEREGARDEDASANINFRINGEMENTOFTHERIGHTOFANACCUSEDTOAFAIRTRIAL
3YSTEMICDELAYSMERITSPECIALATTENTIONBECAUSETHESEFAILURESAREPROBABLYMORE
EXCUSABLETHANCASESOFINDIVIDUALDERELICTIONOFDUTY.ONETHELESS THERECOMES
ATIMEWHENSYSTEMICCAUSESCANNOLONGERBEREGARDEDASEXCULPATORYSEE4HE
$00AND-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTV0HILLIPS ;=
:!3#! 3EPTEMBER 4RIAL RELATED PREJUDICE MUST BE ESTABLISHED
:ANNERV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG 3!#23#! 4HE
NATUREOFTHEPREJUDICESUFFEREDBYTHEACCUSEDFROMINCARCERATIONTORESTRICTIVE
BAIL CONDITIONS AND TRIAL RELATED PREJUDICE EVEN CARRIED THROUGH TO MILD FORMS
OF ANXIETY SUFFERED BY THE ACCUSED OR EVEN THE COMPLAINANTMUST BE CONSID
ERED)N"OTHMAV%LS 3!## THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHADTODEAL
WITHADELAYOFYEARSBYAVICTIM BEFORELODGINGACOMPLAINTWITHTHEPOLICE
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTCONSIDEREDTHATINTHEBALANCINGOFTHEVARIOUSFACTORS
RELATING TO PREJUDICE TO THE ACCUSED THE NATURE OF THE OFFENCE WAS A NECESSARY
COUNTERWEIGHTTOBETAKENINTOACCOUNT)TREFERREDWITHAPPROVALTOTHEDECISION
IN:ANNERV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG 3!#23#! IN
WHICHITWASCONSIDEREDIMPORTANTTOHAVEREGARDTOTHOSEDISTRESSEDBYTHEHOR
RORSOFTHEALLEGEDOFFENCE)N6AN(EERDENV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
3!#23#! INANAPPLICATIONFORPERMANENTSTAYOFPROSECUTION
THECOMPLAINTWASTHATTHERIGHTTOHAVETHEACCUSEDSTRIALBEGINANDCONCLUDE
WITHOUTREASONABLEDELAYHADBEENINFRINGED4HETIMELINEANDTHEREASONSFOR
DELAYSANDPOSTPONEMENTSAREOFPARTICULARIMPORTANCEINSUCHANAPPLICATION)N
THISMATTERMANYYEARSOFPOSTPONEMENTSANDDELAYSDISTINGUISHEDTHEHISTORYOF
THECASE3UBSTANTIALANDMATERIALPARTSOFTHEDELAYSWERECAUSEDBYTHEINACTION
WHERETHE3TATEWASIRRESPONSIBLYLAXININVESTIGATINGTHECASEANDTHEPROSECU
TORSINVOLVEDONBEHALFOFTHE.$00WEREINDECISIVEINFINALISINGTHECHARGESHEET
ANDMOVINGFORWARDWITHTHEPROSECUTION)NSTRESSINGTHATDECISIONSINMATTERS
OFTHISKINDAREFACT SPECIFIC THECOURTFOUNDTHATEVENTHOUGHTHERELIEFSOUGHT
WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE
#ONSTITUTIONALRIGHTINVOLVEDWASAPERMANENTSTAYOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
)FTHECOURTFINDSTHEDELAYTOBEUNREASONABLE THECOURTMAYORDERINTHECASE
WHERETHEACCUSEDHASNOTYETPLEADED THATTHECASEBESTRUCKOFFTHEROLLANDTHE
PROSECUTIONNOTBERESUMEDORINSTITUTEDDENOVOWITHOUTTHEWRITTENINSTRUCTION
OFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS)FTHEACCUSEDISCHARGEDAGAIN HEORSHE
MAY RAISE A SPECIAL PLEA THAT THE TRIAL WASSTAYEDBYANORDEROFCOURTMADEIN
TERMSOFS! C )FTHEACCUSEDHASALREADYPLEADED THECOURTMAYREFUSEFUR
THERPOSTPONEMENTOFTHEPROCEEDINGSS! A 3ECTION! D PROVIDES
THATWHERETHEACCUSEDHASPLEADEDTOTHECHARGEANDTHE3TATEORTHEDEFENCE AS
THECASEMAYBE ISUNABLETOPROCEEDWITHTHECASEORREFUSESTODOSO THECOURT
MAYORDERTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSBECONTINUEDANDDISPOSEDOFASIFTHECASEFOR
THEPROSECUTIONORTHEDEFENCE ASTHECASEMAYBE HADBEENCLOSED!NORDERIN
TERMSOFS! D ISAPPEALABLEBYTHEAFFECTEDPARTY!NORDERCONTEMPLATED

#(!04%2r !22!)'.-%.4!.$0,%!/&!.!##53%$
INS! A WHERETHEACCUSEDHASPLEADEDTOTHECHARGE ANDANORDERCON

TEMPLATEDINS! D SHALLNOTBEISSUEDUNLESSEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES
EXISTANDALLOTHERATTEMPTSTOSPEEDUPTHEPROCESSHAVEFAILEDANDTHEDEFENCEOR
THE3TATE ASTHECASEMAYBE HASGIVENNOTICEBEFOREHANDTHATITINTENDSTOAPPLY
FORSUCHANORDERS! A )N-OKOENAV4HE3TATE;=:!3#! THECOURT
STRESSED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF S ! A ARE CLEARLY PEREMPTORY AND THAT
S! A REQUIRESTHE3TATEORAPARTYTOGIVENOTICE ANDNOTTHECOURT4HEPRO
VISIONSOFS!MUSTBESTRICTLYINTERPRETEDINVIEWOFTHESERIOUSCONSEQUENCES
OFSUCHANORDERANDITSEFFECTUPONTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALASENVISAGEDINS
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION)TISESSENTIALTHATPROPERNOTICEASREQUIREDBYTHESECTIONBE
GIVENTOTHEOTHERPARTY SOASTOENABLESUCHPARTYTOPREPAREINADVANCE)NSUCH
ANINSTANCE THECOURTWILLBEASKEDTOMAKEANORDERTHATTHECASEOFTHATPARTY
BECLOSED!SAGAINSTTHIS INTHECASEWHERETHEAFFECTEDPARTYSTILLPOSSESSESAN
OPTIONWHETHERTOCLOSEHISORHERCASEORNOT ANDMAYDECIDENOTTOCLOSEHISOR
HERCASEANDTOLEADADDITIONALEVIDENCENOTRELATEDTOTHEISSUETHATCAUSEDTHE
DELAY THEELECTIONREMAINSINTHEHANDSOFTHEACCUSEDnWHEREASINTHEABOVE
SITUATION THATELECTIONISREMOVEDANDRESIDESWITHTHECOURT
!
&4%20,%!$).' !##53%$%.4)4,%$4/6%2$)#4
/NCEANACCUSEDHASPLEADED HEORSHEISENTITLEDTODEMANDTHATHEORSHEBE
EITHERACQUITTEDORFOUNDGUILTY EXCEPTINGWHERESPECIALLYPROVIDEDFORINTHE!CT
ORINANYOTHERLAWS 4HISSUBSECTIONWILLAPPLYONLYWHERETHECOURTAS
ITWASCONSTITUTEDATTHETIMETHATTHEPLEAWASENTEREDREMAINSSOCONSTITUTED
ANDRETAINSITSLEGALAUTHORITYUPTOTHETIMEWHENITPASSESSENTENCE4HEFOLLOW
INGINSTANCESAREEXAMPLESOFWHENANACCUSEDWILLNOTBEENTITLEDTOACQUITTAL
ORCONVICTION
7HERETHEMAGISTRATEHASRECUSEDHIMSELFFROMTHETRIAL0UNSHONV7ISE./
3!. -AGUBANEV6ANDER-ERWE./ 3!. 3ULIMAN
3!!
7HERESEPARATIONOFTRIALSTAKESPLACES
7HEREATRIALISREFERREDTOAREGIONALCOURT ORISCONVERTEDINTOAPREPARATORY
EXAMINATIONSSAND
7HERETHEMAGISTRATEDIES RESIGNS ORISDISMISSED-HLANGA 3!
4 )NTHISCASEITWASHELDTHAT ALSO WHERETHEMAGISTRATEISTRANSFERREDTHE
ACCUSEDISNOTENTITLEDTOAVERDICT3EEALSO$E+OKER 3!/ -AK
GETLE 3!" &ORACONTRARYDECISION SEE'WALA 3!
. WHEREITWASHELDTHATSINCEAMAGISTRATEWHOHASBEENTRANSFERREDMAY
BY ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES BE PLACED IN A POSITION TO FINALISE CASES WHICH
HAD BEEN INITIATED BEFORE HIM OR HER ANOTHER MAGISTRATE IS NOT COMPETENT
TOHEARTHECASEDENOVO!TRANSFERISNOTEQUIVALENTTODEATH RECUSALORDIS
MISSAL4HEREFORE S APPLIES)N4LAILANE 3!4 'WALAWAS
FOLLOWEDINTHISCONNECTION AND-HLANGAREJECTED)NCAPACITYOFAMAGISTRATE
PERSISTINGFORACONSIDERABLEPERIODISTREATEDINTHESAMEWAYASDEATHOFA
MAGISTRATE 4HE ACCUSED MAY BE TRIED DE NOVO BEFORE ANOTHER MAGISTRATE
-AKONI 3! 2 7HERE A MAGISTRATE RESIGNED THE CASE IS TO BE
RESUMEDBEFOREANOTHERMAGISTRATEDENOVOWITHOUTTHENEEDFORANORDERTO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THISEFFECTFROMANOTHERCOURT0OLELO 3!#2.# )NTHISCASE

OFNON AVAILABILITYOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICER FORWHATEVERREASON WHERETHEAC
CUSED HAS PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN TENDERED THE CASE
MUSTPROCEEDBEFOREANOTHERJUDICIALOFFICERS
7HEREITAPPEARSTHATTHEACCUSEDISBEFORETHEWRONGCOURT
7HERETHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMAKESANAPPLICATIONINTERMSOF
STHATAPRIVATEPROSECUTIONBESTOPPEDANDTHATTHEACCUSEDBEPROSECUTED
DENOVOBYTHE3TATE
7HERE AN ENQUIRY IS HELD IN TERMS OF THE 0REVENTION OF AND 4REATMENT FOR
3UBSTANCE!BUSE!CTOFFORMERLYTHE0REVENTIONAND4REATMENTOF
$RUG$EPENDENCY!CT REPEALEDBY!CTOF THECRIMINALTRIALIS
STOPPED WHETHERBEFOREORAFTERCONVICTION ANDTHEPROCEEDINGSATTHETRIAL
BECOMENULLORWHEREACHILDOFFENDERWHOISINNEEDOFCAREANDPROTECTION
HASBEENREFERREDTOACHILDRENSCOURT THECOURTMUSTSTOPTHEPROCEEDINGS
SREADWITHSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
)F A COURT FINDS THAT AN ACCUSED AFTER HE OR SHE HAS PLEADED TO THE CHARGE
BYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITYISNOTCAPABLEOFUNDER
STANDINGTHEPROCEEDINGSSOASTOMAKEAPROPERDEFENCE THECOURTWILLMAKE
AFINDINGEITHERINTERMSOFS A I ORII ANDTHEACCUSEDWILLNOTBEEN
TITLEDTOBEACQUITTEDORCONVICTED)FTHECOURTMAKESSUCHAFINDINGAFTERTHE
ACCUSEDHASBEENCONVICTEDBUTBEFORESENTENCEISPASSED THECOURTMUSTSET
ASIDETHECONVICTION ANDIFTHEACCUSEDHASPLEADEDGUILTY ITSHALLBEDEEMED
THATHEORSHEHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTYS B !FTERRECOVERY THEACCUSED
MAYAGAINBECHARGEDANDTRIED
7HEREANACCUSEDHASPLEADEDINTERMSOFS(ENDRIX 3!$
3INGH 3!#
7HERETHEPROSECUTIONHASBEENSTOPPEDBYTHEPROSECUTORWITHOUTTHERE
QUIREDCONSENTOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSORANYPERSONAUTHO
RISEDTHERETOBYTHE$00INTERMSOFSB 0ROKUREUR GENERAAL 6ENDAV-AG
ISTRAAT3TREEKAFDELING 3!6 4HEQUESTIONOFWHETHERANACCUSED
WHOISACQUITTEDINTERMSOFS MAYBERETRIEDMUSTBEANSWEREDONTHE
BASISOFTHEPRINCIPLESRELATINGTOAUTREFOISACQUIT
7HERE THE ACCUSED PLEADS THAT THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY
THECASE ORWHEREAPLEAOFNOTGUILTYISENTEREDBYTHECOURTONBEHALFOFAN
ACCUSEDS

#(!04%2
-ISCELLANEOUSMATTERSRELATING
TOTHETRIAL
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
/0%.*534)#%7(/-!9!44%.$4(%42)!,
4HECONTENTOFTHEOPENJUSTICEPRINCIPLE
'UIDELINESONAUDIOANDTELEVISEDBROADCASTINGOFTRIAL
COURTPROCEEDINGS
2ESTRICTIONSONOREXCEPTIONSTOTHEOPENCOURT
PRINCIPLE
7)4.%33%3
3ECURINGATTENDANCEOFWITNESSES
2ECALCITRANTWITNESS
42)!,/&-%.4!,,9$)3!",%$0%23/.3
42)!,/&$25' !$$)#4%$0%23/.3
!$*/52.-%.40/340/.%-%.4
0OSTPONEMENTTHROUGHAUDIOVISUALLINKAGE
30%%$942)!,
3EE BELOW
G TOHAVETHEIRTRIALBEGINANDCONCLUDEWITHOUTUNREASONABLEDELAY
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr#HILDREN
c
!CHILDmSBESTINTERESTSAREOFPARAMOUNTIMPORTANCEINEVERYMATTERCONCERNINGTHE
CHILD
3EE BELOW


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
D !NYCHILDWHOSEMATTERHASBEENREFERREDTOTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTINTERMSOF
SECTION MUSTAPPEARBEFOREACOURTWITHTHEREQUISITEJURISDICTIONTOBE
DEALTWITHINTERMSOFTHIS#HAPTER
E !CHILDJUSTICECOURTMUSTAPPLYTHERELEVANTPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCE
DURE!CTRELATINGTOPLEAANDTRIALOFACCUSEDPERSONS ASEXTENDEDORAMENDED
BYTHEPROVISIONSASSETOUTINTHIS#HAPTERAND#HAPTER
D THIS!CTINRESPECTOFTHECHILDAND
E THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINRESPECTOFTHEADULT
"EFORE PLEA IN A CHILD JUSTICE COURT THE PRESIDING OFFICER MUST IN THE PRESCRIBED
MANNERr
D INFORMTHECHILDOFTHENATUREOFTHEALLEGATIONSAGAINSTHIMORHER
E INFORMTHECHILDOFHISORHERRIGHTSAND
F EXPLAINTOTHECHILDTHEFURTHERPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINTERMSOFTHIS!CT
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTMUST DURINGTHEPROCEEDINGS ENSURETHATTHEBESTINTERESTSOF
THECHILDAREUPHELD ANDTOTHISENDr
D MAYELICITADDITIONALINFORMATIONFROMANYPERSONINVOLVEDINTHEPROCEEDINGS
AND
E MUST DURING ALL STAGES OF THE TRIAL ESPECIALLY DURING CROSS EXAMINATION OF A
.OPERSONMAYBEPRESENTATANYSITTINGOFACHILDJUSTICECOURT UNLESSHISORHER
PRESENCEISNECESSARYINCONNECTIONWITHTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHECHILDJUSTICECOURT
ORTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERHASGRANTEDHIMORHERPERMISSIONTOBEPRESENT
3ECTION OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTAPPLIESWITHTHECHANGESREQUIREDBY
THECONTEXTREGARDINGTHEPUBLICATIONOFINFORMATION
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0OSTPONEMENTOFPRELIMINARYINQUIRY
4HE INQUIRY MAGISTRATE MAY SUBJECT TO SUBSECTIONS AND POSTPONE THE
PROCEEDINGSOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYFORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGHOURSr
D IN THE CASE WHERE THE CHILD IS IN DETENTION AND THE PROSECUTOR INDICATES THAT
DIVERSIONISBEINGCONSIDEREDBUTANASSESSMENTHASNOTBEENDONEANDISRE
QUIRED
E IFITISNECESSARYINORDERTOr
I SECURETHEATTENDANCEOFAPERSONESSENTIALFORTHECONCLUSIONOFTHEIN
QUIRY
II OBTAININFORMATIONESSENTIALFORTHECONCLUSIONOFTHEINQUIRY
III ESTABLISHTHEVIEWSOFTHEVICTIMREGARDINGDIVERSIONANDTHEDIVERSIONOP
TIONBEINGCONSIDERED
IV MAKEARRANGEMENTSINRESPECTOFADIVERSIONOPTION
V FINDALTERNATIVESTODETENTIONOR
VI ASSESSTHECHILD WHERENOASSESSMENTHASPREVIOUSLYBEENUNDERTAKENOR
F FORTHEPURPOSESOFFURTHERINVESTIGATIONOFTHEMATTER

#(!04%2r -)3#%,,!.%/53-!44%232%,!4).'4/4(%42)!,
4HE PROCEEDINGS OF A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY MAY BE POSTPONED FOR A FURTHER PERIOD
NOT EXCEEDING HOURS IN ADDITION TO THE PERIOD REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION IF
THEPOSTPONEMENTISLIKELYTOINCREASETHEPROSPECTSOFDIVERSION AFTERWHICHTHE
PRELIMINARYINQUIRY IFITHASNOTBEENCONCLUDEDMUST SUBJECTTOSUBSECTION BE
CLOSEDANDTHEPROSECUTORMUSTREFERTHEMATTERTOACHILDJUSTICECOURTTOBEDEALT
WITHINTERMSOF#HAPTER
)F THE PROCEEDINGS OF A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY ARE POSTPONED IN TERMS OF SUBSECTION
F INORDERTONOTEACONFESSIONORANADMISSIONORHOLDANIDENTITYPARADEORA
POINTING OUT THEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMUSTINFORMTHECHILDOFTHERIGHTTOHAVEAPAR
ENT ANAPPROPRIATEADULT GUARDIANORALEGALREPRESENTATIVEPRESENTDURINGTHOSE
PROCEEDINGS
!NINQUIRYMAGISTRATEMAYPOSTPONETHEPROCEEDINGSOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYFORA
PERIODNOTEXCEEDINGDAYSr
D IF A PROBATION OFFICER HAS IN TERMS OF SECTION J RECOMMENDED THAT A
FURTHERANDMOREDETAILEDASSESSMENTOFTHECHILDBEUNDERTAKENORMAKESA
RECOMMENDATIONTOTHATEFFECTDURINGTHECOURSEOFTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYAND
INQUIRYMAGISTRATEISSATISFIEDTHATTHEREAREREASONSJUSTIFYINGSUCHANASSESS
MENTOR
E IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE WRITTEN INDICATION FROM THE $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSE
CUTIONSHAVINGJURISDICTIONFORTHEDIVERSIONOFTHEMATTERINTERMSOFSECTION

4HEPROCEEDINGSOFAPRELIMINARYINQUIRYMAYBEPOSTPONEDFORAPERIODDETERMINED
BYTHEINQUIRYMAGISTRATEINTHECASEWHEREr
D THECHILDISINNEEDOFMEDICALTREATMENTFORILLNESS INJURYORSEVEREPSYCHOLOGI
CALTRAUMAOR
E THECHILDHASBEENREFERREDFORADECISIONRELATINGTOMENTALILLNESSORDEFECTIN
TERMSOFSECTIONOROFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
3ECTION G OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTAPPLIESINRELATIONTOTHEPERIODOF
HOURSASPROVIDEDFORINTHISSECTION
3EEAND BELOW
/0%.*534)#%7(/-!9!44%.$4(%42)!,
4HECONTENTOFTHEOPENJUSTICEPRINCIPLE
3OMEYEARSAFTERTHE#ONSTITUTIONOFCAMEINTOBEING THE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTHELDTHATOPENJUSTICEHADESSENTIALLYBECOMEARIGHTOFITSOWN)NDEPENDENT
.EWSPAPERS0TY ,TDV-INISTERFOR)NTELLIGENCE3ERVICES)NRE-ASETLHAV0RESIDENTOF
THE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!## AT;=n;= 4HEPRINCIPLEOFOPEN
JUSTICEISBASEDONTWOMAINCONSIDERATIONS4HEFIRSTISTHENOTIONOFAFAIRTRIAL
OFWHICHOPENNESSISREGARDEDASANIMPORTANTCOMPONENT4HECONCEPTOFCOURTS
OPENTOTHEPUBLICUNDERSCORESTHEMORECOMPREHENSIVENOTIONOFOPENJUSTICE
!NACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALINCLUDESTHERIGHTTOAPUBLICTRIALASPROTECTEDIN
S C OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HISMEANSTHATTHEPUBLICISGENERALLYENTITLEDTO
BEPRESENTCF-AGQABIV-AFUNDITYALA 3!% AND9OUNGV-INISTEROF
3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#23% 4HELATTERCONSIDERATIONEMBRACESTHE
NOTION THAT OPEN JUSTICE DEMONSTRATES A CONSIDERATION OF PUBLICITY THAT JUSTICE
DISPENSEDINTHECOURTSISACCESSIBLETOALL ANDISFUNDAMENTALTOTHEPROPERFUNC
TIONING OF A TRANSPARENT JUSTICE SYSTEM ENHANCING ACCOUNTABILITY AND DETERRING

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
MISCONDUCTBYMEMBERSOFTHECOURT)NSHORT MEMBERSOFTHEPUBLICAREENTITLED
TOBEINFORMEDOFTHECONDUCTOFCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS ANDTHEADMINISTRATION
OFJUSTICEBENEFITSFROMTHEPUBLICITYGIVENTOSUCHPROCEEDINGS'EIGES
3!#24 4HE#ONSTITUTIONALSOPROTECTSTHERIGHTOFACCESSTOTHECOURTSIN
APUBLICTRIALSSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONPROVIDESTHATEVERYONEHASTHERIGHTTO
HAVEANYDISPUTETHATCANBERESOLVEDBYTHEAPPLICATIONOFLAWDECIDEDINAFAIR
PUBLICHEARINGBEFOREACOURTOR WHEREAPPROPRIATE ANOTHERINDEPENDENTANDIM
PARTIALTRIBUNALORFORUM)TFOLLOWSTHATSNOTONLYPROTECTSTHERIGHTOFACCESS
TOCOURTSBUTALSOCOMMANDSTHATCOURTSDECIDEMATTERSINAPUBLICHEARING4HIS
GUARANTEEOFOPENNESSINJUDICIALPROCEEDINGSISAGAINFOUNDINS C WHICH
ENTITLESEVERYACCUSEDPERSONTOAPUBLICTRIALBEFOREANORDINARYCOURT
4HE CONCEPT OF OPEN JUSTICE EMBRACES ISSUES RELEVANT TO AN OPEN DEMOCRACY
SUCHASFAIRNESS ACCESSIBILITY TRANSPARENCY ACCOUNTABILITYOFTHEJUDICIALSYSTEM
ANDFREEDOMOFEXPRESSION3HINGAV4HE3TATE3OCIETYOF!DVOCATES 0IETERMARITZBURG
"AR AS!MICUS#URIAE /#ONNELLV4HE3TATE 3!## AT;= &REEDOM
OFEXPRESSIONISESSENTIALTOOPENDEMOCRACYANDCRUCIALTOTHERULEOFLAW REQUIR
INGTHATTHECOURTSARESEENTOFUNCTIONOPENLY
4HECRITICALIMPORTANCEOFTHEOPENCOURTPRINCIPLEANDAFREEPRESSHASBEEN
ADDRESSED REGULARLY IN #ANADIAN JURISPRUDENCE )N THE PROBING LIGHT OF PUBLIC
SCRUTINY THEPRESSMUSTBEFREETOCOMMENTUPONCOURTPROCEEDINGSTOENSURE
THAT THE COURTS ARE IN FACT SEEN BY ALL TO OPERATE OPENLY %DMONTON *OURNAL V
!LBERTA !TTORNEY 'ENERAL #AN,)) 3## ;= 3#2 )N A PRE
#HARTERDECISIONBYTHE#ANADIAN3UPREME#OURT IN!TTORNEY'ENERAL.OVA3COTIA
V-AC)NTYRE;=3#2 *USTICE$ICKSONSAIDTHEFOLLOWINGABOUTOPEN
JUSTICE
-ANYTIMESITHASBEENURGEDTHATTHE@PRIVACYOFLITIGANTSREQUIRESTHATTHEPUBLICBE
EXCLUDEDFROMCOURTPROCEEDINGS)TISNOWWELLESTABLISHED HOWEVER THATCOVERTNESS
ISTHEEXCEPTIONANDOPENNESSTHERULE0UBLICCONFIDENCEINTHEINTEGRITYOFTHECOURT
SYSTEM AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ARE THEREBY FOSTERED !S A
GENERALRULETHESENSIBILITIESOFTHEINDIVIDUALSINVOLVEDARENOBASISFOREXCLUSIONOFTHE
PUBLICFROMJUDICIALPROCEEDINGS
&URTHERMORE IN#ANADIANLAWTHERIGHTTOANOPENCOURTINCLUDESACCESSTOTHE
COURTS PROCEEDINGS RECORDS AND EXHIBITS AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO COPY AND DIS
TRIBUTETHEINFORMATION2V#ANADIAN"ROADCASTING#ORPORATION /.#!
#AN,)) (OWEVER THESE COURTS DO NOT SHY AWAY FROM RESTRICTING ACCESS FOR
EXAMPLE IN !" V "RAGG #OMMUNICATIONS )NC 3## ;= 3#2 THE
#ANADIAN3UPREME#OURTHELDTHATTHEPRIVACYANDPROTECTIONOFCHILDRENFROM
CYBERBULLYINGAREINTERESTSTHATARE@SUFFICIENTLYCOMPELLINGTOJUSTIFYRESTRICTING
COURTACCESS
/NTHECONCEPTOFOPENJUSTICE 3OUTH!FRICANLAWFOLLOWS#ANADIANLAWTOA
GREATEXTENT)N3OUTH!FRICAOPENJUSTICEWASDEMONSTRATEDINANUMBEROFCASES
IN6AN"REDAV-EDIA,IMITED 3!#23#! AT;=THECOURTHELDTHAT
@;F=REEDOMOFTHEPRESSANDTHEPRINCIPLEOFOPENJUSTICEARECLOSELYINTERRELATED
4HEMEDIA REPORTINGACCURATELYANDFAIRLYONLEGALPROCEEDINGSANDJUDGMENTS
MAKEANINVALUABLECONTRIBUTIONTOPUBLICCONFIDENCEINTHEJUDICIARYAND THUS
TOTHERULEOFLAWITSELF&ROMTHERIGHTTOOPENJUSTICEFLOWSTHERIGHTOFTHEMEDIA
AND THE PRESS TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO OBSERVE AND TO REPORT ACCURATELY

#(!04%2r -)3#%,,!.%/53-!44%232%,!4).'4/4(%42)!,
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE )N -ULTICHOICE 0TY ,TD V .ATIONAL 0ROSECUTING
!UTHORITY)N2E3V0ISTORIUS-EDIA,IMITEDV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS .ORTH
'AUTENG 3!#2'0 THECOURTALLOWED INTHECASEOFAFORMERSPORT
ICON FULLAUDIOCOVERAGEBUTLIMITEDAUDIOVISUALANDPHOTOGRAPHICCOVERAGEOF
THETRIAL4HISISINLINEWITHSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION ASRESTRICTIONSONBROADCAST
INGLIMITTHEINFORMATIONTHATMAYBEIMPARTEDBYTHEMEDIAANDRECEIVEDBYTHE
PUBLIC3OUTH!FRICAN"ROADCASTING#ORPORATION,IMITEDV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS 3! ## 3EE ALSO -ANAMELA $IRECTOR 'ENERAL OF *USTICE
)NTERVENING 3!## $IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV0ISTORIUS
3!3#! AT;=+HUMALOV(OLOMISA 3!## AT;=
*XLGHOLQHVRQDXGLRDQGWHOHYLVHGEURDGFDVWLQJRIWULDOFRXUWSURFHHGLQJV
)NORDERTOPROTECTVARIOUSINTERESTS THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALIN6AN"REDAV
-EDIA,IMITED 3!#23#! AT;= INALLOWINGTHEAPPEALAGAINST
CERTAINRESTRICTIONSSETBYTHE(IGH#OURT PROPOSEDTHEFOLLOWINGGUIDELINESFOR
TRIAL COURTS WHEN CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS TO INSTALL VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE TRIAL
COURTROOMINORDERTORECORDANDBROADCASTTHEPROCEEDINGSLIVE ORTOBEPERMIT
TEDTOBROADCASTTHEPROCEEDINGSBYMICROPHONEANDSOUNDORBYOTHERMEANS
"ROADCASTING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A GIVEN IN ANY CASE
WITHOUTANORDERBYTHECOURTALLOWINGIT(ENCETHEMEDIAMUSTLODGEAN
APPLICATIONATTHETRIALCOURTFORANORDERBYMEANSOFANAPPLICATIONWITHRE
GARDTOASPECIFICCASETOWHICHTHEAPPLICATIONPERTAINSBEFOREINSTALLINGANY
ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONSFACILITYFORBROADCASTINGINTHETRIALCOURTROOM
)TISINTHEDISCRETIONOFATRIALCOURTTODIRECTTHATSOMEORALLOFTHEPROCEED
INGSBEFOREITMAYNOTBEBROADCASTATALLORMAYONLYBEBROADCASTINACERTAIN
FORM
4HETRIALCOURTHASTOEXAMINEEACHAPPLICATIONWITHCARE ONACASE BY CASE
BASIS
4HATCOURTSHOULDEXERCISEAPROPERDISCRETIONINSUCHCASESBYBALANCINGTHE
DEGREEOFRISKINVOLVEDINALLOWINGTHECAMERASINTOTHECOURTROOMAGAINST
THEDEGREEOFRISKTHATAFAIRTRIALMIGHTNOTENSUE4HECOURTSMUSTNOTRE
STRICTTHENATUREANDSCOPEOFTHEBROADCASTUNLESSTHEPREJUDICEISDEMON
STRABLEANDTHEREISAREALRISKTHATSUCHPREJUDICEWILLOCCUR-ERECONJECTURE
ORSPECULATIONTHATPREJUDICEMIGHTOCCUROUGHTNOTTOBEENOUGH
)N ACCEDING TO THE REQUEST THE JUDGE MAY ISSUE SUCH DIRECTIONS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY
A TOCONTROLTHECONDUCTOFPROCEEDINGSBEFORETHECOURT
B TOENSURETHEDECORUMANDDIGNITYOFTHECOURTANDPREVENTDISTRACTIONSBYLIGHTS
AND
C TOENSURETHEFAIRADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEINTHEPENDINGCASE
/NMEDIACOVERAGEINTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL SEE0RACTICE$IRECTION
µ([SDQGHGPHGLDFRYHUDJHRIWKHSURFHHGLQJVRIWKH6&$¶ 6$&5 6&$ KWWS
ZZZMXVWLFHJRY]DVFD7KLVCOURTWARNEDTHATFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHESEINSTRUC
TIONSMAYLEADTOCONTEMPTOFCOURTPROCEEDINGS4KHFRXUWDOVRSODFHGDQDEVROXWH
EDULQLWHPRQA AUDIORECORDINGSORCLOSE UPPHOTOGRAPHYOFBENCHDISCUSSIONS
B AUDIORECORDINGSORCLOSE UPPHOTOGRAPHYOFCOMMUNICATIONSBETWEENLEGAL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
REPRESENTATIVESORBETWEENCLIENTSANDTHEIRLEGALREPRESENTATIVESC CLOSE UPPHO

TOGRAPHSORFILMINGOFJUDGES LAWYERS ORPARTIESINCOURTD RECORDINGSWHETHER
VIDEOORAUDIO BEINGUSEDFORCOMMERCIALORPOLITICALADVERTISINGPURPOSESTHERE
AFTERE THEUSEOFSOUNDBYTESWITHOUTTHEPRIORCONSENTOFTHEPRESIDINGJUDGE
4HISDOESNOTAPPLYTOEXTRACTSFROMJUDGMENTSORORDERS
5HVWULFWLRQVRQRUH[FHSWLRQVWRWKHRSHQFRXUWSULQFLSOH
2ESTRICTIONSWILLBEINTHEPUBLICINTERESTWHEREITISNECESSARYTOPROTECTTHESTATE
AND THE INNOCENT FROM UNNECESSARY HARM TO PREVENT SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE
VICTIMORTOWITNESSESTOSAFEGUARDPRIVACYINTERESTSOFVICTIMSANDCHILDRENAND
TOENCOURAGEREPORTINGOFSEXUALOFFENCES7HILEITISRECOGNISEDTHATTHEOPEN
COURTPRINCIPLEISNOTABSOLUTE GIVENTHEPOTENTIALTENSIONWITHTHEDEMANDSOF
PRIVACY SECURITYANDPROTECTIONOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS THEQUESTIONISHOWTHE
COURTSHAVETOBALANCETHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSOFANACCUSED THEFREEDOMOFTHE
PRESS THEPUBLICSRIGHTOFACCESSTOTHECOURTSONTHEONEHANDANDPROTECTING
THEINTERESTSOFTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE VULNERABLEWITNESSESANDCHILDREN
ONTHEOTHERHAND!SFARASCHILDRENARECONCERNED THECOMPETINGINTERESTSIN
VOLVEDARETHEREQUIREMENTSOFOPENJUSTICEONTHEONEHAND AND ONTHEOTHER
HAND THENEEDTOPROTECTTHECHILDBYHOLDINGPROCEEDINGSINCAMERAWHERENEC
ESSARY 'ENERALLY TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS IN CAMERA THE DECISION ON WHICH IS
WITHINTHEDISCRETIONOFTHECOURTS AND BELOW TOTHEEXTENTTHATTHE
CHILDACCUSEDISOBLIGEDTOREMAININCOURTTHROUGHOUTTHEENTIREPROCEEDINGS
THEPROCEEDINGSMUSTBEINCAMERA)F FORANYREASON THECHILDCOMPLAINANTIS
REQUIREDTOREMAININCOURTAFTERCOMPLETINGHISORHEREVIDENCE THEPUBLICMAY
BEEXCLUDEDUNDERS SEE$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAALV-INISTER
FOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!## 3!#2
## AT;= ;=
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFANDTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS TO THE OPEN COURT OR PUBLIC TRIAL RULE AND
THERESULTINGPUBLICATIONOFIDENTITIESANDINFORMATIONREGARDINGWITNESSESAND
ACCUSED
)NTERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTALLCOURTSAREEMPOWERED
TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC FROM THEIR PROCEEDINGS WHENEVER IT APPEARS TO BE IN
THEINTERESTSOFTHESECURITYOFTHE3TATEOROFGOODORDER PUBLICMORALS OR
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 3ECTION AUTHORISES THE COURT TO ORDER
THATNOINFORMATIONRELATINGTOSUCHPROCEEDINGSMAYBEPUBLISHEDBUTTHE
COURTMUSTALLOWPUBLICATIONOFPERSONALINFORMATIONOFTHEACCUSED HISOR
HERPLEA THECHARGE VERDICTANDSENTENCE UNLESSTHECOURTFINDSTHATSUCH
PUBLICATIONMAYDEFEATTHEOBJECTOFITSDIRECTIONUNDERS 7HERETHE
ACCUSED OR A WITNESS IS UNDER YEARS OF AGE EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND
PUBLICATIONOFINFORMATIONMUSTBEDEALTWITHINTERMSOFS OFTHE#HILD
*USTICE !CT READ WITH S OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT AND DISCUSSED
BELOW3EEINGENERAL0ASTOORS 3!7 /NCETHEPUBLICHASBEEN
EXCLUDEDFROMATRIALINTERMSOFS SPECIALCIRCUMSTANCESMUSTEXISTBE
FORETHISRULINGISRELAXED4HECOURTMUSTBESATISFIEDTHATSUCHRELAXATION

#(!04%2r -)3#%,,!.%/53-!44%232%,!4).'4/4(%42)!,
WILLNOTCAUSEHARMTOTHEWITNESSESORTHEIRRELATIONS-OTHOPENG
3!4
4HEBESTINTERESTOFACHILDOFFENDERISPARAMOUNTANDHENCENOPERSONMAY
BEPRESENTATANYSESSIONOFACHILDJUSTICECOURTUNLESSHISORHERPRESENCEIS
NECESSARYINCONNECTIONWITHTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHATCOURT ORTHEPRESIDING
OFFICERHASGRANTEDHIMORHERPERMISSIONTOBEPRESENTS OFTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CT(OWEVER IFTHECOURTFINDSITTOBEJUSTANDEQUITABLEANDINTHE
INTERESTOFTHECHILD THECOURTMAYALLOWPUBLICATIONOFSOMEINFORMATION
S OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT4HEIDENTITYOFTHECHILDCOMPLAINANT
ISPROTECTEDFROMDISCLOSUREBYS )TISINCUMBENTONTHECOURTSNEVER
TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF A CHILD IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS-ASUKU
3!#2'* AT;=
0ERSONSUNDERTHEAGEOFARENOTENTITLEDTOATTENDANYCRIMINALTRIALUN
LESSTHEYAREACTUALLYGIVINGEVIDENCEINWHICHCASETHECOURTMAYBECLEARED
OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC UNLESS A PERSON IS SPECIALLY AUTHORISED TO BE
PRESENT ORISTHEPARENTORGUARDIANOFAWITNESSSS AND OFTHE
#RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT 4HIS REQUIRES THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO PROVIDE ANY
OTHERCHILDWITNESSWITHTHEPROTECTIONCONTEMPLATEDINS
4HECOURTMAYORDERTHATAWITNESSSHALLTESTIFYBEHINDCLOSEDDOORSINCAM
ERA IFITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTTHATTHEREISALIKELIHOODTHATTHEWITNESSMAY
COMETOHARMASARESULTOFTESTIFYINGS A ANDTHATNOBODYOTHER
THAN THE PERSON TESTIFYING COURT PERSONNEL AND ANY PERSON AUTHORISED BY
THECOURTMAYBEPRESENTATTHEPROCEEDINGS4HECOURTMAYALSODIRECTTHAT
THEIDENTITYOFSUCHAWITNESSMAYNOTBEREVEALED ORMAYNOTBEREVEALED
FORAPERIODOFTIMESPECIFIEDBYTHECOURTS B 4HISPROVISIONISNOT
APPLICABLETOTHEACCUSEDS
!COURTMAYMEROMOTUORONAPPLICATIONBYTHEPROSECUTORORDERTHATAWIT
NESS OR AN ACCUSED WITH HIS OR HER CONSENT GIVE EVIDENCE BY MEANS OF A
CLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISIONORSIMILARELECTRONICMEDIA BUTONLYIFTHESEFACILITIES
AREREADILYAVAILABLEOROBTAINABLES n )N.ZAMA 3!#2
$ THECOURTORDEREDTHATTHEWITNESSSHOULDBEPERMITTEDTOTESTIFYBEHIND
CLOSED DOORS THAT THE WITNESS BE EXCUSED FROM DISCLOSING HIS REAL NAME TO
THECOURTANDBEPERMITTEDTOADOPTANYPSEUDONYMFORTHEPURPOSESOFTHE
TRIALTHATNOPERSONBEPERMITTEDTOREVEALTHEWITNESSSIDENTITYANDTHATHIS
EVIDENCEBEPUBLISHEDONLYTOTHEEXTENTTHATITWOULDNOTDISCLOSEORTENDTO
DISCLOSEHISIDENTITY3ECTION OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREQUIRESA
COURTTOGIVEREASONSFORNOTALLOWINGACHILDWHOISBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARS
TO GIVE EVIDENCE BY MEANS OF CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION OR SIMILAR ELECTRONIC
MEDIA&ORTHEPRINCIPLESINVOLVEDWHENTRIALSAREHELDINCAMERA SEE.IESE
WAND 3!2! ANDCFALSO3EKETE 3!. 4HEVALID
SUGGESTIONS IN +LINK V 2EGIONAL #OURT -AGISTRATE ./ ;= !LL 3! 3%
REGARDING THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESSES WHERE THE COURT FOUND
THATAPROPERBALANCECANBEACHIEVEDBETWEENTHEPROTECTIONOFACHILDWIT
NESS AND THE RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED TO A FAIR TRIAL BY ALLOWING THE WITNESS TO
TESTIFYINCONGENIALSURROUNDINGSANDOUTOFSIGHTOFTHEACCUSED WEREEM
BODIEDINSS! ANDS!)TISNOWPROVIDEDTHATIFANYWITNESSUNDER
THEBIOLOGICALORMENTALAGEOFYEARSWOULDBEEXPOSEDTOUNDUEMENTAL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
STRESSORSUFFERINGIFHEORSHETESTIFIESATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS THECOURTMAY
APPOINTANINTERMEDIARYINORDERTOENABLESUCHWITNESSTOGIVEHISORHEREVI
DENCE ANDCROSS EXAMINATIONORRE EXAMINATIONOFSUCHWITNESSMUSTTAKE
PLACETHROUGHTHATINTERMEDIARY)N$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAALV
-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!##
3!#2## THECOURTEMPHASISEDTHATTHECOURTSANDTHEPROSECUTION
MUSTPROTECTTHECHILDCOMPLAINANTINSEXUALCASESFROMSECONDARYTRAUMA
THATMAYARISEFROMTESTIFYINGINCOURT*UDICIALOFFICERSARETHEREFOREOBLIGED
TOAPPLYTHEBEST INTERESTPRINCIPLEBYCONSIDERINGHOWTHECHILDSRIGHTSAND
INTERESTSARE ORWILLBE AFFECTEDBYALLOWINGTHECHILDCOMPLAINANTINASEX
UALOFFENCECASETOTESTIFYWITHOUTTHEAIDOFTHEINTERMEDIARY
3ECTION PROVIDESFORTHEEXCLUSIONOFTHEPUBLICATTHEREQUESTOFACOM
PLAINANTORAMINORSPARENTORGUARDIAN WHEREANACCUSEDISCHARGEDWITH
COMMITTINGORATTEMPTINGTOCOMMITANYSEXUALOFFENCEASCONTEMPLATEDIN
SOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT
!CTOF TOWARDSORINCONNECTIONWITHANYOTHERPERSON OREXTORTION
EITHERATCOMMONLAWORINTERMSOFASTATUTE WHICHINSPIREDFEARINTHEMIND
OFSUCHCOMPLAINANT!NYPERSONWHOSEPRESENCEISNOTNECESSARYATCRIMI
NALPROCEEDINGSCONCERNINGTHOSEOFFENCESMENTIONEDINS SHALLNOT
BEADMITTEDATSUCHPROCEEDINGSWHILETHEPERSONAGAINSTWHOMTHEOFFENCE
WAS COMMITTED IS GIVING EVIDENCE UNLESS SUCH PERSON REQUESTS HIS OR HER
PRESENCES! 3ECTION APPLIESTOALLCOMPLAINANTSINOFFENCES
INVOLVINGANYSEXUALOFFENCESOREXTORTION ORANYOFTHEOFFENCESMENTIONED
INTHESUBSECTION4HISINCLUDESACHILDCOMPLAINANTINASEXUALOFFENCECASE
4HISISSUBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFS! WHICHREQUIRESTHEPUBLICTOBE
EXCLUDED WHILE A COMPLAINANT IN A SEXUAL OFFENCE CASE IS GIVING EVIDENCE
3ECTION APPLIESTOOTHERCHILDWITNESSES4HESESUBSECTIONSAREAIMED
ATPROTECTINGTHEIDENTITYOFTHECOMPLAINANTSINTHOSEOFFENCES*UDGMENT
ANDSENTENCEINTHECASESJUSTMENTIONEDMUSTBEGIVENINOPENCOURTUNLESS
THECOURTISOFTHEOPINIONTHATITWOULDBEUNJUSTANDUNREASONABLETHATTHE
COMPLAINANTSIDENTITYWOULDTHEREBYBEREVEALEDS 4HEIDENTITYOF
AN ACCUSED WHO IS CHARGED IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE OFFENCES MENTIONED IN
S ABOVE MAYNOTBEREVEALEDBEFOREPLEADINGS B
7)4.%33%3
3ECURINGATTENDANCEOFWITNESSES
%ITHERTHEPROSECUTORORTHEACCUSEDMAYCOMPELTHEATTENDANCEOFWITNESSESBY
WAYOFASUBPOENA3EESETSEQDEALINGWITHWITNESSESGENERALLY )NCERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCESTHECOURTITSELFMAYALSOCAUSEWITNESSESTOBESUBPOENAED3EE
SANDBELOW )FAWITNESSFAILSTOOBEYASUBPOENA HEORSHEMAYBEARRESTED
ANDBROUGHTBEFORETHECOURTS7HENEVERAPERSONISLIKELYTOGIVEMATERIAL
EVIDENCEINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS ANDTHEREISREASONTOBELIEVETHATHEORSHEIS
ABOUTTOABSCOND ORHASABSCONDED SUCHPERSONMAYBEARRESTEDUPONAWAR
RANT ANDBECOMMITTEDTOPRISONS4HE-INISTERMAYDETERMINESERVICES
SUCHASASSISTANCEANDSUPPORT TOBEPROVIDEDTOAWITNESSWHOISREQUIREDTO
GIVEEVIDENCEINANYCOURTOFLAWS!

#(!04%2r -)3#%,,!.%/53-!44%232%,!4).'4/4(%42)!,
7HENEVERTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTHINKSTHATTHEREISANYDANGER
THATAPOTENTIAL3TATEWITNESSINRESPECTOFSPECIFIEDOFFENCESMAYBETAMPERED
WITHORINTIMIDATED ORTHATSUCHWITNESSMAYABSCOND ORWHENEVERTHEDIRECTOR
OFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDEEMSITINTHEINTERESTOFTHEWITNESSOROFTHEADMINISTRA
TIONOFJUSTICE HEORSHEMAYAPPLYTOAJUDGEINCHAMBERSFORANORDERTHATSUCH
WITNESSBEDETAINEDPENDINGTHERELEVANTPROCEEDINGSS4HEWITNESSMAY
THENBEDETAINEDUNTILTHECONCLUSIONOFTHECASEORFORAPERIODOFSIXMONTHS
AFTER HIS OR HER ARREST SEE THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY IN
'OVERNMENT'AZETTEOF*ULY 4HEOFFENCESINRESPECTOFWHICHTHESE
POWERS APPLY ARE MURDER ARSON KIDNAPPING CHILD STEALING ROBBERY SEDITION
PUBLICVIOLENCE HOUSEBREAKING WHETHERUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORASTATUTORY
PROVISION WITHINTENTTOCOMMITANOFFENCE OFFENCESINTERMSOFTHE)NTIMIDATION
!CTOFANDANYCONSPIRACY INCITEMENTORATTEMPTTOCOMMITANYOFTHE
ABOVE MENTIONEDOFFENCES ANDTREASONSREADWITH0ART)))OFTHE3ECOND
3CHEDULETOTHE!CT4HISSECTIONISGENERALLYKNOWNASTHE@ DAYCLAUSE
)N TERMS OF THE 7ITNESS 0ROTECTION !CT OF WHICH CREATED AN OFFICE
HEADED BY A $IRECTOR /FFICE FOR 7ITNESS 0ROTECTION ANY WITNESS WHO HAS REA
SONTOBELIEVETHATHISORHERSAFETYORTHATOFHISORHERRELATIVESMAYBEORIS
THREATENEDBYANYPERSONORGROUPOFPERSONS WHETHERKNOWNORUNKNOWNTO
HIMORHER MAYAPPLYTOTHEDIRECTORORAWITNESSPROTECTIONOFFICERTOBEVOL
UNTARILY PLACED IN PROTECTION 3UBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NO MINOR MAY BE
PLACED UNDER PROTECTION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PARENTS 4HE DIRECTOR
MAYALLOWORREFUSETHEAPPLICATION4HE0ROTECTIONFROM(ARASSMENT!CTOF
THATCAMEINTOOPERATIONIN WHICHISAIMEDATADDRESSINGHARASSMENT
ANDSTALKINGBEHAVIOUR WHETHERPHYSICALORDIGITAL THATVIOLATESCONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTSTOPRIVACYANDDIGNITYOFINDIVIDUALPERSONS ALLOWSACHILDUNDERTHEAGE
OFTOAPPLYFORAPROTECTIONORDER4HISCANBEDONEWITHOUTTHEASSISTANCEOF
THECHILDSPARENTS
!WITNESSINPRISONWHOISCALLEDONBEHALFOFTHEDEFENCE OROFAPRIVATEPROSE
CUTOR MAYBESUBPOENAEDONLYIFTHECOURTBEFOREWHICHTHEPRISONERISTOAPPEAR
ASAWITNESSAUTHORISESTHEPRISONERTOBESUBPOENAEDASAWITNESS ANDTHECOURT
SHALL GIVE SUCH AUTHORITY ONLY IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTION IS
NECESSARYANDMATERIALFORTHEDEFENCEORTHEPRIVATEPROSECUTOR ASTHECASEMAY
BE ANDTHATTHEPUBLICSAFETYORORDERWILLNOTBEENDANGEREDBYTHECALLINGOF
THEWITNESSS
2ECALCITRANTWITNESS
)NTHECASEOFARECALCITRANTWITNESSINACRIMINALTRIALIESOMEONEWHOREFUSESTO
TAKETHEOATHORREFUSESTOANSWERQUESTIONS SEMPOWERSTHECOURTTOINSTI
TUTEASUMMARYENQUIRY ANDIFSUCHAPERSONDOESNOTHAVEA@JUSTEXCUSEFORHIS
ORHERREFUSAL HEORSHEMAYBESENTENCEDTOAMAXIMUMIMPRISONMENTOFTWO
YEARSOR WHERETHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSRELATETOANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN0ART)))
OF3CHEDULE TOIMPRISONMENTFORAMAXIMUMOFFIVEYEARS4HISMAYHAPPEN
REPEATEDLY3UCHAPERSONWILLNOT HOWEVER BESENTENCEDTOIMPRISONMENTUN
LESSTHEJUDGE REGIONALCOURTMAGISTRATEORMAGISTRATEISALSOOFTHEOPINIONTHAT
THEFURNISHINGOFSUCHINFORMATIONISNECESSARYFORTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
ORTHEMAINTENANCEOFLAWANDORDERS !PPEALISPOSSIBLE4HEPRIMARY

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CRIMINALCASEMAYBECONCLUDEDINTHEMEANTIME4HEFOLLOWINGREQUIREMENTS
HAVETOBEMETBEFOREAWITNESSMAYBESENTENCEDTOIMPRISONMENTFORREFUSING
TO TAKE THE OATH AS A WITNESS OR HAVING TAKEN THE OATH FOR REFUSING TO ANSWER
QUESTIONSPUTTOHIMORHERTHEWITNESSMUSTHAVEREFUSEDTOTAKETHEOATHOR
TOTESTIFYAPROPERENQUIRYMUSTHAVEBEENHELDINTOTHEREFUSALANDTHEREMUST
HAVEBEENNOJUSTEXCUSEFORHISORHERFAILUREORREFUSAL3EALS 3!#2
# )N!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV+ADER 3!#2! ITWASHELDTHAT
ITISSUFFICIENTJUSTIFICATIONIFAWITNESSWERETOFINDHIMSELFINCIRCUMSTANCESIN
WHICHITWOULDBEHUMANLYINTOLERABLETOHAVETOTESTIFY!@JUSTEXCUSEINTERMS
OFSISAWIDERCONCEPTTHAN@LAWFULEXCUSE3EEALSO3ITHOLE 3!
7 )N-OLOBI 3!7 ITWASHELDTHATAWITNESSSSYMPATHYWITHAN
ACCUSEDSPOLITICALIDEALSDOESNOTCONSTITUTEAJUSTEXCUSE!WITNESSSFEARFORHIS
ORHERSAFETYANDTHATOFHISORHERFAMILYISALSONOTAJUSTEXCUSE4HEDEMANDS
OFSOCIETYANDTHEINTERESTOFTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEREQUIRETHATAWITNESS
SHOULDNEVERTHELESSGIVEEVIDENCE-OLOTO 3!#24 (OWEVER IFIT
ISNOTAPROVENNECESSITYFORTHEWELFAREOFTHECOMMUNITYTHATTHEINFORMATION
BE REQUIRED SPECIFICALLY FROM THE ACCUSED THE EXCUSE WILL BE CONSIDERED JUST
#ORNELISSEN#ORNELISSENV:EELIE./ 3!#27 3EEALSO-THENJANE
3!! (AYSOMV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE 3!# !WITNESSDOES
NOT HOWEVER HAVETOANSWERANYINCRIMINATINGQUESTIONSS#FALSO7ESSELS
3!#
3ECTIONPROCEEDINGSARENOTTRIALSBUTTHEYARESTILLJUDICIALPROCEEDINGSAND
THERULESOFJUSTICEMUSTBECOMPLIEDWITH4HEWITNESSHASARIGHTTO
AFAIROPPORTUNITYTOPREPAREFORTHEPROCEEDINGSAND
LEGALREPRESENTATION
3HOULDTHEWITNESSREFUSEORBEUNABLETOOBTAINLEGALREPRESENTATION THECOURT
MUSTEXPLAINTOTHEWITNESSTHEPHRASE@JUSTEXCUSEANDALLOWHIMTHEOPPORTU
NITYTOADDRESSTHECOURTORTOADDUCEEVIDENCE"EKISI 3!#2# 3EE
ALSO(EYMAN 3!! 7ESSELS 3!# 3MITV6AN.IEKERK./
3!%
42)!,/&-%.4!,,9$)3!",%$0%23/.3
!TTHECOMMENCEMENTORDURINGTHETRIALOFAPERSONWHOISPERCEIVEDORALLEGED
TOBEMENTALLYDISTURBED THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPROVIDESFORPROCEDURESSET
OUTINSSnINORDERTOESTABLISHWHETHERTHEACCUSEDISMENTALLYEQUIPPED
TOSTANDHISORHERTRIALANDWHETHERHEORSHEISCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORHIS
ORHERACTIONS3ECTION OFTHE!CT ASAMENDEDINAND PROVIDES
EMPHASISADDED
)FITISALLEGEDATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHATTHEACCUSEDISBYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSOR
INTELLECTUALDISABILITYORFORANYOTHERREASONNOTCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORTHEOFFENCE
CHARGED ORIFITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSTHATTHEACCUSEDMIGHTFOR
SUCHAREASONNOTBESORESPONSIBLE THECOURTSHALLINTHECASEOFANALLEGATIONORAPPEAR
ANCEOFMENTALILLNESSORMENTALDISABILITY ANDMAY INANYOTHERCASE DIRECTTHATTHE
MATTERBEENQUIREDINTOANDBEREPORTEDONINACCORDANCEWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFS

#(!04%2r -)3#%,,!.%/53-!44%232%,!4).'4/4(%42)!,
)TISCLEARTHATINTHECASEOFANALLEGATIONOF OR ONTHEAPPEARANCEOFAMENTAL

ILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITY THECOURTISOBLIGEDTODIRECTTHATANENQUIRYBE
MADEUNDERS4HEACCUSEDBEARSNOONUSS! AND" OFTHE!CTPROVIDE
THATEVERYPERSONISDEEMEDMENTALLYCOMPETENTSOASTOBECRIMINALLYRESPONSI
BLEINTERMSOFS UNLESSTHECONTRARYISPROVEDONABALANCEOFPROBABILITIES
4HEREFORE ANYALLEGATIONOFCRIMINALRESPONSIBILITYOFTHEACCUSEDSHALLRESTON
THEPARTYWHORAISESIT4HEACCUSEDTHEREFOREASSUMESTHEBURDENOFPROVINGHIS
ORHERINCAPACITYIFHEORSHEALLEGESITASADEFENCEANDISALSOTHENBARREDFROM
APPEALINGAGAINSTAFINDINGOFBEINGMENTALLYCOMPETENTS 4HEJURISDIC
TIONALTHRESHOLDSETINS ISMETWHENTHEREISEITHERANALLEGATIONOFCRIMINAL
INCAPACITYWITHSOMEINDICATIONOFTHEREASONSTHEREFOR-AKOKA 3!
! OR AN APPARENT MENTAL DISTURBANCE BASED ON SOME INFORMATION BEFORE THE
COURTTHATTHEACCUSEDISNORCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLE)FTHEREISANALLEGATIONOF
ORAPPEARANCETOTHECOURTOFMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDISABILITY THECOURT
ISOBLIGEDTOREFERTHEACCUSEDFORENQUIRYINTERMSOFS WHEREASINANYOTHER
CASETHECOURTMAYDOSOBUTISNOTOBLIGEDTOACTACCORDINGTOS3EE-ALATJIV3
;=:!'00(#)FTHECOURTFINDSTHATTHEACCUSEDATTHETIMEOFTHECOM
MISSIONOFTHEACTINQUESTIONWASCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORTHEACTBUTTHATHIS
ORHERCAPACITYTOAPPRECIATETHEWRONGFULNESSOFTHEACT ORTOACTINACCORDANCE
WITHANAPPRECIATIONOFTHEWRONGFULNESSOFTHEACT WASDIMINISHEDBYREASON
OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY THE COURT MAY TAKE THE FACT OF SUCH
DIMINISHEDRESPONSIBILITYINTOACCOUNTWHENSENTENCINGTHEACCUSEDS
)F AT ANY TIME AT OR AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IT
APPEARSTOTHECOURTTHATTHEACCUSEDISNOTOFSOUNDMIND HEORSHEMUSTBE
DEALTWITHINTHEMANNERPROVIDEDFORBYSSANDOFTHE!CT2EGARDINGTHE
CAPACITYOFTHEACCUSEDTOUNDERSTANDTHEPROCEEDINGS S PROVIDES
)F IT APPEARS TO THE COURT AT ANY STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ACCUSED IS BY
REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE
PROCEEDINGSSOASTOMAKEAPROPERDEFENCE THECOURTSHALLDIRECTTHATTHEMATTERBE
ENQUIREDINTOANDBEREPORTEDONINACCORDANCEWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFSECTION
4HE JURISDICTIONAL THRESHOLD SET IN S IS MET WHEN IT APPEARS TO THE COURT
THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT ABLE TO STAND HIS TRIAL DUE TO A MENTAL ILLNESS OR INTEL
LECTUALDISABILITY4HECOURTISTHENOBLIGEDTOSENDTHEACCUSEDFOROBSERVATION
BYTHEPERSONWHOUNDERSISCHARGEDWITHTHERESPONSIBILITYTOENQUIREINTO
THEMENTALCONDITIONOFTHEACCUSED3EE#HAPTERABOVE FORADISCUSSIONOF
THEPROCEDUREANDFINDINGS3EEALSO-ANUPO 3!#2# -OKIE
3!#24 -PHELA 3!#2! 4HISMEANSTHATTHECOURTMUST
GRANTANADJOURNMENTFORAMEDICALEXAMINATION4HECOURTMUSTREFERTHEAC
CUSEDTOANINSTITUTIONFOROBSERVATIONANDREPORTINGONINACCORDANCEWITHTHE
PROVISIONSOFS3EE.ELL 3!! WHERETHEACCUSEDFELLFORWARDIN
THEDOCKANDLATERCOLLAPSEDANDSTARTEDFOAMINGATTHEMOUTH ANDTHECOMMENT
ONPSYCHOPATHSIN#HAPTER
4HEQUESTIONWHETHERANACCUSEDISFITTOSTANDTRIALCANBERAISEDFORTHEFIRST
TIMEEVENAFTERCONVICTIONANDSENTENCEANDTHEREISNOONUSONTHEACCUSEDTO
PROVEHISORHERMENTALILLNESS%BRAHIM 3!!
! COURT THAT HAS IN TERMS OF THE #RIMINAL ,AW 3EXUAL /FFENCES AND 2ELATED
-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT ORANYOTHERLAW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
I CONVICTEDAPERSONOFASEXUALOFFENCEAGAINSTACHILDAND AFTERSENTENCEHAS
BEENIMPOSEDBYTHATCOURTFORSUCHOFFENCE INTHEPRESENCEOFTHECONVICTED
PERSONOR
II MADEAFINDINGANDGIVENADIRECTIONINTERMSOFS OR OFTHE#RIMI
NAL0ROCEDURE!CT THATTHEPERSONISBYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSORINTEL
LECTUALDEFECTNOTCAPABLEOFUNDERSTANDINGTHEPROCEEDINGSSOASTOMAKEA
PROPERDEFENCE ORWAS BYREASONOFMENTALILLNESSORINTELLECTUALDEFECT NOT
CRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEFORTHEACTWHICHCONSTITUTEDASEXUALOFFENCEAGAINST
ACHILDORAPERSONWHOISMENTALLYDISABLED
MUSTINTHEPRESENCEOFTHATPERSON BUTSUBJECTTOSOMEEXCLUSIONS GIVEANORDER
THATTHEPARTICULARSOFTHECONVICTEDPERSONBEINCLUDEDINTHE.ATIONAL2EGISTER
FOR3EX/FFENDERS(OWEVER THEPOSITIONISDIFFERENTWHENTHEACCUSEDWASACHILD
ATTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHESEXUALOFFENCETHENACOURTHASADISCRETIONNOT
TO GIVE AN ORDER FOR THE RECORDING OF THE NAME OF THE CONVICTED PERSON IN THE
2EGISTERFOR3EX/FFENDERS SUBJECTTOCERTAINCONDITIONSS A READWITHS
C OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT
!CTOFASAMENDEDBYTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED
-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF 3EEALSO#HAPTERWITHREGARDTOTHEPRO
VISIONSOFS ANDS
42)!,/&$25' !$$)#4%$0%23/.3
)FAPERSONISCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEOTHERTHANANOFFENCEREFERREDTOINS
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTANDITAPPEARSTOTHEOFFICERPRESIDINGATTHETRIAL
THATSUCHPERSONISPROBABLYAPERSONCONTEMPLATEDINS OFTHE0REVENTION
OF AND 4REATMENT FOR 3UBSTANCE !BUSE !CT OF WHICH !CT REPEALED THE
0REVENTIONAND4REATMENTOF$RUG$EPENDENCY!CTOF THETRIALMAYBE
STOPPEDANDANENQUIRYINTERMSOFSFORMERLYSOFTHEREPEALED!CTOF
MAYBEHELDSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREADWITHSOF!CT
OF3ECTION OF!CTOFREFERSTOAPERSON DESCRIBEDINTHAT
SECTIONASANINVOLUNTARYSERVICEUSER WHOISDEPENDENTONSUBSTANCESANDWHO
RECEIVEDTREATMENTANDREHABILITATIONBUT
A ISADANGERTOHIMSELFORHERSELFORTOTHEIMMEDIATEENVIRONMENTORCAUSESA
MAJORPUBLICHEALTHRISK
B INANYOTHERMANNERDOESHARMTOHISORHEROWNWELFAREORTHEWELFAREOFHIS
ORHERFAMILYANDOTHERSOR
C COMMITSACRIMINALACTTOSUSTAINHISORHERDEPENDENCEONSUBSTANCES
4HE PROSECUTOR WILL NOT GIVE HIS OR HER CONSENT TO STOP THE TRIAL IF THE PERSON
SHOULDHEORSHEBECONVICTED WOULDBELIABLETOCOMPULSORYIMPRISONMENT)F
THECHARGEAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDISWITHDRAWN CONVERSIONOFTHEPROCEEDINGSBE
COMESIMPOSSIBLEASITCANONLYBECONVERTEDDURINGATRIAL)NRE6ORSTER
3!#2%# .OPRELIMINARYINQUIRYMAY HOWEVER BEHELDONCETHEMATTER
AGAINSTACHILDOFFENDERHASBEENWITHDRAWN S OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT)N
THECASEOFACHILDOFFENDERTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTPROVIDESFORDIVERSIONTHROUGH
THEPROSECUTORIN#HAPTEROFTHAT!CT ORDURINGTHEPRELIMINARYINQUIRYBEFORE
THETRIAL ORATTHETRIALBEFORETHECONCLUSIONOFTHE3TATESCASEINTERMSOF#HAP

#(!04%2r -)3#%,,!.%/53-!44%232%,!4).'4/4(%42)!,
TERSANDOFTHAT!CT)FTHETRIALISSTOPPED WHETHERBEFOREORAFTERCONVICTION
THEPROCEEDINGSATTHETRIALBECOMENULLANDVOIDS
!$*/52.-%.40/340/.%-%.4
! POSTPONEMENT REFERS TO THE PERIOD BEFORE THE HEARING STARTS WHEREAS AN AD
JOURNMENT USUALLY REFERS TO A HEARING THAT IS ALREADY UNDERWAY (OWEVER THE
TERMSGENERALLYAREUSEDINTERCHANGEABLY!NADJOURNMENTISTHERE SCHEDULING
OFCOURTPROCEEDINGS BEITARRAIGNMENT ENQUIRY PLEA TRIAL SENTENCING OROTHER
WISE4HEGRANTINGOFANADJOURNMENTISATTHEDISCRETIONOFTHEPRESIDINGJUDGE
ORMAGISTRATEANDIFNECESSARY ACOURTMAYADJOURNORPOSTPONEACASETILLALATER
DATESSAND(OWEVER THECOURTMUSTBEALIVETOTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHT
OFANACCUSEDTOHAVEHISORHERTRIALTOBEGINANDCONCLUDEWITHINAREASONABLE
TIMES D OFTHE#ONSTITUTION AS IN3OUTH!FRICASCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM
AN INDISPUTABLY RECOGNISED NORM AND STANDARD FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL FAIR TRIAL OF
AN ACCUSED PERSON IS THE EFFICIENT AND SPEEDY CONCLUSION OF CRIMINAL PROCEED
INGSSEE3ANDERSONV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL %ASTERN#APE 3!## MORESO
EVEN DURINGTHETRIALOROTHERPROCEDURESPERTAININGTOTHECHILDOFFENDERINTHE
APPLICATIONOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTSEESF OFTHEGUIDINGPRINCIPLESOFTHAT
!CT7HENTHECOURTCONSIDERSANAPPLICATIONFORPOSTPONEMENT WHETHERITBE
REQUESTEDBYTHE3TATEORTHEDEFENCE THEFOLLOWINGTWOBASICPRINCIPLESHAVETO
BECONSIDERED
)TISINTHEINTERESTOFSOCIETYTHATGUILTYPERSONSSHOULDBEDULYCONVICTED
ANDNOTDISCHARGEDDUETOANERRORWHICHCOULDHAVEBEENAVOIDEDHADTHE
CASEBEENADJOURNEDAND
!NACCUSEDISDEEMEDTOBEINNOCENTANDTHEREFOREHASARIGHTTOASPEEDY
HEARING
!COURTOFAPPEALWILLNOTINTERFEREWITHALOWERCOURTSDECISIONTOADJOURNACASE
PROVIDEDTHEDISCRETIONTODOSOWASEXERCISEDJUDICIALLYIEWITHOUTCAPRICE BIAS
OR THE APPLICATION OF WRONG PRINCIPLES BUT ON JUDICIAL GROUNDS AND FOR SOUND
REASONS :ACKEY!$:IMBA 0((. 7HEREAMAGISTRATE
REFUSEDTOADJOURNACASETOAFFORDANACCUSEDTHEOPPORTUNITYTOFINDWITNESSES
THE CASE WAS REMITTED FOR RETRIAL THE ACCUSED HAD ONLY EIGHT DAYS IN WHICH TO
PREPAREFORTHETRIAL ,EVINV7HITELAW./40$)FAREFUSALTOADJOURN
RESULTSINTHEEXCLUSIONOFRELEVANTEVIDENCE THECONVICTIONWILLBESETASIDE
(ATCH#0$2EFUSALOFAREASONABLEANDBONAFIDEREQUESTFORADJOURNMENT
CONSTITUTESANIRREGULARITYRENDERINGATRIALUNFAIR3AULE 3!#2#K
7HENTHEACCUSEDSLEGALREPRESENTATIVEISABSENTANDITISNOTDUETOTHEFAULTOF
THEACCUSED THECASEMUSTBEADJOURNEDORASUBSEQUENTCONVICTIONWILLBESET
ASIDE3EHERI 3!! !REQUESTFORPOSTPONEMENTTOALLOWTHEACCUSED
TOOBTAINWORKINORDERTOPAYFORTHESERVICESOFHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVEIS
BEYONDTHELIMITSOFACCEPTABILITY3WANEPOEL 3!#2/
)FANACCUSEDFAILSTOATTENDTHETRIALONTHEDATETOWHICHTHECASEHADBEEN
ADJOURNED SUCHACCUSEDWILLBEGUILTYOFANOFFENCE UNLESSHEORSHESATISFIESTHE
COURTTHATHISORHERFAILURETOATTENDWASNOTDUETOHISORHERFAULTS!T
ASUMMARYENQUIRY THECOURTSHOULDEXPLAINTHEONUSANDTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TOHIMORHERINCLUDINGHISORHERRIGHTTOFURNISHEVIDENCEINTERMSOFS
"KENLELE 3!/
)N"RITISH#OLUMBIA7ORKERS#OMPENSATION"OARDV&IGLIOLA3##AT;=
;=AND;= ANDIN4HE,AW3OCIETYOF5PPER#ANADAV)GBINOSUN/.#!
AT;= SOMEPROCEDURALANDSUBSTANTIVEFACTORSWEREINDICATEDTHATSHOULDBE
CONSIDERED WHEN ASSESSING ADJOURNMENT REQUESTS SUCH AS THAT DECISION MAKERS
MUST RECOGNISE OBLIGATIONS TO PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN EXERCISING
DISCRETIONARY POWERS )N PARTICULAR DECISION MAKERS MUST BE MINDFUL OF THE
IMPORTANCEOFTIMELYRESOLUTIONSOFDISPUTESANDPROCEEDINGS PROPORTIONALITYOF
COSTS ANDTHEPRINCIPLEOFFINALITY ANDMUSTBECAUTIOUSOFTHEREQUESTERWHOIS
SEEKINGTO@MANIPULATETHESYSTEMBYORCHESTRATINGDELAYS.ATURALJUSTICEMUST
ALSOBEAPPLIED
0OSTPONEMENTTHROUGHAUDIOVISUALLINKAGE
!N ACCUSED PERSON ABOVE THE AGE OF YEARS WHO IS IN A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
EXCLUDING A POLICE CELL OR LOCK UP AWAITING TRIAL OR WHOSE TRIAL IS PROCEEDING
ANDWHOISNOTREQUIREDTOBEPHYSICALLYPRESENTINCOURT MAYHAVEHISORHER
PROCEEDINGSPOSTPONEDTHROUGHAUDIOVISUALLINKAGELIVETELEVISIONCOMMUNICA
TION !LLTHEPARTIESMUSTBEABLETOSEEANDHEAREACHOTHERANDTOFOLLOWTHE
PROCEEDINGS EVENTHOUGHTHEACCUSEDISNOTPHYSICALLYPRESENTORREQUIREDTOBE
PRESENTS!
30%%$942)!,
)NCLUDEDINTHECONCEPTOFAFAIRTRIALISTHERIGHTOFEVERYACCUSEDPERSONTOHAVE
HISORHERTRIALCOMMENCEANDCONCLUDEWITHOUTUNREASONABLEDELAYS D
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION)N"OTHMAV%LS 3!## AT;= ;=THECOURT
HELD THAT ALTHOUGH S DOES NOT DEAL EXPRESSLY WITH PRE TRIAL DELAY IT MUST
BECONSTRUEDANDUNDERSTOODINTHELIGHTOFTHEVALUEACCORDEDTOHUMANDIG
NITYANDFREEDOMINSOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN#ONSTITUTION4HERIGHTTOAFAIR
TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE ANCHORED EXCLUSIVELY IN S D AND PRE TRIAL DELAY MUST
NOTBEEVALUATEDSOLELYINTHELIGHTOFTHEFOUNDATIONOFARIGHTTOBETRIEDWITH
OUT UNREASONABLE DELAY BUT AS AN ELEMENT IN DETERMINING WHETHER IN ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE DELAY WOULD @INEVITABLY AND IRREMEDIABLY TAINT THE OVERALL
SUBSTANTIVEFAIRNESSOFTHETRIALIFANDWHENITWERETOCOMMENCE4HECOURTCON
CLUDEDTHATTOSAYTHATTHETRIAL@HASBEENIRREPARABLYPREJUDICEDISTOACCEPTTHAT
THEREISNOWAYINWHICHTHEFAIRNESSOFTHETRIALCOULDBESUSTAINED;=
4HECOURTSRECOGNISETHREEFORMSOFPREJUDICETHATANACCUSEDCANPOTENTIALLY
SUFFERFORWANTOFASPEEDYTRIAL
THELOSSOFPERSONALLIBERTYRESULTINGFROMDETENTIONORRESTRICTIVEBAILCONDI
TIONS
THEIMPAIRMENTOFPERSONALSECURITYRESULTINGFROMLOSSOFREPUTATION SOCIAL
OSTRACISMORLOSSOFINCOMEOREMPLOYMENTAND
TRIAL RELATED PREJUDICE SUCH AS THE MEMORIES OF WITNESSES FADING OR THE WIT
NESSESTHEMSELVESBECOMINGUNAVAILABLE*ACKSON 3!#2#

#(!04%2r -)3#%,,!.%/53-!44%232%,!4).'4/4(%42)!,
5NREASONABLEDELAYSINTHEHEARINGOFCRIMINALTRIALS FURTHERMORE ARENOTONLY

PREJUDICIALTOTHEACCUSED BUTBRINGTHEWHOLECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMINTODISRE
PUTE3OCHOP 3!#2# 4HECRITICALFACTORSTOBECONSIDEREDONTHE
QUESTIONOFWHETHERALAPSEOFTIMEISREASONABLEARETHENATUREOFTHEPREJUDICE
SUFFEREDBYTHEACCUSED THENATUREOFTHECASEANDTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE
THELENGTHOFTHEDELAY ANDTHEREASONSADVANCEDTOJUSTIFYTHEDELAY:ANNERV
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG 3!#23#! "OTHMAV%LS
3!## AT;=3EEALSO(ENDRICKS;=!LL3!3#! 0RE TRIAL
INCARCERATIONOFFIVEMONTHSFORACRIMEWHICHHASAMAXIMUMSENTENCEOFSIX
MONTHSCLEARLYPOINTSINTHEDIRECTIONOFUNREASONABLENESS"UTITWILLBEDIFFICULT
TOESTABLISHPREJUDICEIFANACCUSEDHASCONSTANTLYCONSENTEDTOPOSTPONEMENTS
3ANDERSONV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL %ASTERN#APE 3!#2## 3EEALSO7ILDV
(OFFERT 3!#2## 6AN(EERDENV.$00;=:!3#!
3ECTION ! OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT REGULATES THE ISSUE OF UNREASON
ABLEDELAYSINPENDINGCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS)NESTABLISHINGWHETHERTHEDELAYIS
UNREASONABLE THECOURTISENTITLEDTOTAKEANUMBEROFFACTORSINTOCONSIDERATION
SUCHASTHEDURATIONOFTHEDELAYTHEREASONSADVANCEDFORTHEDELAYWHETHER
ANYPERSONCOULDBEBLAMEDFORTHEDELAYTHEEFFECTOFTHEDELAYONTHEPERSONAL
CIRCUMSTANCESOFTHEACCUSEDANDWITNESSESTHESERIOUSNESS EXTENTORCOMPLEX
ITYOFTHECHARGEORCHARGESACTUALORPOTENTIALPREJUDICECAUSEDTOTHE3TATEOR
THEDEFENCEBYTHEDELAYTHEEFFECTOFTHEDELAYONTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
THEADVERSEEFFECTONTHEINTERESTSOFTHEPUBLICORTHEVICTIMSINTHEEVENTOFTHE
PROSECUTION BEING STOPPED OR DISCONTINUED OR ANY OTHER FACTOR THE COURT CON
SIDERS OF IMPORTANCESEE S ! 3ECTION ! PROVIDES FOR THE POSSIBLE
FINDINGSACOURTISENTITLEDTOMAKE SHOULDITFINDTHATTHETRIALWASUNREASONABLY
DELAYED /NCE THE PROVISIONS OF S ! ARE INVOKED THE FOLLOWING THREE STAGES
MUSTBEFOLLOWED
INVESTIGATIONOFTHECAUSEOFTHEDELAYINTHEFINALISATIONOFTHECASE TAKING
INTOACCOUNTTHELISTEDFACTORS
MAKINGOFAFINDINGASTOWHETHERTHEDELAYISREASONABLEORUNREASONABLE
DEPENDINGONTHESTAGEOFTHEPROCEEDINGS THEAPPLICATIONOFTHEAPPROPRIATE
REMEDYPROVIDED.DIBE;=:!7#(#
4HEAPPROPRIATEREMEDYFORANINFRINGEMENTOFTHERIGHTTOASPEEDYTRIAL SUCH
ASAPERMANENTSTAYOFPROSECUTION ISTOBEDETERMINEDINTHELIGHTOFTHECIR
CUMSTANCESOFEACHPARTICULARCASE7ILDV(OFFERT 3!#2## 7HEN
APERMANENTSTAYOFPROSECUTIONISSOUGHT SOCIETALINTERESTALSOHASTOBECON
SIDEREDTHENEEDTOENSUREACCOUNTABILITYFORTHECOMMISSIONOFSERIOUSCRIME
WILLWEIGHAGAINSTTHEGRANTINGOFSUCHRELIEFSOUGHT 2ODRIGUESV.ATIONAL$IRECTOR
OF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!#2'* !NINDEFINITESTAYOF
THEPROSECUTIONWILLSELDOMBEGRANTEDINTHEABSENCEOFEXTRAORDINARYCIRCUM
STANCESORSIGNIFICANTPREJUDICETOTHEACCUSED-C#ARTHYV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE
*OHANNESBURG 3!#23#! 3EE ALSO -AREDI 3!#24
-OTSASI 3!#27

#(!04%2
*OINDERANDSEPARATIONOFTRIALS
3%VANDER-ERWE
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
.UMERICALIDENTIFICATIONOFCO ACCUSED
!DULTSANDCHILDRENASCO ACCUSEDTHEPROVISIONSOFS OF
\THE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
*/).$%2/23%0!2!4)/.4(%#/.&,)#4).').4%2%343
*/).$%2/&0%23/.3)-0,)#!4%$).4(%3!-%/&&%.#%
3%#4)/./&4(%!#4
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
0%23/.3#/--)44).'3%0!2!4%/&&%.#%3!43!-%4)-%!.$
0,!#%-!9"%42)%$4/'%4(%23%#4)/./&4(%!#4
4HEPROSECUTORmSOPINION
!TTHESAMEPLACEANDTHESAMETIMEORABOUTTHESAMETIME
34!'%!47()#(!.!##53%$#!."%*/).%$7)4(!.9/4(%2
!##53%$3%#4)/. /&4(%!#4
3%0!2!4)/./&42)!,33%#4)/. /&4(%!#4
#OURTmSPOWERTORAISETHEMATTEROFSEPARATION
4ESTTOBEAPPLIED
#ONSEQUENCESOFASUCCESSFULSEPARATION
D THIS!CTINRESPECTOFTHECHILDAND
E THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINRESPECTOFTHEADULT
3EE BELOW


#(!04%2r */).$%2!.$3%0!2!4)/./&42)!,3
).42/$5#4)/.
@*OINDER OF OFFENCES AS REGULATED BY S OF THE !CT WAS DISCUSSED IN PARA
OF#HAPTERABOVE4HEPRESENTCHAPTERDEALSWITHADIFFERENTASPECT NAMELY
THE@JOINDEROFACCUSEDASREGULATEDBYSS AND AND@SEPARATION
OF TRIALS AS REGULATED BY S )N THIS CHAPTER IT WILL BECOME EVIDENT THAT
THEPROSECUTIONASDOMINUSLITISSEEPARAIN#HAPTER MAYCHARGEACCUSED
PERSONS JOINTLY THAT IS IN ONE TRIAL PROVIDED CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN
SATISFIED!TTHESAMETIME HOWEVER THECOURTALSOHASTHEPOWERTOORDERASEPA
RATIONOFTRIALSWHERECIRCUMSTANCESSODEMAND3EEPARASTOBELOW
.UMERICALIDENTIFICATIONOFCO ACCUSED

)NTHEEVENTOFAJOINTTRIAL THEACCUSEDAREIDENTIFIEDNUMERICALLY FOREXAMPLE
ACCUSEDONE TWOANDTHREE4HEPROSECUTIONDECIDESWHOSHOULDBEACCUSEDONE
ORTWOORTHREE ASTHECASEMAYBE)TISTHEDUTYOFTHECOURTTOENSURETHATTHE
CORRECTNUMERICALORDERISMAINTAINEDDURINGTHECOURSEOFTHETRIAL#HAUKE
3!#2'3*
!
DULTSANDCHILDRENASCO ACCUSEDTHEPROVISIONSOFS OFTHE
#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
4HEABOVESECTIONPROVIDESTHATWHEREANADULTANDACHILDARECHARGEDTOGETHER
INTHESAMETRIALINRESPECTOFTHESAMESETOFFACTSINTERMSOFSS AND
OF!CTOF ACOURTMUSTAPPLYTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTIN
RESPECTOFTHECHILDANDTHEPROVISIONSOF!CTOFINRESPECTOFTHEADULT
3EEFURTHERPARAIN#HAPTERABOVE
*/).$%2/23%0!2!4)/.4(%#/.&,)#4).').4%2%343
4HEADVANTAGESOFAJOINTTRIALAREOBVIOUS4IMEANDCOSTSARESAVED!SINGLEPROS
ECUTIONOFSEVERALACCUSEDINAJOINTTRIALENSURESTHATPROSECUTIONWITNESSESONLY
TESTIFYONCEANDTHATONLYONECOURTISOCCUPIEDFORTHEPURPOSEOFTRYINGSEVERAL
CO ACCUSED!JOINTTRIALISATTIMESALSOTOTHETACTICALADVANTAGEOFTHEPROSECU
TIONIFTHECO ACCUSEDBLAMEEACHOTHER&OREXAMPLE ITMAYBECLEARBEFORETHE
TRIALTHATACCUSEDNUMBERONE SHOULDHEORSHEELECTTOTESTIFY WILLINCRIMINATE
ACCUSEDNUMBERTWO WHOWILL SHOULDHEORSHEALSOELECTTOTESTIFYINHISORHER
OWN DEFENCE INCRIMINATE ACCUSED NUMBER ONE 7HERE CO ACCUSED BLAME EACH
OTHERITWILLOFTENBEINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETOHAVEAJOINTTRIAL WHICHENABLES
THECOURTTOHEARALLTHEEVIDENCEANDTOBEINAGOODPOSITIONTODETERMINETHE
VARIOUSDEGREESOFGUILT3EEGENERALLY3OLOMON#0$)NTHISCASEITWAS
ALSOPOINTEDOUTTHATINTHEEVENTOFSEPARATETRIALSITBECOMESVERYEASYFOREACH
ACCUSEDTOPUTTHEBLAMEONTHEABSENTACCUSED
)TISGENERALLYACCEPTEDTHATPERSONSCHARGEDWITHTHESAMECOUNTSHOULDINTHE
BESTINTERESTSOFTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEBEJOINEDASCO ACCUSEDINONETRIAL
"AGAS 3!! 4HEPROSECUTIONASDOMINUSLITISSHOULDINPRINCIPLE
ALSONOTBEHAMPEREDINTHEMANNERINWHICHITWISHESTOPROCEEDWITHTHEPROS
ECUTION+RITZINGER 3!7 !NYAPPLICATIONFORSEPARATIONMUSTBE
ASSESSEDWITHTHESECONSIDERATIONSINMIND3EEFURTHERPARABELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
(OWEVER ALLTHEVALIDCONSIDERATIONSWHICHSUPPORTAJOINTTRIALMUSTOFNECES
SITY ALSO BE BALANCED AGAINST THE COMMON LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AN
ACCUSEDTOHAVEAFAIRTRIALASENVISAGEDINS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION3EEPARA
BELOW!CO ACCUSEDANACCUSEDINAJOINTTRIAL CANAPPLYFORASEPARATIONOFTRIALS
S 3EEPARABELOW
)N2AMGOBIN 3!. AT#ITWASSAIDTHATITISNOTTHEJOINDEROF
CHARGES AS SUCH THAT IS OBJECTIONABLE BUT THE JOINDER OF ACCUSED IN RESPECT NOT
ONLYOFDIFFERENTCHARGES BUTALSOOFWIDELYDIFFERENTPERIODSOFTIMEANDPLACES
OFCOMMISSIONOFTHESEALLEGEDCRIMES
3ECTIONSANDMUSTALSOBEAPPLIEDTOAVOIDTHEFOLLOWINGTYPEOFPREJU
DICETOANACCUSEDASPER"LIEDEN*IN.AIDOO 3!#2'3*
!NACCUSEDCOULDSPENDWEEKSINCOURTWHILEEVIDENCEAFFECTINGHISORHERCO ACCUSED
WASDEALTWITH WHICHHADNOTHINGWHATSOEVERTODOWITHTHEOBJECTINGACCUSEDANDTHE
CHARGESFACEDBYHIMORHER MERELYBECAUSEONOTHERCOUNTSHEWASCHARGEDWITHAN
OFFENCEINWHICHHISCO ACCUSEDWASCONNECTED4HISTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTDOES
NOTPERMIT
*/).$%2/&0%23/.3)-0,)#!4%$).4(%3!-%/&&%.#%3%#4)/.
/&4(%!#4
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
4HEABOVESECTIONPROVIDESASFOLLOWS
!NYNUMBEROFPARTICIPANTSINTHESAMEOFFENCEMAYBETRIEDTOGETHERANDANYNUMBER
OFACCESSORIESAFTERTHESAMEFACTMAYBETRIEDTOGETHERORANYNUMBEROFPARTICIPANTS
INTHESAMEOFFENCEANDANYNUMBEROFACCESSORIESAFTERTHATFACTMAYBETRIEDTOGETHER
ANDEACHSUCHPARTICIPANTANDEACHSUCHACCESSORYMAYBECHARGEDATSUCHTRIALWITHTHE
RELEVANTSUBSTANTIVEOFFENCEALLEGEDAGAINSTHIM
*OINDERISPERMISSIVEANDNOTIMPERATIVEANDNON JOINDERCANHARDLYEVERLEADTO
ANUNFAIRTRIAL)N8OLOV!TTORNEY 'ENERALOFTHE4RANSVAAL 3!7 AT
&n(ITWASSAID
)FULLYAPPRECIATETHATITISPOSSIBLETHATSEPARATETRIALSMAYREDOUNDTOTHEDISADVANTAGE
OFTHEACCUSEDBOTHFINANCIALLYANDINTHESENSETHATTHEYMAYBEEXPOSEDTOAGREATER
DANGEROFCONVICTIONINTHESECONDTRIAL)CAN HOWEVER SEENODANGERTOTHEMOFTHEIR
BEINGPREJUDICEDBYANYUNFAIRNESSCREEPINGINTOTHEIRTRIALSASARESULTOFSEPARATETRIALS
4HEPROSECUTIONSDECISIONNOTTOJOIN!ASACO ACCUSEDINTHETRIALOF"INCIR
CUMSTANCESWHERE!MAYBESUSPECTEDOFINVOLVEMENTINTHESAMEOFFENCEWITH
WHICH"ISCHARGEDORASIMILAROFFENCE DOESNOTINFRINGEANYESTABLISHEDCRIMI
NALPROCEDURALRULEANDCANNOTONITSOWNCONSTITUTEAFAILUREOFJUSTICERENDERING
THETRIALUNFAIR3HAIK 3!#2## )NTHISCASETHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
ALSOOBSERVEDASFOLLOWS@4HEFACTTHATTHEREMIGHTOFTENBECOGENTREASONSFOR
THEHOLDINGOFJOINTTRIALS DOESNOTMEANTHATASPECIFICTRIALWOULDBEUNFAIR
BECAUSEOTHERPOSSIBLEPERPETRATORSARENOTCHARGEDWITHANACCUSED4HEULTIMATE
QUESTION IS WHETHER A PARTICULAR TRIAL WAS UNFAIR )T WAS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT
WHILSTANON JOINDERMIGHTDISADVANTAGEANACCUSED SUCHNON JOINDERDOESNOT
NECESSARILYRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIR
4HEWORD@PARTICIPANTSASUSEDINS MUSTBEINTERPRETEDWITHREFERENCE
TO SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PEOPLE

#(!04%2r */).$%2!.$3%0!2!4)/./&42)!,3
INVOLVEDINTHESAMEOFFENCE!PARTICIPANTISA@PERPETRATORORAN@ACCOMPLICE
"ROADLYSPEAKING ITCANBESAIDTHATAPERPETRATORORCO PERPETRATOR SATISFIESALL
THEESSENTIALREQUIREMENTSFORLIABILITYASSETOUTINTHEDEFINITIONOFTHECRIME
WHEREASANACCOMPLICE@DOESNOTSATISFYALLTHEREQUIREMENTSFORLIABILITYINTHE
DEFINITIONOFTHECRIMEBUTNEVERTHELESSUNLAWFULLYANDINTENTIONALLYFUR
THERSITSCOMMISSIONBYSOMEBODYELSE3NYMAN#RIMINAL,AWED
4HUS IF!AND"HADKILLEDTHEDECEASEDWITHKNIVESSUPPLIEDBY#FORTHISVERY
PURPOSE !AND"ASCO PERPETRATORS AND#ASACCOMPLICEBUTNOTAPERPETRATOR
CANINTERMSOFS BECHARGEDJOINTLYASACCUSEDONE TWOANDTHREE FORTHE
MURDEROFTHEDECEASEDBECAUSETHETHREEOFTHEMWERE@PARTICIPANTSASREFERRED
TOINS ANDSTANDIMPLICATEDINTHE@SAMEOFFENCEASREQUIREDBYS
3ECTION CATERS SEPARATELY FOR THE JOINING OF AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
4HISISNECESSARYBECAUSEANACCESSORYAFTERTHEFACTISNOTAPARTICIPANTANDIS
THEREFORENEITHERAPERPETRATORNORACO PERPETRATORNORANACCOMPLICE3NYMAN
#RIMINAL,AWED STATESTHATAPERSON@ISANACCESSORYAFTERTHEFACT
TOTHECOMMISSIONOFACRIMEIF AFTERCOMPLETIONOFACRIME HEUNLAWFULLYAND
INTENTIONALLY ENGAGES IN CONDUCT INTENDED TO ENABLE THE PERPETRATOR OF OR THE
ACCOMPLICE IN THE CRIME TO EVADE LIABILITY FOR HIS CRIME OR TO FACILITATE SUCH A
PERSONSEVASIONOFLIABILITY3EEALSO0HALLO 3!#23#! 7ILLIAMS
3!#23#! AND0AKANE 3!#23#! 4ORETURNTOTHE
EXAMPLEINTHEPREVIOUSPARAGRAPH)F$HADMETUPWITH!AND"AFTERTHEMUR
DEROFTHEDECEASEDANDTHENHELPED!AND"TOCONCEALTHEBODYOFTHEDECEASED
$COULDBEJOINEDASACCUSEDFOURINTHETRIALOF! "AND#ONACCOUNTOFTHE
PROVISIONSOFS 4HISSECTIONREQUIRESTHATINSUCHANINSTANCE$MUSTIN
THEJOINTTRIALBECHARGEDWITHTHESUBSTANTIVEOFFENCEOFACCESSORYAFTERTHEFACT
)FAPERSONISCHARGEDASAPARTICIPANTPERPETRATORORACCOMPLICE ANDTHECOURT
FINDSTHATHEORSHEWASONLYANACCESSORYAFTERTHEFACT HEORSHEMAYINTERMSOF
SBECONVICTEDASANACCESSORYAFTERTHEFACT!FINDINGOFTHISNATUREISREFERRED
TOASA@COMPETENTVERDICT ANASPECTWHICHISDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTERBELOW
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
)NTERMSOFTHEABOVESECTIONARECEIVEROFPROPERTYOBTAINEDBYMEANSOFANOFFENCE
SHALLFORPURPOSESOFS@BEDEEMEDTOBEAPARTICIPANTINTHEOFFENCEINQUESTION
0
%23/.3#/--)44).'3%0!2!4%/&&%.#%3!43!-%4)-%!.$
0,!#%-!9"%42)%$4/'%4(%23%#4)/./&4(%!#4
!NYNUMBEROFPERSONSCHARGEDINRESPECTOFSEPARATEOFFENCESCOMMITTEDATTHESAME
PLACEANDATTHESAMETIMEORATABOUTTHESAMETIME MAYBECHARGEDANDTRIEDTOGETHER
INRESPECTOFSUCHOFFENCESIFTHEPROSECUTORINFORMSTHECOURTTHATEVIDENCEADMISSIBLE
ATTHETRIALOFONEOFSUCHPERSONSWILL INHISOPINION ALSOBEADMISSIBLEASEVIDENCEAT
THETRIALOFANYOTHERSUCHPERSONORSUCHPERSONS
3ECTIONSEEKS LIKES TOAVOIDSUCCESSIVETRIALSINVOLVINGDIFFERENTACCUSED

BUT BASED ESSENTIALLY ON THE SAME EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 3EE
-ARINGA 3!#23#! AT;=3ECTIONSUPPLEMENTSS)TPRO
VIDESFORJOINDERQUITEAPARTFROMTHECRITERIAOF@PARTICIPANTSAND@SAMEOFFENCE
ASPROVIDEDFORINS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEPROSECUTORmSOPINION
3ECTIONCOMESINTOCONSIDERATIONUPONTHEINITIATIVEOFTHEPROSECUTOR THAT
IS WHERETHEPROSECUTORINFORMSTHECOURTTHATEVIDENCEADMISSIBLEATTHETRIAL
OFONEACCUSEDWILL INHISORHEROPINION BEADMISSIBLEATTHETRIALOFTHEOTHER
ACCUSED-AKGANJE 3!#2"
!TTHESAMEPLACEANDTHESAMETIMEORABOUTTHESAMETIME
4HE SEPARATE OFFENCES MUST HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AT THE SAME PLACE AND AT THE
SAMETIMEORABOUTTHESAMETIME2AMGOBIN 3!. )N.AIDOO
3!#2'3* ITWASSAIDTHATJOINDERISIMPERMISSIBLEANDIRREGULAR@WHERE
THEREISNOCONNECTION EITHERINTIME SPACEORFACT BETWEENTHECHARGESLEVELLED
ATTHEDIFFERENTACCUSEDINTHESAMETRIALAT;= )NTHISCASETHECOURTWASSATIS
FIEDTHATACCORDINGTOTHEPROSECUTIONSALLEGATIONSTHEVARIOUSACCUSEDHADALL IN
DIFFERENTCAPACITIES BEENINVOLVEDINANUNLAWFULENTERPRISEINCONTRAVENTIONOF
S OFTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED#RIME!CTOF)TWASHELDTHATTHERE
WASNOMISJOINDER.ONEOFTHEACCUSEDWOULDHAVEBEENEXPOSEDTOEVIDENCEIR
RELEVANTTOTHECASEHEHADTOMEET
6AN7YK 3!#2.# PROVIDESANEXAMPLEWHERETHEFACTSOFTHE
CASEWERETOOTENUOUSTOESTABLISHTHEREQUIREDCONNECTIONINTIMEANDSPACE SO
ASTOJUSTIFYJOINDER3EVENACCUSEDWERECHARGEDWITHTHETHEFTOFVARYINGNUM
BERSOFSHEEPFROMTHESAMEFARM.OEVIDENCEWASLEDASTOTHESIZEOFTHEFARM
ORONWHICHPARTSOFTHEFARMTHETHEFTSHADBEENCOMMITTEDANDTHEPROSECU
TIONALLEGEDTHATTHESHEEPHADBEENSTOLENOVERAPERIODOFMONTHS4HESE
CIRCUMSTANCES HELDTHECOURTOFAPPEAL MEANTTHATTHEREWASANIRREGULARJOINDER
INTHATTHEVARIOUSOFFENCESHADNOTBEENCOMMITTEDATTHESAMEPLACEANDTIME
ORABOUTTHESAMETIME
!NOTHEREXAMPLEOFACASEWHERETHEABSENCEOFACONNECTIONINTIME SPACE
AND FACT LED TO A MISJOINDER IS -AKGANJE 3!#2 " !CCUSED NO
WASCHARGEDWITHRAPINGA YEAR OLDCOMPLAINANTON*ULYANDHISCO
ACCUSEDACCUSEDNO WASCHARGEDWITHTHERAPEOFTHESAMECOMPLAINANTON
*ULY%ACHACCUSEDHADACOMPLETELYINDEPENDENTCHARGEOFRAPEAGAINSTHIM
ANDITWASNOTPARTOFTHEPROSECUTIONSCASETHATTHEYHADASSISTEDEACHOTHEROR
HADACTEDINCOLLUSION4HEREWASNOCONNECTIONBETWEENTHETWOOFFENCES OTHER
THANTHATTHECOMPLAINANTWASTHESAMEPERSON)TWASCONCLUDEDTHATJOINDERIN
TERMSOFSWASIRREGULARASTHETWOALLEGEDRAPESHADNOTBEENCOMMITTEDAT
THESAMEPLACEANDTIME ORABOUTTHESAMETIMEAND FURTHERMORE THE@MATERIAL
EVIDENCEAGAINSTONEACCUSEDWOULDNOTHAVEBEENADMISSIBLEAGAINSTTHEOTHER
ANDVICEVERSAATHnI
3
4!'%!47()#(!.!##53%$#!."%*/).%$7)4(!.9/4(%2
!##53%$3%#4)/. /&4(%!#4
*OINDEROFACCUSEDINTHESAMECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSMAYTAKEPLACE@ATANYTIME
BEFOREANYEVIDENCEHASBEENLEDINRESPECTOFTHECHARGEINQUESTIONS
4HERESPONSESOFANACCUSEDTOTHECOURTSQUESTIONINGINTERMSOFS B TO
TESTTHEVALIDITYOFHISORHERPLEAOFGUILTYDONOTCONSTITUTE@EVIDENCEFORPURPOSES

#(!04%2r */).$%2!.$3%0!2!4)/./&42)!,3
OFS 3LABBERT 3!# ANDTHESAMEAPPLIESTOTHESITUATION

WHEREANEARLIERACCUSEDHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTYANDGIVENANEXPLANATIONOFPLEA
INTERMSOFS.GOBENI 3!" )NBOTHTHESEINSTANCESJOINDER
WOULDSTILLBEPOSSIBLE(OWEVER THECOMPLETERECORDUPTOTHATSTAGESHOULDBE
READTOTHEACCUSEDSOJOINEDBEFORETHEY INTURN AREREQUIREDTOPLEAD.GOBENI
'n$4HEEARLIERACCUSEDSHOULDTHENALSOBEPRESENTWHENPLEAPROCEED
INGS COMMENCE IN RESPECT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN JOINED 3EE
GENERALLY(ARTKOPF 3!4
!NINSPECTIONINLOCOTHATIS WHERETHECOURTVISITSTHESCENEOFTHECRIMETO
MAKEANDRECORDCERTAINOBSERVATIONS MEANSTHATREALEVIDENCEISBEINGRECEIVED
!NACCUSEDCANTHEREFORENOTBEADDEDTOPROCEEDINGSWHERESUCHANINSPECTION
HASALREADYBEENHELD$IPPENAAR 3!#24
3%0!2!4)/./&42)!,33%#4)/. /&4(%!#4
7HERETWOORMOREPERSONSARECHARGEDJOINTLY WHETHERWITHTHESAMEOFFENCEORWITH
THEDIFFERENTOFFENCES THECOURTMAYATANYTIMEDURINGTHETRIAL UPONTHEAPPLICATION
OFTHEPROSECUTOROROFANYOFTHEACCUSED DIRECTTHATTHETRIALOFANYONEORMOREOFTHE
ACCUSEDSHALLBEHELDSEPARATELYFROMTHETRIALOFTHEOTHERACCUSED ANDTHECOURTMAY
ABSTAINFROMGIVINGJUDGMENTINRESPECTOFANYOFSUCHACCUSED
4HECOURTMAY@ATANYTIMEDURINGTHETRIALDIRECTSEPARATIONS
!REFUSALTOGRANTSEPARATIONISINTERLOCUTORY,IBAYA 3!/ 4HIS
MEANSTHATINTHECOURSEOFTHETRIALTHEMATTEROFSEPARATIONCANBERAISEDAGAIN
FORFRESHCONSIDERATIONBYTHETRIALCOURT SHOULDTHEREBENEWFACTS
#
OURTmSPOWERTORAISETHEMATTEROFSEPARATION
4HEFACTTHATNEITHERTHEPROSECUTIONNORTHEACCUSEDHASASKEDFORASEPARATIONOF
TRIALSDOESNOTPRECLUDETHECOURTFROMRAISINGTHEISSUEOFITSOWNACCORDINORDER
TOAVOIDTHEKINDOFPREJUDICEREFERREDTOINPARABELOW3EE.DWANDANE
3!. 4HECOURTMIGHTINDEEDBEREQUIREDTOTAKETHEINITIATIVEWHERETHE
ACCUSEDHASNOLEGALREPRESENTATIVE
4ESTTOBEAPPLIED
4HEDECISIONWHETHERTHEREOUGHTTOBEASEPARATIONISINTHEDISCRETIONOFTHE
PRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICER4SHAMANO 3!#26 4HISDISCRETIONMUST
BEEXERCISEDINAJUDICIALMANNER THATIS NOTARBITRARILYBUTWITHDUEREGARDTO
ALLRELEVANTCONSIDERATIONSANDFACTORS"AGAS 3!! ASWELLASTHE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE WHICH ENCOMPASS THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED AS
WEIGHEDAGAINSTTHEINTERESTSOFSOCIETY3HUMA 3!#2% 4HEPREJU
DICELIKELYTOBECAUSEDTOTHEAPPLICANTINTHEABSENCEOFSEPARATIONSHOULDBE
ASSESSED AGAINST THE PREJUDICE LIKELY TO BE SUFFERED BY THE OTHER ACCUSED OR THE
PROSECUTIONSHOULDSEPARATIONBEORDERED3OMCIZA 3!! AT%n&
4HEAPPLICANTMUSTSHOWTHATTHEREISAPROBABILITYANDNOTAMEREPOSSIBIL
ITYTHATAJOINTTRIALWILLRESULTINPREJUDICEWHICHWOULDRENDERHISORHERTRIAL
UNFAIR.ZUZA 3!! 3HUMAABOVE 0REJUDICEISNOTPRESUMED"AGAS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ABOVE !COURTOFAPPEALWILLONLYINTERFEREIFSATISFIEDTHATTHETRIALCOURTS

EXERCISEOFITSDISCRETIONAMOUNTEDTOSUCHAGROSSMISDIRECTIONTHATITRESULTEDIN
AFAILUREOFJUSTICEWHICHDEPRIVEDTHEAPPELLANTOFHISORHERRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
7HERESOMEACCUSEDPLEADGUILTYANDOTHERSNOTGUILTY ITHASBECOMESTANDARD
PRACTICE TO ORDER SEPARATION AND COMPLETE THE TRIAL OF THOSE WHO HAVE PLEADED
GUILTY3EE7ITBOOI 3!#2#K )NSUCHANINSTANCETHEREISNONEEDFOR
AJOINTTRIAL ASTHOSEACCUSEDWHOPLEADEDGUILTYAREONTHEMERITSOFTHECASEIN
AGREEMENTWITHTHEPROSECUTION:ONELE 3!! AND ONCECONVICTED
CANBEAVAILABLEASPROSECUTIONOREVENDEFENCEWITNESSESINTHETRIALOFTHOSEWHO
HADPLEADEDNOTGUILTY3EEGENERALLY3HUMAABOVE AND,EONG 3!4
)N:ONELEABOVE ITWASCONFIRMEDTHATWHEREINAJOINTTRIAL!PLEADSGUILTYAND
"NOTGUILTYAND"NEEDS!ASADEFENCEWITNESS THEIRTRIALSSHOULDBESEPARATED
BECAUSE ! CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFYAS LONG AS HEORSHEHAPPENS TO BE A
CO ACCUSED
)N7ITBOOI 3!#2#K !HADPLEADEDGUILTYAND"AND#NOTGUILTY
4HETRIALCOURTHADQUESTIONED!INTERMSOFS B )NHISRESPONSES!INCRIM
INATEDHIMSELFASWELLAS"AND#!WASCONVICTEDANDTHEJOINTTRIALPROCEEDED
RESULTINGINTHECONVICTIONOF"AND#ASWELL/NREVIEWITWASHELDTHATNON
SEPARATIONCAUSEDPREJUDICETO"AND#ANDTHATTHEPREJUDICEWASSUCHTHATIT
CAUSEDAFAILUREOFJUSTICE4HEREISNOFAILUREOFJUSTICE HOWEVER WHENSEPARATION
ISREFUSEDWHEREONEACCUSEDSPLEAOFNOTGUILTYISFOLLOWEDBYANEXPLANATIONOF
PLEAINTERMSOFSINWHICHHEORSHEINCRIMINATESHISORHERCO ACCUSED3EE
7ITBOOIABOVE D
#
ONSEQUENCESOFASUCCESSFULSEPARATION
)NTHEEVENTOFASUCCESSFULAPPLICATIONFORSEPARATION THECASEPROCEEDSAGAINST
THEREMAININGACCUSEDANDWHEREALLTHEACCUSEDHAVEAPPLIEDFORASEPARATION
ITISFORTHEPROSECUTIONTODECIDEAGAINSTWHOMITWISHESTOPROCEEDFORTHWITH
4HECOURTABSTAINSFROMGIVINGAVERDICTS ANDASUCCESSFULAPPLICANT
CANNOTATHISORHERLATERTRIALWHICHMUSTSTARTDENOVORELYONAPLEAOFPRIOR
ACQUITTALASPROVIDEDFORINS D
!COURTTHATHASGRANTEDASEPARATIONOFTRIALSHASNOPOWERTODETERMINETHE
SEQUENCE IN WHICH THE TRIALS OUGHT TO TAKE PLACE -ATSINYA !$ 4HE
COURTMAY ATMOST SUGGESTTHATAPARTICULARSEQUENCEWOULDBESTSERVETHEINTER
ESTSOFJUSTICE
4HEPROSECUTIONISENTITLEDTOPROCEEDONDIFFERENTORNEWCHARGESAGAINSTTHOSE
ACCUSEDWHOWERESEPARATEDFROMTHETRIAL3HONGWA 3!/

#(!04%2
4RIALPRINCIPLESANDTHECOURSE
OFTHECRIMINALTRIAL
3%VANDER-ERWE
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
4HEMEANINGOFlCOURSEOFTHECRIMINALTRIALm
4HENATUREANDPURPOSEOFACRIMINALTRIAL
4(%3%6%.&5.$!-%.4!,02).#)0,%37()#('/6%2.!
#2)-).!,42)!,
4HEFAIRTRIALPRINCIPLE
4HEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITY
4HEPRINCIPLEOFJUDICIALIMPARTIALITY
3ECTIONOFTHE!CTPOWEROFCOURTTOEXAMINE
WITNESSORPERSONINATTENDANCE
3ECTIONOFTHE!CTCOURTMAYSUBPOENAWITNESS
3ECTION OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
4HEPRINCIPLEOFEQUALITYOFARMS
4HEPRINCIPLEOFJUDICIALCONTROL
4HEPRINCIPLEOFORALITY
)NTERPRETERS
/ATHORAFFIRMATIONORWARNING
%XAMINATION IN CHIEF
#ROSS EXAMINATION
2E EXAMINATION
1UESTIONINGWHEREANINTERMEDIARYHASBEEN
APPOINTED
4HEPRINCIPLEOFFINALITY
4(%#!3%&/24(%02/3%#54)/.
/PENINGOFTHE3TATEmSCASE
4HECALLINGOF3TATEWITNESSESANDEXAMINATION IN CHIEFBY
PROSECUTOR
#ROSS EXAMINATIONOF3TATEWITNESSESBYTHEDEFENCE


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
2E EXAMINATIONOF3TATEWITNESSESBYTHEPROSECUTOR

#LOSINGTHE3TATEmSCASE
$)3#(!2'%/&!##53%$!44(%%.$/&4(%34!4%m3#!3%
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
"ACKGROUNDANDINTERPRETATION
4HETESTFORDISCHARGE
4HESO CALLEDl6FKXSLQJTESTm
4HEl6FKXSLQJTESTmINTHECONSTITUTIONALERA
4(%$%&%.#%#!3%
4HEPASSIVEDEFENCERIGHTCLOSINGTHEDEFENCECASEASA
RESPONSE
$EFENCEADDRESS
4HEACTIVEDEFENCERIGHT
4HEACTIVEDEFENCERIGHTANDTHESEQUENCEOFDEFENCE
WITNESSES
%VIDENCE IN CHIEFOFDEFENCEWITNESSES
#ROSS EXAMINATIONOFDEFENCEWITNESSESBYTHEPROSECUTION
2E EXAMINATIONOFDEFENCEWITNESSES
&).!,!2'5-%.43"902/3%#54)/.!.$$%&%.#%
4(%6%2$)#4/.4(%-%2)43
c
CEEDINGS
3EE AND BELOW
M NOTTOBECOMPELLEDTOGIVESELF INCRIMINATINGEVIDENCE
N TOBETRIEDINALANGUAGETHATTHEACCUSEDPERSONUNDERSTANDSOR IFTHATISNOT
PRACTICABLE TOHAVETHEPROCEEDINGSINTERPRETEDINTHATLANGUAGE
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTANDTHISCHAPTER
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTMUST DURINGTHEPROCEEDINGS ENSURETHATTHEBESTINTERESTSOF
THECHILDAREUPHELD ANDTOTHISEND
D MAYELICITADDITIONALINFORMATIONFROMANYPERSONINVOLVEDINTHEPROCEEDINGS
AND
E MUST DURING ALL STAGES OF THE TRIAL ESPECIALLY DURING CROSS EXAMINATION OF A
3EE BELOW
).42/$5#4)/.
!CRIMINALTRIALCOMMENCESONCEANACCUSEDHASPLEADEDINTHECOURTTHATHAS
THEREQUIREDJURISDICTIONTOHEAREVIDENCEINORDERTOPRONOUNCEONTHEGUILTOR
OTHERWISEOFTHEACCUSEDCONCERNED4HISCOURTISHEREAFTERREFERREDTOASTHE@TRIAL
COURT4HEPRESENTCHAPTERDEALSWITHCRIMINALTRIALPRINCIPLESANDTHECOURSEOF
THECRIMINALTRIAL ASOPPOSEDTOREVIEWANDAPPEALPROCEDURESDEALTWITHBELOW
IN#HAPTERSAND RESPECTIVELY
4HEMEANINGOFlCOURSEOFTHECRIMINALTRIALm
4HEPHRASE@COURSEOFTHECRIMINALTRIALREFERSTOALLTHEPROCEDURESWHICHMAY
ORMUSTBEFOLLOWEDFROMTHETIMEANACCUSEDHASPLEADEDUNTILVERDICTONTHE
MERITSSEE#HAPTER AND IFTHEACCUSEDISCONVICTED THEDETERMINATIONOFAN
APPROPRIATEPUNISHMENTIMPOSEDBYTHETRIALCOURTSEE#HAPTER
4HENATUREANDPURPOSEOFACRIMINALTRIAL
!CRIMINALTRIALCAN BROADLYSPEAKING BEDESCRIBEDASASTATE SPONSOREDPUBLIC
JUDICIALANDPRIMARILYORALHEARINGINTERMSOFWHICHTHEALLEGEDCRIMINALLIABILITY
OFANACCUSEDMUSTINTHEPUBLICINTERESTBEDETERMINEDBYANIMPARTIALADJUDICA
TORONTHEBASISOFCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTORYANDCOMMON LAWRULESANDPRINCIPLES
OF FAIRNESS WHICH PROMOTE RELIABLE AND ACCEPTABLE OUTCOMES IN CONVICTING AND
PUNISHING THE GUILTY WHILE PROTECTING THE INNOCENT FROM INCORRECT CONVICTION
ANDWRONGFULPUNISHMENT
4HEPROCESSASDESCRIBEDINTHEPREVIOUSPARAGRAPHMUSTOFNECESSITYBEREGU
LATEDBYDETAILEDANDPERHAPSVERYTECHNICALRULES4HESEDETAILEDRULES HOWEVER
MUST ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF AT LEAST SEVEN FUNDA
MENTALPRINCIPLESASIDENTIFIEDINPARABELOW4HESEPRINCIPLES INTURN AREALSO
INTERWOVENWITHORCLOSELYLINKEDTOTHEADVERSARIALACCUSATORIAL NATUREOFOUR
TRIALSYSTEMAMATTERDEALTWITHINPARAOF#HAPTERABOVE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4
(%3%6%.&5.$!-%.4!,02).#)0,%37()#('/6%2.!#2)-).!,
42)!,
-OSTOFTHEDETAILEDRULESWHICHGOVERNTHECOURSEOFCRIMINALTRIALSTEMFROM
ONEORMOREOFTHEFOLLOWINGINTERRELATEDFUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLESTRIALFAIRNESS
SEEPARABELOW LEGALITYSEEPARABELOW JUDICIALIMPARTIALITYSEEPARA
BELOW EQUALITY OF ARMS SEE PARA BELOW JUDICIAL CONTROL SEE PARA
BELOW ORALITYSEEPARABELOW ANDFINALITYSEEPARABELOW
4
HEFAIRTRIALPRINCIPLE
!N ACCUSEDS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER S OF THE #ONSTITUTION @EMBRACES
A CONCEPT OF SUBSTANTIVE FAIRNESS WHICH IS NOT TO BE EQUATED WITH WHAT MIGHT
HAVE PASSED MUSTER IN OUR CRIMINAL COURTS BEFORE THE #ONSTITUTION COME INTO
FORCE:UMA 3!#2## 4HERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALEMBRACESMORETHAN
WHATISCONTAINEDINTHELISTOFSPECIFICRIGHTSIDENTIFIEDINS A nO OFTHE
#ONSTITUTION6ELDMANV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7,$ 3!#2
## AT;=n;= 4HES RIGHTSWHICHSURFACEMOSTPERTINENTLYINTHECOURSE
OFTHETRIALARETHERIGHTTOBEPRESUMEDINNOCENTS H THERIGHTTOADDUCE
AND CHALLENGE EVIDENCE S I AND THE RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY DURING THE PRO
CEEDINGSS H 4HEWORDS@WHICHINCLUDETHERIGHT PRECEDINGTHELISTINGOF
SPECIFICRIGHTSINPARAGRAPHSA TOO INS @INDICATETHATSUCHSPECIFICATIONIS
NOTEXHAUSTIVEOFWHATTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALCOMPRISES$ZUKUDA 3!#2
## AT;= !T;=THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTALSOSAIDPER!CKERMANN*
)TWOULDBEIMPRUDENT EVENIFITWEREPOSSIBLE INAPARTICULARCASECONCERNINGTHERIGHT
TOAFAIRTRIAL TOATTEMPTACOMPREHENSIVEEXPOSITIONTHEREOF)NWHATFOLLOWS NOMORE
ISINTENDEDTOBESAIDABOUTTHISPARTICULARRIGHTTHANISNECESSARYTODECIDETHECASEAT
HAND!TTHEHEARTOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIRCRIMINALTRIALANDWHATINFUSESITSPURPOSE IS
FORJUSTICETOBEDONEANDALSOTOBESEENTOBEDONE"UTTHECONCEPTOFJUSTICEITSELFISA
BROADANDPROTEANCONCEPT)NCONSIDERINGWHATxLIESATTHEHEARTOFAFAIRTRIALINTHE
FIELDOFCRIMINALJUSTICE ONESHOULDBEARINMINDTHATDIGNITY FREEDOMANDEQUALITY
ARETHEFOUNDATIONALVALUESOFOUR#ONSTITUTION!NIMPORTANTAIMOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIR
CRIMINALTRIALISTOENSUREADEQUATELYTHATINNOCENTPEOPLEARENOTWRONGLYCONVICTED
BECAUSEOFTHEADVERSEEFFECTSWHICHAWRONGCONVICTIONHASONTHELIBERTY ANDDIGNITY
ANDPOSSIBLYOTHER INTERESTSOFTHEACCUSED4HEREARE HOWEVER OTHERELEMENTSOFTHE
RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALSUCHAS FOREXAMPLE THEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE THERIGHTTOFREE
LEGALREPRESENTATIONINGIVENCIRCUMSTANCES ATRIALINPUBLICWHICHISNOTUNREASONABLY
DELAYED WHICHCANNOTBEEXPLAINEDEXCLUSIVELYONTHEBASISOFAVERTINGAWRONGCONVIC
TION BUTWHICHARISEPRIMARILYFROMCONSIDERATIONSOFDIGNITYANDEQUALITY
.O ONE MAY BE CONVICTED WITHOUT A FAIR TRIAL "ALOYI 3!#2 ## AT
;= )N +RUSE 3!#2 7## THE TRIAL WAS HELD UNFAIR BECAUSE THE
TRIALCOURTHADFAILEDTOTAKEADEQUATESTEPSTOENSURETHATTHEACCUSEDWHOHAD
IMPAIREDHEARINGANDSPEECHCOULDFOLLOWTHEPROCEEDINGSANDCOMMUNICATE
EFFECTIVELY AT ;= ;= 4HE FAIR TRIAL PRINCIPLE ALSO REQUIRES FAIR APPEAL PROCESSES
.GOBENI ;= :!3#! UNREPORTED 3#! CASE NO 3EPTEMBER
AT;=
)T HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT @THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN TERMS OF S OF THE
#ONSTITUTIONINCLUDESTHERIGHTTOAPROSECUTORTHATACTSANDISPERCEIVEDTOACT
WITHOUT FEAR FAVOUR OR PREJUDICE "ONUGLI V $EPUTY .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS 3!#24 ATHnI

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
4RIAL FAIRNESS IS NOT CONFINED TO THE POSITION OF THE ACCUSED BUT EXTENDS TO
SOCIETY AS A WHOLE PRECISELY BECAUSE SOCIETY HAS A REAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME
OFACASE3ONDAY 3!# !LLTHEJUDICIALDUTIESTHATHAVETOBE
PERFORMEDINRESPECTOFANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDINORDERTOENSUREAFAIRTRIAL
WERE SET OUT AND CONFIRMED IN -OFOKENG 3!#2 &" (OWEVER THE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASWARNEDTHATATRIALCOURTSHOULDNOTGIVEASSISTANCE
TOANACCUSEDTOTHEPOINTOFUNFAIRLYDISADVANTAGINGTHEPROSECUTION3EE"ROWN
3!#23#! )NTHISCASETHETRIALJUDGEHADREPEATEDLYINTERVENEDIN
THEPROSECUTIONSCASEANDHEWASANTAGONISTICTOTHEPROSECUTION TOTHEEXTENT
THATHISCONDUCTWAS@DESERVINGOFCENSUREAT;=
4HERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALDEMANDSTHATTHERESHOULDBEINFORMEDPARTICIPATIONBY
THEUNREPRESENTEDACCUSED!COURTISTHEREFOREREQUIREDTOEXPLAINALLPROCEDURAL
RIGHTS AND OPTIONS TO AN UNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDANDTODOSOAT EVERYCRITICAL
STAGE3EE2AMULIFHO 3!#23#! 4HEFACTTHATTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTS
HAVEBEENEXPLAINEDSHOULDBEPROPERLYRECORDED-OTAUNG 3!4
0ERUSAL OF THE RECORD MUST REVEAL PRECISELY WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO AN UNREPRE
SENTEDACCUSEDREGARDINGTHERIGHTTOCONSULTWITHALEGALPRACTITIONEROFCHOICE
THERIGHTTOBEPROVIDEDWITHALEGALPRACTITIONERATSTATEEXPENSEANDTHERIGHTTO
DISPENSEWITHALEGALPRACTITIONERANDTHEREACTIONTHERETOMUSTAPPEAREXFACIE
THERECORDOFPROCEEDINGS3IBIYA 3!#27 !FAIRTRIALREQUIRESTHAT
ANY APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID BE CAREFULLY AND COMPLETELY NOTED IN SUCH A WAY
THATANOTHERCOURTLATERBURDENEDWITHTHEMATTERISPROPERLYAPPRAISEDOFTHAT
FACT#ORDIER 3!#24 )TISTHETASKOFTHEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICER
TOEXPLAINTHERIGHTSTOANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDANDSUCHDUTYCANNOTINTHE
ORDINARYCOURSEBEDELEGATEDTOANINTERPRETER-ALATJI 3!#27
4HERIGHTTOBEFURNISHEDWITHSUFFICIENTREASONSFORACONVICTION ISAFAIRTRIAL
RIGHT3EE"ARLOW 3!#2## AT;=ASWELLASPARAIN#HAPTER
BELOW
4HEFAIRTRIALPRINCIPLEALSOGOVERNSTHESENTENCINGPHASEOFTHECRIMINALTRIAL
$ZUKUDAABOVE AND-ASHININI 3!#23#! )TIS FOREXAMPLE AFAIR
TRIALREQUIREMENTTHATCLEARANDPROPERREASONSFORTHESPECIFICSENTENCEIMPOSED
SHOULDBEPROVIDEDBYTHESENTENCINGCOURT(EUWEL 3!#27## AT
;=
4
HEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITY
)NPARAOF#HAPTER ABOVE REFERENCEWASMADETOTHEREQUIREMENTTHATTHE
PROSECUTION MUST PROVE LEGAL GUILT IN A PROPERLY CONDUCTED TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE
WITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITY THATIS INATRIALWHEREALLRELEVANTCOMMON LAW
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RULES WERE FOLLOWED &ACTUAL GUILT AS
CERTAINED AT THE EXPENSE OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS SHORT OF
THESTANDARDSETBYTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITY4HUS ITCANBESAIDTHATLEGALGUILT
ISABSENTWHERETHECONVICTIONRESTSONFACTSOBTAINEDINBREACHOFTHEACCUSEDS
PRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATION,WANE 3!! ORTHEACCUSEDS
RIGHT TO CONSULT CONFIDENTIALLY WITH HIS OR HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE -USHIMBA
3!!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEPRINCIPLEOFJUDICIALIMPARTIALITY
)NOURADVERSARIALTRIALSYSTEMTHEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERISINPRINCIPLEAPAS
SIVEUMPIREWHOSHOULDNOTDESCENDINTOTHEARENAWHERETHEDUSTOFTHECONFLICT
MIGHTCLOUDHISORHERJUDICIALVISION3USSEX*USTICES +"2ALL
3!! -SELEKU 3!#2. 4HEROLEOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICERWAS
DESCRIBEDASFOLLOWSBY3TEWART!*IN.NASOLU 3!#2+:0 AT;=
4HEPRESIDINGOFFICERSHOULDNOTENTERTHEARENA(EORSHEISENTITLEDANDOFTENOBLIGED
INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETOPUTSUCHADDITIONALQUESTIONSTOWITNESSES INCLUDINGTHE
ACCUSED ASSEEMTOHIMORHERDESIRABLEINORDERTOELICITORELUCIDATETHETRUTHMORE
FULLY IN RESPECT OF RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE 4HE PRESIDING OFFICER SHOULD NOT ONLY
ENSURETHATJUSTICEISDONE HEORSHESHOULDALSOENSURETHATJUSTICEISSEENTOBEDONE
4HETRIALSHOULDTHEREFOREBECONDUCTEDINSUCHAWAYTHATTHEOPEN MINDEDNESS IM
PARTIALITYANDFAIRNESSOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICERAREMANIFESTTOALLTHOSEWHOARECONCERNED
INTHETRIALANDITSOUTCOME ESPECIALLYTHEACCUSED4HEPRESIDINGOFFICERSHOULDREFRAIN
FROM INDULGING IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES OR THE ACCUSED IN SUCH A WAY OR TO SUCH AN
EXTENTTHATITMAYPRECLUDEHIMORHERFROMDETACHEDLYOROBJECTIVELYAPPRECIATINGAND
ADJUDICATINGUPONTHEISSUESBEINGFOUGHTOUTBEFOREHIMORHER4HEPRESIDINGOFFICER
SHOULDREFRAINFROMQUESTIONINGAWITNESSORTHEACCUSEDINAWAYTHATMAYINTIMIDATE
ORDISCONCERTHIMORHERORUNDULYINFLUENCETHEQUALITYORNATUREOFTHEREPLIESAND
THUSAFFECTHISORHERDEMEANOURORIMPAIRHISORHERCREDIBILITY
#ROSS EXAMINATIONOFANACCUSEDBYAPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERCAN@ONLYLEADTO
THEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEFALLINGINTODISREPUTEANDAPERCEPTIONOFBIASONTHE
PARTOFTHEPRESIDINGOFFICER$U0LESSIS 3!#2'3* AT;=
!PARTYWHOISAGGRIEVEDBYTHEMANNERINWHICHAPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICER
CONDUCTSATRIALCANBRINGANAPPLICATIONFORTHERECUSALOFSUCHOFFICERAMATTER
THATWASDEALTWITHINPARAOF#HAPTER ABOVE
4HERIGHTOFTHEPARTIESTOCALLWITNESSESINSUPPORTOFTHEIRRESPECTIVECASESAND
TOCROSS EXAMINEANOPPONENTSWITNESSEXPLAINSWHYTHEADVERSARIALSYSTEMCAN
AFFORDANDMAINTAINTHERELATIVEINACTIVITYOFTHEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERINTHE
COURSEOFTHETRIAL(OWEVER DUENOTESHOULDBETAKENOFTHESTATUTORYPROVISIONS
SETOUTINPARAGRAPHSTO BELOW
6 HFWLRQRIWKH$FW SRZHURIFRXUWWRH[DPLQHZLWQHVVRUSHUVRQLQ

DWWHQGDQFH
4HECOURTMAYATANYSTAGEOFCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSEXAMINEANYPERSON OTHERTHANAN
ACCUSED WHOHASBEENSUBPOENAEDTOATTENDSUCHPROCEEDINGSORWHOISINATTENDANCE
ATSUCHPROCEEDINGS ANDMAYRECALLANDRE EXAMINEANYPERSON INCLUDINGANACCUSED
ALREADY EXAMINED AT THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE COURT SHALL EXAMINE OR RECALL AND RE
EXAMINE THEPERSONCONCERNEDIFHISEVIDENCEAPPEARSTOTHECOURTESSENTIALTOTHEJUST
DECISIONOFTHECASE
4HIS STATUTORY POWER TO QUESTION A WITNESS INTRODUCES AN INQUISITORIAL ELEMENT
BUTDOESNOTENTITLETHECOURTTOCROSS EXAMINETHEWITNESSCONCERNED)N1HAYISO
3!#2%#" THEMAGISTRATESQUESTIONSWERE@HARDLYQUESTIONSTOGET
CLARITYONCERTAINUNCLEARISSUES BUTCONSTITUTEDCROSS EXAMINATION WITHTHERE
SULTTHATTHEMAGISTRATEDESCENDEDINTOTHEARENA TRANSGRESSINGTHEGUIDELINES
AT;= 4HEPURPOSEOFTHECOURTSQUESTIONSSHOULDBETOELUCIDATEOBSCURE
POINTS OR CLEAR UP AMBIGUITIES 4HE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENCE MAY PUT QUESTIONS

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
ARISING FROM THE QUESTIONING BY THE COURT 4HE COURT SHOULD IF AT ALL POSSIBLE
ONLYPUTITSQUESTIONSONCETHEPARTIESHAVECOMPLETEDTHEIRQUESTIONINGOFTHE
WITNESS-SELEKU 3!#2. AT;= ;= 3ECTIONDOESNOTENTITLE
THECOURTTOTAKEOVERTHEPROSECUTORSROLE-OSOINYANE 3!#24
4HE@FREQUENCY LENGTH TIMING FORM TONEANDCONTENTSOFTHECOURTSQUESTION
ING-SITHING 3!#2. CANDETERMINEWHETHERPERMISSIBLEJUDICIAL
QUESTIONING WAS PRESENT OR ABSENT !N ACCEPTABLE BALANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED
BETWEEN INTERFERENCE AND DETACHMENT 'ERBERS 3!#2 3#! 4HE
INEXPERIENCEOFTHEPROSECUTORANDPOLICEMAYCALLFORANDJUSTIFYAMOREACTIVE
APPROACHINORDERTOENSURETHATJUSTICEISDONEBETWEENTHEPARTIES6ANDEN"ERG
3!#2.M .CGOBO "#,2. -SELEKU ABOVE
6 HFWLRQRIWKH$FW FRXUWPD\VXESRHQDZLWQHVV

4HECOURTMAYATANYSTAGEOFCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSSUBPOENAORCAUSETOBESUBPOENAED
ANYPERSONASAWITNESSATSUCHPROCEEDINGS ANDTHECOURTSHALLSOSUBPOENAAWITNESS
ORSOCAUSEAWITNESSTOBESUBPOENAEDIFTHEEVIDENCEOFSUCHWITNESSAPPEARSTOTHE
COURTESSENTIALTOTHEJUSTDECISIONOFTHECASE
3ECTIONCANBEINVOKED@ATANYSTAGEOFTHEPROCEEDINGSEVENAFTERTHEPAR
TIESHAVEDELIVEREDTHEIRFINALARGUMENTSONTHEMERITS+AROLIA 3!#2
3#! 4HECOURTMAYALSORELYONSINORDERTORECALLANACCUSEDWHOHAS
ELECTEDTOTESTIFYINHISORHEROWNDEFENCE.ARAN 3!32
4HE VIEWS OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE SHOULD ALWAYS BE ESTABLISHED
BEFOREACOURTDECIDESTOCALLAWITNESS3EE-ASOOA;=!LL3!'* WHERE
THEREMARKSINTHEMINORITYJUDGMENTIN'ABAATLHOLWE 3!#23#!
WEREPREFERREDTOTHEAPPROACHADOPTEDIN+AROLIA 3!#23#!
!PARTYADVERSELYAFFECTEDBYTHEEVIDENCEOFAWITNESSCALLEDBYTHECOURTIN
TERMSOFSSHOULDBEGIVENANOPPORTUNITYTOREBUTTHISEVIDENCE ANDANY
PARTYDESIRINGTOCROSS EXAMINESUCHAWITNESSSHOULDNORMALLYBEALLOWEDTODO
SO,UBBE 3!/ #HILI40$ 3EEALSOS
3ECTIONINTRODUCESANINQUISITORIALELEMENTANDESSENTIALLYCATERSFORTWO
SITUATIONS NAMELYTHECOURTSDISCRETIONTOCALLAWITNESSANDTHECOURTSDUTYTO
DOSO
4HE FIRST PART OF S CREATES A DISCRETION THE COURT @MAY 4HIS IS A DISCRE
TIONTOBEEXERCISEDJUDICIALLY)NEXERCISINGTHISDISCRETIONTHECOURTISENTITLED
TOTAKEINTOACCOUNTTHATANACCUSEDHASACONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOHAVEHISORHER
TRIALCONCLUDEDWITHINAREASONABLETIME"ASSON 3!#2## )TIS
ANIMPROPEREXERCISEOFTHECOURTSDISCRETIONTOCALLAWITNESSWHERENOEVIDENCE
WASLEDBYTHE3TATEANDTHEDEFENCEANDWHERETHEACCUSEDBUTFORTHEEVIDENCE
OFTHECOURTSWITNESSWASENTITLEDTOANACQUITTAL+WINIKA 3!7
4HE DISCRETIONARY POWER ALLOWS A COURT TO CALL A WITNESS WHO IS USEFUL BUT NOT
ESSENTIAL-AJOSI 3!.
4HESECONDPARTOFSTHECOURT@SHALL PLACESADUTYONTHECOURTTOCALLA
WITNESSIFITISESSENTIALTOTHEJUSTDECISIONOFTHECASE3EE(ELM 3!#2
7## )TISFORTHECOURTTODECIDEWHETHERTHEEVIDENCEISESSENTIAL(EPWORTH
!$ )N3TEWARD 3!#2.#+ THECOURTOFAPPEALOBSERVED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AS A WITNESS IN
ORDER@TOCLEARUPWHETHERTHEACCUSEDSALIBIWASEVERINVESTIGATEDAT;= @4HE
EVIDENCEMAYHAVEPERSUADEDTHEMAGISTRATETOACQUITTHEAPPELLANTORMAYHAVE
STRENGTHENEDTHETRIALCOURTSHANDINCONVICTINGHIM4HEINEXPERIENCEOFTHE
PROSECUTOR OR THE ACCUSEDS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE CAN CREATE THE NECESSITY FOR THE
COURTTOCALLTHEWITNESSTOENSURETHATJUSTICEISDONE3EEGENERALLY6ANDEN"ERG
3!#2.M -SELEKU 3!#2.
!COURTOFAPPEALWILLONLYINRARECIRCUMSTANCESINTERFEREWITHTHETRIALCOURTS
DECISION THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE 3EE
'ABAATLHOLWE 3!#23#! (OWEVER INTERFERENCEONAPPEALISNECES
SARYWHERETHETRIALCOURTSDECISIONTOCALLAWITNESSWASASERIOUSMISDIRECTION
CONSTITUTINGANIRREGULARITY3EE3HANGE;=!LL3!+:0 ,ONGANO
3!#2+:0
6HFWLRQ RIWKH&KLOG-XVWLFH$FWRI

)NTERMSOFTHEABOVESECTIONACHILDJUSTICECOURTMUSTENSURETHATTHEBEST
INTERESTSOFTHECHILDAREUPHELD ANDTOTHISEND
A MAYELICITADDITIONALINFORMATIONFROMANYPERSONINVOLVEDINTHEPROCEED
INGSAND
B MUST DURINGALLSTAGESOFTHETRIAL ESPECIALLYDURINGCROSS EXAMINATIONOFA
4
HEPRINCIPLEOFEQUALITYOFARMS
)NPARAIN#HAPTERITWASNOTEDTHATTHE3OUTH!FRICANCRIMINALTRIALSYSTEM
ISESSENTIALLYACCUSATORIALADVERSARIAL INNATURE3UCHASYSTEMISBASEDONTHE
PREMISE THAT TRUTH FINDING IS ENHANCED IF THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE ARE RE
SPONSIBLE FOR PRESENTING THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES (OWEVER THIS APPROACH IS ONLY
VALIDIFTHEPROSECUTIONANDDEFENCEHAVEEQUALOPPORTUNITIES)TISINTHISCONTEXT
THATTHESO CALLED@PRINCIPLEOFEQUALITYOFARMSDEVELOPED3EEALSOTHEDISCUS
SIONOF-PETHA 3!# INPARA IN#HAPTERABOVE3ILVER
7ISCONSIN,AW2EVIEWEXPLAINSASFOLLOWS
;4=OENSURETHATTHEADVERSARIALPROCESSACHIEVESITSEND THEOPTIMISATIONOFTHESEARCH
FOR TRUTHx ;A COURT= x MUST FORMALLY RECOGNISE A NEW RIGHT DESIGNED TO RESTORE AND
PROTECT THE DELICATE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE x ;4=HE
ADVERSARIALPROCESSFUNCTIONSEFFECTIVELYONLYWHENOPPOSINGCOUNSELCANFASHIONAND
PRESENTTHEIRSTRONGESTCASEFROMPOSITIONSOFRELATIVEEQUALITY4HISEQUALITY ASSIGNIFI
CANTASTHEOTHERPROTECTIONSUNDERLYINGTHEADVERSARIALPROCESSINASCRIBINGMEANINGTO
THENEBULOUSGUARANTEEOFDUEPROCESS MUSTBEEXTENDEDFORMALPROTECTION
)NTERMSOFTHEPRINCIPLEOFEQUALITYOFARMSINTHECONTEXTOFTHECOURSEOFTHE
TRIAL ITISFOREXAMPLEIRREGULARTODENYAPARTYTHEOPPORTUNITYTOCROSS EXAMINE
THEOPPONENTSWITNESS-GUDU 3!#2. .NASOLU 3!#2
+:0 )N-SIMANGO 3!#2'3* ITWASPOINTEDOUTTHATS OFTHE
!CTVESTSRECIPROCALRIGHTSINBOTHTHEACCUSEDANDTHEPROSECUTIONTOCROSS EXAM
INEOPPOSINGWITNESSES ANDTORE EXAMINETHEIROWNWITNESSES!T;=ITWASALSO

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
SAIDTHAT@;S=IMILARLY THERIGHTTOCROSS EXAMINEACO ACCUSEDORWITNESSCALLEDBY

SUCHCO ACCUSEDISALSOEXTENDEDTOBOTHANACCUSEDANDTHEPROSECUTION
4HEREMUST FURTHERMORE ALSOBEEQUALOPPORTUNITIESINADDRESSINGTHECOURT
ONTHEMERITSSEEPARABELOW ANDONTHEQUESTIONOFANAPPROPRIATESENTENCE
SEEPARAIN#HAPTERBELOW %QUALITYOFARMSALSOREQUIRESTHATANACCUSED
SHOULDINPRINCIPLEHAVELEGALREPRESENTATIONSEE#HAPTERABOVE INORDERTOBE
ONAPARWITHTHE3TATE WHICHEMPLOYSAPROSECUTOR3EE,EGAL!ID"OARD
3!#23#!AT;=
%QUALITYOFARMSISDIFFICULTTOMAINTAINANDENFORCEATTHEPRE TRIALINVESTIGATIVE
STAGE4HEEVIDENCE GATHERINGPROCESSISLOADEDAGAINSTTHEINDIVIDUALSUSPECT
ACCUSED SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE STATES VAST FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES THAT
ITCANHARNESSTOINVESTIGATEALLEGEDCRIMINALCONDUCT)TISPRECISELYBECAUSEOF
THISPRE TRIALIMBALANCETHATTHEPRINCIPLEOFEQUALITYOFARMSMUSTATTRIALLEVEL
BE ENFORCED WITH GREAT CARE AND VIGOUR )N ,AVHENGWA 3!#2 7
#LAASSEN*SAIDATJnB
!FAIRTRIALENVISAGESxEQUALITYOFARMSx!FAIRTRIALEMBRACESEQUALITYBEFORETHELAW
BETWEENLITIGANTSINACRIMINALTRIAL!LTHOUGHINEQUALITIESBETWEENACCUSEDPERSONSARE
INHERENTINANYCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMxINEQUALITIESBETWEENOPPOSINGLITIGANTSINA
CRIMINALTRIALISCONTRARYTOTHEPRINCIPLEOFAFAIRTRIAL
4
HEPRINCIPLEOFJUDICIALCONTROL
)N ,EGOTE 3!#2 3#! (ARMS *! EMPHASISED THE PRINCIPLE THAT A
CRIMINAL COURT MUSTWITHOUT SACRIFICING ITS IMPARTIALITYCONTROL AND MANAGE
PROCEEDINGSWITHINTHEBOUNDSOFTHELAWOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREATDnE 3EE
ALSO-ALIGA 3!#23#! AT;=3EVERALSTATUTORYANDCOMMON LAW
RULESCONFIRMTHISPRINCIPLE4OTHISENDTHECOURTSHOULD WHENEVERNECESSARY
ISSUEORDERSTHATTHEPROSECUTOR DEFENCELAWYER ACCUSEDPERSONS COURTSTAFF WIT
NESSESANDMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLICINATTENDANCEMUSTOBEY&ORPRESENTPURPOSES
THEFOLLOWINGEIGHTEXAMPLESOFJUDICIALCONTROLANDMANAGEMENTWILLSUFFICE
A /NEOFTHEPURPOSESOFTHECRIMEOFCONTEMPTOFCOURTINFACIECURIAECON
TEMPTINTHEPRESENCEOFTHECOURTWHILSTSITTING ISTOSTRENGTHENTHEHANDS
OFTHEJUDGEORMAGISTRATETOCONTROLANDMANAGEPROCEEDINGSINANORDERLY
FASHION4HUS ALEGALREPRESENTATIVEWHOPERSISTSINSHOUTINGATAWITNESSIN
THECOURSEOFCROSS EXAMINATIONCOMMITSCONTEMPTOFCOURT"ENSON!$
ANDSODOESSOMEONEWHOGRABSANDTEARSUPACOURTDOCUMENT-ONGWE
3!4 3ECTIONOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOFLISTS
THREECATEGORIESOFCONTEMPTINFACIEDELIBERATEINSULTS DELIBERATEINTERRUP
TIONSANDMISBEHAVIOUROFSOMEOTHERKIND
B !PRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICERMAYORDERTHEARRESTOFSOMEONEWHOCOMMITSAN
OFFENCEINTHEPRESENCEOFTHECOURTS
C )FANYPERSON OTHERTHANANACCUSED WHOISPRESENTATCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
DISTURBSTHEPEACEORORDEROFTHECOURT THECOURTMAYORDERTHATSUCHPER
SONBEREMOVEDFROMTHECOURTANDDETAINEDUNTILTHERISINGOFTHECOURT
S
D )F AN ACCUSED BEHAVES IN A MANNER WHICH MAKES THE CONTINUANCE OF THE
PROCEEDINGSINHISORHERPRESENCEIMPRACTICABLE THECOURTMAYDIRECTTHAT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THEACCUSEDBEREMOVEDANDTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSCONTINUEINHISORHERAB
SENCES 3EEFURTHERPARAOF#HAPTERABOVE
E ! COURT MAY IN CIRCUMSTANCES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SS AND ADJOURN
PROCEEDINGSTOANYDATEANDPLACE4HECOURT HOWEVER SHOULDTAKECARETO
ENSURE THAT NEITHER THE PROSECUTION NOR THE ACCUSED BE PERMITTED TO ABUSE
THEPROCESSOFPOSTPONEMENTS3EE3TEWARD 3!#2.#+ AT;=
4HECOURTSHOULDNOTTOLERATEDELAYINGTACTICS
F !COURTHASACOMMON LAWPOWERTOINTERVENEWHEREQUESTIONINGOFWITNESSES
GOESBEYONDACCEPTABLELIMITSORINTRODUCESIRRELEVANCIES6EXATIOUS ABUSIVE
ANDDISCOURTEOUSCROSS EXAMINATIONMUST FOREXAMPLE BEDISALLOWED-AN
QABA 3!#27 )N- 3!#2# FnIITWASHELD
THAT IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS OFFENDING THE DIGNITY OF THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD
NOTBEALLOWED
G )NCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCESACRIMINALCOURTHASTHESTATUTORYRIGHTTOCURTAIL
CROSS EXAMINATION3ECTION A OFTHE!CTPROVIDESTHATIFITAPPEARSTO
THECOURTTHATCROSS EXAMINATIONISBEINGPROTRACTEDUNREASONABLYANDTHERE
BYCAUSINGANUNREASONABLEDELAYINTHEPROCEEDINGS THECOURTMAYREQUEST
THECROSS EXAMINERTHATIS PROSECUTOR DEFENCELAWYERORUNREPRESENTEDAC
CUSEDASTHECASEMAYBE TODISCLOSETHERELEVANCYOFANYPARTICULARLINEOF
EXAMINATIONANDMAY IFNECESSARY IMPOSEREASONABLELIMITSONTHELENGTH
OF THE EXAMINATION OR ANY PARTICULAR LINE OF EXAMINATION 4HE COURT MAY
INTERMSOFS B ORDERTHATANYSUBMISSIONREGARDINGTHERELEVANCYOF
THECROSS EXAMINATIONTHEPURPOSEOFTHEQUESTIONS BEHEARDINTHEABSENCE
OFTHEWITNESSWHOISBEINGCROSS EXAMINED4HEPURPOSEOFS B ISTO
ENSURETHATTHECROSS EXAMINERCANNOTCLAIMTHATADVANCEDISCLOSUREOFTHE
PURPOSEOFTHEQUESTIONSWOULDPREMATURELYALERTTHEWITNESSTOWHATCOUNSEL
WISHESTOINVESTIGATEORPROBE)THASBEENARGUEDTHATS ISNOTUNCON
STITUTIONAL BUTHASTOBEINVOKEDANDAPPLIEDWITHGREATCARETOPROTECTTHE
ACCUSEDSCONSTITUTIONALFAIRTRIALRIGHT6ANDER-ERWE3TELLENBOSCH,AW
2EVIEWn
H 4HE PRESIDING JUDICIAL OFFICER MUST ENSURE THAT A PROPER RECORD OF THE TRIAL
PROCEEDINGSANDEVIDENCEISKEPT3UCHARECORDISNECESSARYFORREVIEWAND
APPEALPURPOSES!RECORDOFTHEDISPOSALORREMANDOFCASESMUSTALSOBEKEPT
#ORNELIUS 3!#2# )TISTHEDUTYOFTHEPRESIDINGJUDICIALOFFICER
TOENSURE WITHTHEASSISTANCEOFTHEPARTIESIFNECESSARY THATANYDEMONSTRA
TIONGIVENBYAWITNESSISDESCRIBEDINDETAILINTHERECORD.KOMBANI
3!!
4
HEPRINCIPLEOFORALITY
$ENNIS4HE,AWOF%VIDENCEED STATESAT
4HE PRINCIPLE OF ORALITY IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT EVIDENCE ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT
SHOULDBEGIVENBYWITNESSESCALLEDBEFORETHECOURTTOGIVEORALTESTIMONYOFMATTERS
WITHIN THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE (ISTORICALLY THE PRINCIPLE IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH
THE IMPORTANCE ATTACHED BY THE COMMON LAW TO THE OATH TO THE DEMEANOUR OF THE
WITNESS ANDTOCROSS EXAMINATIONASGUARANTEESOFRELIABILITY/RALTESTIMONYFROMWIT
NESSESPHYSICALLYPRESENTBEFORETHECOURTALSOHELPSTOLEGITIMIZETHEADJUDICATIONIN
OTHER WAYS )T REINFORCES THE DRAMA AND SOLEMNITY OF THE OCCASION AND IT ALLOWS FOR
MAXIMUM PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING IN THE SENSE THAT PARTIES CONFRONT THEIR

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
ACCUSERSANDCHALLENGETHEEVIDENCEAGAINSTTHEMINTHEMOSTDIRECTWAYPOSSIBLEBY
CROSS EXAMINATION
)N THE COURSE OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL THE PRINCIPLE OF ORALITY MUST BE OBSERVED
!DENDORFF 3!#23#! AT;= !WITNESSMUSTEXCEPTWHERETHE
!CT OR ANY OTHER LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISEGIVE EVIDENCE ORALLYS /RAL
EVIDENCESHALL@INTHECASEOFADEAFANDDUMBWITNESS BEDEEMEDTOINCLUDEGES
TURE LANGUAGEAND INTHECASEOFAWITNESSUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS BEDEEMED
TOINCLUDEDEMONSTRATIONS GESTURESORANYOTHERFORMOFNON VERBALEXPRESSION
S OFTHE!CT)N2OUX 3!#2# THECOURTCOULDFINDNOREASON
WHY THE EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANTA CHILD WITH $OWNS SYNDROMECOULD
NOTBEGIVENWITHTHEASSISTANCEOFASPEECHTHERAPISTIFTHELATTERCOULDINTERPRET
HISSPEECH3EEALSOPARABELOW
)NORDERTOENSURETHATTHEPRINCIPLEOFORALITYWITHITSEMPHASISUPONCON
FRONTATIONISENFORCEDINANORDERLYFASHION THEQUESTIONINGOFEACHWITNESSIS
IN PRINCIPLE SUBJECTED TO THE FOLLOWING SUCCESSIVE STAGES EXAMINATION IN CHIEF
CROSS EXAMINATION RE EXAMINATION %ACH OF THESE STAGES IS DEALT WITH BRIEFLY
INPARAGRAPHSTOBELOW"OOKSONTHELAWOFEVIDENCEDEALCOMPRE
HENSIVELYWITHRULESREGULATINGORALEVIDENCEANDTHEEXCEPTIONSWHEREWRITTEN
EVIDENCEFOREXAMPLE AFFIDAVITS ANDDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEMAYBERECEIVED
,QWHUSUHWHUV
7HERENECESSARY INTERPRETERSMUSTBEUSED3EEALSOS K OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
4HEROLEPLAYEDBYANINTERPRETERISAVITALANDCRUCIALELEMENTOFAFAIRTRIALIN
TERMSOFS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION-ANZINI 3!#27
4HEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTMAKESURETHATTHEACCUSEDUNDERSTANDSTHELANGUAGE
USEDBYWITNESSES"UTWHERETHEACCUSEDTHROUGHHISORHERCONDUCTLEADSTHE
COURTTOASSUMETHATHEORSHEUNDERSTANDSTHELANGUAGEUSED SUCHACCUSEDWILL
NOTEASILY AFTERHISORHERCONVICTION BEABLETOCLAIMAREVIEWONTHEGROUNDSOF
ANIRREGULARITYBECAUSEHEORSHEDIDNOTUNDERSTANDTHEPROCEEDINGS'EIDELV
"OSMAN 3!4
4HE INTERPRETER MUST BE SWORN IN EITHER UPON TAKING OFFICE OR AT THE COM
MENCEMENTOFTHECASEINWHICHHEACTSASINTERPRETER)FHEORSHEISNOTSWORNIN
ITAMOUNTSTOANIRREGULARITYWHICHMAYRENDERTHETRIALABORTIVE.AIDOO
3!! 4HEPOORPERFORMANCEBYANINTERPRETERININTERPRETINGEVIDENCE
DURINGATRIALAFFECTSTHEEVALUATIONOFTHATEVIDENCEANDINFRINGESANACCUSEDS
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL-ANZINI 3!#2 7 3EE ALSO -PONDO
3!#2 # )N 3AYED V ,EVITT ./ 3!#2 +:0 AT ;= AND ;= IT
WASHELDTHATTHEINTERPRETERSLACKOFPROFICIENCYINTHERELEVANTLANGUAGEAND
HER IGNORANCE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE IRREGULARITIES WHICH
@IMPACTEDONTHEFAIRNESSOFTHETRIAL7HEREANINTERPRETERRESORTSTOTECHNICAL
LANGUAGE THECOURTSHOULDESTABLISHWHETHERTHEWORDSORTERMSARETHOSEOFTHE
INTERPRETERORTHEWITNESSCONCERNED-- 3!#23#! &ORAGENERAL
DISCUSSIONOFTHEROLEOFANINTERPRETER SEE-ABONA 3!!
2
DWK RUDIILUPDWLRQRUZDUQLQJ
.OWITNESSCANBEEXAMINEDUNLESSTHEOATHHASBEENADMINISTERED EXCEPTWHERE
SSANDAPPLYS .ON COMPLIANCERENDERSTHEEVIDENCEINADMIS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SIBLE" 3!#23#! 'ALANT 3!#2% AT;= /MISSION

OF THE PHRASE @THE WHOLE TRUTH FROM THE WORDING OF THE OATH AS PRESCRIBED IN
S DOES NOT ON ITS OWN AMOUNT TO NON COMPLIANCE !RMSTRONG
3!#27## AT;= )NTHE(IGH#OURT THEJUDGEORHISORHERREGISTRARMUST
ADMINISTERTHEOATH ANDINLOWERCOURTTHEMAGISTRATEMUSTDOSOS 3EE
GENERALLY-ACHABA 3!#23#! AT;=4HEPROSECUTORMAYNOTADMIN
ISTERTHEOATH"OTHMA 3!#
!WITNESSWHOOBJECTSTOTAKINGTHEOATHISREQUIREDTOAFFIRMTHATHEORSHEWILL
SPEAKTHETRUTHS"AKOS 3!#2'3* !NAFFIRMATIONHAS@THE
SAMELEGALFORCEANDEFFECTASIFTHEPERSONMAKINGITHADTAKENTHEOATHS
! WITNESS WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THE OATH OR
AFFIRMATIONSHALLBEADMONISHEDBYTHECOURTTOSPEAKTHETRUTHS 4HE
MEREYOUTHFULNESSOFAWITNESSCANJUSTIFYTHEFINDINGTHATTHEWITNESSCANNOT
UNDERSTANDTHENATUREOFTHEOATHORAFFIRMATION7ILLIAMS 3!#2
%#' !NINTELLECTUALLYIMPAIREDPERSONMAYALSOBEADMONISHEDBYTHECOURT
TOSPEAKTHETRUTH3EEGENERALLY(AARHOFFV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS%ASTERN
#APE'RAHAMSTOWN ;=!LL3!3#!
([DPLQDWLRQLQFKLHI
4HEPARTYWHOCALLEDTHEWITNESSISRESPONSIBLEFORTAKINGTHEWITNESSTHROUGH
THEEXAMINATION IN CHIEFBYFOLLOWINGTHEQUESTION AND ANSWERTECHNIQUE4HE
MOSTIMPORTANTRULEISTHATLEADINGQUESTIONSMAYNOTBEASKEDINRESPECTOFMAT
TERSINDISPUTE!LEADINGQUESTIONISAQUESTIONTHATSUGGESTSTHEANSWERTOTHE
WITNESS
&URVVH[DPLQDWLRQ
4HEPARTIESWHODIDNOTCALLTHEWITNESSHAVEAFUNDAMENTALRIGHTTOCROSS EXAM
INETHISWITNESS
4HE PURPOSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION IS TO ELICIT FACTS FAVOURABLE TO THE CROSS
EXAMINERS CASE #ROSS EXAMINATION IS THEREFORE NOT CONFINED TO MATTERS RAISED
BYTHEWITNESSINHISORHEREVIDENCE IN CHIEF
,EADINGQUESTIONSAREPERMITTED4HECROSS EXAMINERHASADUTYTOCROSS EXAM
INEONMATTERSHEORSHEDISPUTES3EEALSOPARABELOW-ISLEADINGQUESTIONS
MAY NOT BE PUT 6EXATIOUS ABUSIVE OR DISCOURTEOUS CROSS EXAMINATION IS NOT
ALLOWED
!COURTMAYONGOODGROUNDSSHOWNALLOWAPARTYTORESERVECROSS EXAMINA
TION/NCESUCHRESERVATIONHASBEENGRANTED ACOURTCANNOTLATERDENYAPARTY
THEOPPORTUNITYTOCROSS EXAMINE-GUDU 3!#2.
5HH[DPLQDWLRQ
2E EXAMINATION FOLLOWS CROSS EXAMINATION )T IS CONDUCTED BY THE PARTY WHO
INITIALLYCALLEDTHEWITNESS)TISINPRINCIPLECONFINEDTOMATTERSCOVEREDINCROSS
EXAMINATION 4HE RULES WHICH GOVERN EXAMINATION IN CHIEF APPLY AND LEADING
QUESTIONS MAY THEREFORE NOT BE PUT .EW MATTERS THAT IS MATTERS NOT INITIALLY
COVEREDINEVIDENCE IN CHIEF MAYNOTBEINTRODUCEDINRE EXAMINATIONWITHOUT

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
THEPERMISSIONOFTHECOURT WHOSHOULDTHENPERMITCROSS EXAMINATIONONSUCH

NEWMATTERSINTRODUCEDINRE EXAMINATION
4
XHVWLRQLQJZKHUHDQLQWHUPHGLDU\KDVEHHQDSSRLQWHG
4HEABOVEPROCEDUREISREGULATEDBYS!OFTHE!CT3ECTION! PROVIDES
THAT WHENEVER IT APPEARS TO THE COURT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD EXPOSE ANY
WITNESS UNDER THE BIOLOGICAL OR MENTAL AGE OF YEARS @TO UNDUE MENTAL STRESS
OR SUFFERING SHOULD HE OR SHE TESTIFY THE COURT CONCERNED MAY APPOINT AN IN
TERMEDIARY IN ORDER TO ENABLE THIS CHILD WITNESS TO GIVE EVIDENCE THROUGH THAT
INTERMEDIARY4HEPURPOSEOFTHEPROCEDUREISTOPROTECTACHILDWITNESSFROMTHE
HARSHREALITYOFACOURTSESSIONANDTHEADVERSARIALTRIALSYSTEMWHEREQUESTION
INGAND ESPECIALLY CROSS EXAMINATIONMAY BE EXTREMELY INTIMIDATING TO THE
CHILDANDESPECIALLYTHEALLEGEDLYSEXUALLYABUSEDCHILD
4HECHILDWITNESSISINASEPARATEROOMWITHTHEINTERMEDIARY!LLTHEPEOPLEIN
COURT HOWEVER CANOBSERVETHECHILDWITNESSTHROUGHAONE WAYMIRRORORCLOSED
CIRCUITTELEVISION ASTHECASEMAYBE4HECHILDWITNESSONLYHEARSTHEPROSECUTORS
ANDCOUNSELSQUESTIONASRELAYEDBYTHEINTERMEDIARY EITHERINITSORIGINALFORMOR
ASAMENDEDBYTHEINTERMEDIARYWHOMAYCONVEYTHEGENERALPURPORTOFTHEQUES
TION4HEWHOLEPROCESSISDESCRIBEDASFOLLOWSBY6ANDER-ERWEIN3CHWIKKARD
6ANDER-ERWE0RINCIPLESOF%VIDENCEED PARA
)NTERMSOFS! A OFTHE#0!NOEXAMINATIONINCHIEF CROSS EXAMINATIONORRE
EXAMINATIONOFANYWITNESSINRESPECTOFWHOMACOURTHASAPPOINTEDANINTERMEDIARY
SHALLTAKEPLACEINANYMANNEROTHERTHANTHROUGHTHATINTERMEDIARY4HISMEANSTHAT
THEPARTIESMAYATNOSTAGEQUESTIONTHEWITNESSDIRECTLY)TISONLYTHECOURTTHATMAY
QUESTIONTHEWITNESSWITHOUTINTERVENTIONBYTHEINTERMEDIARYx!CRUCIALPROVISIONIS
CONTAINEDINS! B OFTHE#0!@4HExINTERMEDIARYMAY UNLESSTHECOURTDIRECTS
OTHERWISE CONVEYTHEGENERALPURPORTOFANYQUESTIONSTOTHERELEVANTWITNESS4HIS
MEANS THATSUBJECT TO THE COURTS FINAL CONTROLANY QUESTION PUT BY THE PROSECUTOR
ANDTHEDEFENCEMAYBE@BLOCKEDBYTHEINTERMEDIARYINTHESENSETHATTHEINTERMEDI
ARYMAY@RELAYTHEQUESTIONTOTHEWITNESSINADIFFERENTFORM4HEGENERALPURPORTOF
THEQUESTIONISCONVEYEDANDTHE IPSISSIMAVERBAOFTHEORIGINALQUESTIONMAYBEIG
NORED4HECOURTMAYMEROMOTUORINRESPONSETOOBJECTIONSRAISEDBYONEORMOREOF
THEPARTIESDIRECTTHEINTERMEDIARYTOPUTTHEORIGINALQUESTIONOR IFNECESSARY TOMAKE
ANOTHERATTEMPTATCONVEYINGTHEGENERALPURPORTOFTHEORIGINALQUESTION/RTHECOURT
MAYTAKEASHORTCUTANDPUTTHEORIGINALQUESTIONINTHEFORMTHATITTHINKSFIT"UTTHE
NATUREOFTHECOURTSQUESTIONMUSTBESUCHTHATTHECOURTDOESNOTDESCENDORISNOT
PERCEIVEDTOBEDESCENDINGINTOTHEARENA4HECOURTMAYNOTCROSS EXAMINE
3ECTION ! IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 4RANSVAAL
V-INISTER OF *USTICE AND #ONSTITUTIONAL $EVELOPMENT 3!#2## +V
2EGIONAL#OURT-AGISTRATE./ 3!#2%
4HE -INISTER MAY BY NOTICE IN THE 'AZETTE DETERMINE THE CATEGORY OR CLASS
OF PERSONS WHO ARE COMPETENT TO BE APPOINTED AS INTERMEDIARIES BY A COURTS
! A %XAMPLES OF SUCH PERSONS ARE CERTAIN DOCTORS SOCIAL WORKERS CHILD
CAREWORKERS TEACHERSANDPSYCHOLOGISTS,AWYERSDONOTQUALIFY
4HEPRINCIPLEOFFINALITY
4HE ABOVE PRINCIPLE DEMANDS THAT NEITHER THE 3TATE NOR THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE
PERMITTEDTOREOPENTHEIRCASESONCECLOSED UNLESSSUCHREOPENINGISNECESSARY

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TOINTRODUCEREBUTTINGEVIDENCEWHEREAPARTYWASTAKENBYSURPRISE4HUS WHERE
NEWFACTS WHICHTHEPROSECUTIONCOULDNOTHAVEFORESEEN AREINTRODUCEDDURING
THECOURSEOFTHEDEFENCECASE AREOPENINGOFTHEPROSECUTIONSCASESHOULDBE
PERMITTEDTOALLOWFOREVIDENCEINREBUTTAL#HRISTIE 3!! 3IMILARLY
AN ACCUSED WHO IS SURPRISED BY THE UNEXPECTED INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE OF A
CO ACCUSED SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REOPEN HIS OR HER CASE TO TESTIFY IN HIS OR HER
OWNDEFENCEORCALLWITNESSESINANATTEMPTTOREBUTTHECO ACCUSEDSEVIDENCE
3IMELANE 3!.
4
(%#!3%&/24(%02/3%#54)/.
/PENINGOFTHE3TATEmSCASE
"EFOREANYEVIDENCEISLEDTHEPROSECUTORISENTITLEDTOADDRESSTHECOURTFORTHE
PURPOSEOFEXPLAININGTHECHARGEANDINDICATINGTHEEVIDENCEINTENDEDTOBEAD
DUCED FOR THE PROSECUTION BUT WITHOUT COMMENT THEREONS !LTHOUGH
THISSUBSECTIONDOESNOTEXPRESSLYSAYSO THEPROSECUTORSADDRESSEXCEPTINCASES
WHERE ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY ON AN OBJECTION IS HEARD AFTER THE PROCESS OF AR
RAIGNMENTISCOMPLETED4HESUBSECTIONCLEARLYCOMESINTOOPERATIONONLYWHERE
ANACCUSEDHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTYANDTHEPROSECUTORINTENDSTOLEADEVIDENCE
3ETHOLE 3!/
)NPRACTICEITISCONSIDEREDUNNECESSARYFORTHEPROSECUTORTODELIVERANOPEN
INGADDRESSINSIMPLECASES)NCOMPLICATEDCASESANADDRESSBYTHEPROSECUTIONAT
THEOPENINGOFTHECASECANBEOFGREATASSISTANCETOTHECOURT4HEPROSECUTION
ISEXPECTEDTOGIVEASUMMARYOFTHEESSENTIALFEATURESOFTHECASEFORTHE3TATE
SOTHATTHECOURTWILLBEINAPOSITIONTOAPPRECIATETHESIGNIFICANCEOFEACHITEM
ASITISPRESENTEDINTHELIGHTOFTHEEVIDENCEWHICHISSTILLTOBELEDBYTHE3TATE
4HEPROSECUTORSHOULDAVOIDANYREFERENCETOEVIDENCEWHICHMAYNOTBEADMIS
SIBLEORTOANYCONTENTIOUSMATTERWHICHMAYPREJUDICETHECASEOFTHEACCUSED
3UCHMATTERSSHOULDBEDEALTWITH ASARULE WHENTHEYARISEINTHECOURSEOFTHE
TRIALAND IFNECESSARY INTHEABSENCEOFTHEASSESSORS
4HEDEFENCEMAYCROSS EXAMINEA3TATEWITNESSONADISCREPANCYBETWEENHIS
ORHEREVIDENCEANDTHEPROSECUTORSOPENINGADDRESS-BATA 3!/
4HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE WILL DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY INFERENCE TO BE
DRAWNFROMINCONSISTENCIESBETWEENTHE3TATESEVIDENCEANDWHATTHEPROSECUTOR
SAID6 3!#24
4HECALLINGOF3TATEWITNESSESANDEXAMINATION IN CHIEFBYPROSECUTOR

%ACHWITNESSCALLEDBYTHEPROSECUTORISBYWAYOFQUESTIONSTAKENTHROUGHEX
AMINATION IN CHIEF BY THE PROSECUTOR WHO IS OBLIGED TO ENSURE THAT HIS OR HER
QUESTIONSCOMPLYWITHTHEEVIDENTIALRULESGOVERNINGEXAMINATION IN CHIEF FOR
EXAMPLE THERULETHATNOLEADINGQUESTIONSMAYBEPUTINRESPECTOFMATTERSIN
DISPUTE3EEPARAABOVE
)N TERMS OF S A THE PROSECUTOR MAY QUESTION THE 3TATE WITNESSES @AND
ADDUCESUCHEVIDENCEASMAYBEADMISSIBLETOPROVETHATTHEACCUSEDCOMMITTED
THEOFFENCEREFERREDTOINTHECHARGEORTHATHECOMMITTEDANOFFENCEOFWHICHHE
MAYBECONVICTEDONTHECHARGE

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
)NTHOSEEXCEPTIONALCASESWHEREADOCUMENTMAYBERECEIVEDINEVIDENCEUPON
ITSMEREPRODUCTION THEPROSECUTORSHALLREADOUTTHECONTENTSOFTHEDOCUMENT
INCOURTUNLESSTHEACCUSEDHASACOPYORDISPENSESWITHTHEREADINGOUTTHEREOF
S B
4HEPROSECUTORISNOTCOMPELLEDTOCALLALLAVAILABLEWITNESSESTOANOCCURRENCE
(EILBRON40$ )TISULTIMATELYATACTICALDECISIONANDMUCHWILLDEPEND
ONTHEFACTSOFTHECASE"UTTHEPROSECUTORSHOULDALWAYSTAKEINTOACCOUNTTHAT
AFAILURETOCALLANAVAILABLEANDCRUCIAL3TATEWITNESSMIGHTINCERTAINCIRCUM
STANCES GIVE RISE TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE 3EE FURTHER 3CHWIKKARD AND 6AN DER
-ERWE0RINCIPLESOF%VIDENCEED PARA
!PROSECUTORISOBVIOUSLYNOTOBLIGEDTOCALLWITNESSESWHOMHEORSHEONREA
SONABLEGROUNDSBELIEVESTOBEUNTRUTHFUL HOSTILETOTHE3TATESCASEORINLEAGUE
WITHTHEACCUSED)N6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN 3!#23#! #LOETE*!ALSO
SAIDAT;= @7HEREANACCUSEDISREPRESENTED ITISNOTTHEFUNCTIONOFTHEPROS
ECUTORxTOCALLEVIDENCEWHICHISDESTRUCTIVEOFTHE3TATECASE ORWHICHADVANCES
THE CASE OF THE ACCUSED 3EE ALSO -ASOKA 3!#2 %#0 AT ;= 3EE
FURTHERPARAOF#HAPTER ABOVE
#
ROSS EXAMINATIONOF3TATEWITNESSESBYTHEDEFENCE
4HE DEFENCE HAS THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE EACH AND EVERY 3TATE WITNESS 3EE
S I OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONASREADWITHS OFTHE!CTAND-GUDU
3!#2. ATAND-SIMANGO 3!#2'3* AT;=)N-ANQABA
3!#27 THETRIALCOURTHADREFUSEDCROSS EXAMINATIONOFACHILDWITNESS
ONSTATEMENTSMADETOTHEPOLICE4HEPURPOSEOFTHETRIALCOURTSREFUSALWASTO
PROTECTTHECHILDFROMPOSSIBLETRAUMATISATION4HISREFUSAL THE(IGH#OURTHELD
AMOUNTEDTOANIRREGULARITYNEGATINGANACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL3EEFURTHER
.KOSI 3!#2'.0
!LL QUESTIONS PUT AND PROCEDURES FOLLOWED MUST BE IN LINE WITH THE GENERAL
RULESANDPRINCIPLESGOVERNINGCROSS EXAMINATION3EEGENERALLYPARAABOVE
#ROSS EXAMINATIONPARTLYBYTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEANDPARTLYBYTHEACCUSED
MUSTBEAVOIDED"AARTMAN 3!! " 4HELEGALREPRESENTATIVEIS
INPRINCIPLEINCONTROLOFTHECASEAND WHEREREQUIRED THEACCUSEDSHOULDHAVE
THERIGHTTOGIVEINSTRUCTIONSTOHISORHERLEGALREPRESENTATIVEDURINGANDATTHE
ENDOFTHELATTERSCROSS EXAMINATIONOFA3TATEWITNESS-DYOGOLO 3!#2
%# )N.KWANYANA 3!! THEACCUSEDHADDECLINEDTHESER
VICESOFLEGALAIDCOUNSELAPPOINTEDFORPURPOSESOFTHEIRTRIAL WHOHADALREADY
CONSULTEDTHEM4HETRIALCOURTNEVERTHELESSREQUESTEDCOUNSELTOREMAININCOURT
ANDCROSS EXAMINE3TATEWITNESSESONCETHEACCUSEDHADDONESO4HISPROCEDURE
.ESTADT*!HELD AT% WASUNACCEPTABLE)TNOTONLYDETRACTEDFROMTHERIGHT
OFTHEACCUSEDTODEFENDTHEMSELVES BUTALSOCREATEDTHERISKOFANSWERSADVERSE
TOTHEACCUSEDBEINGELICITEDBYTHEIRFORMERCOUNSEL
7HEREANACCUSEDHASMORETHANONELEGALREPRESENTATIVEFOREXAMPLE SENIOR
ANDJUNIORCOUNSEL ONLYONEOFTHEMISALLOWEDTOCROSS EXAMINEAPARTICULAR
3TATE WITNESS 3EE GENERALLY 9ANTA 3!#2 4K HnJ AND COMPARE
"ASSON 3!#24 ASDISCUSSEDINPARABELOW
#OUNSELISINPRINCIPLEREQUIREDTOPUTTHEDEFENCEOFTHEACCUSEDTO3TATEWIT
NESSESWHOHAPPENTOBEINAPOSITIONTORESPONDTOIT@4HISRULEISFOLLOWEDTO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ENSURE THAT TRIALS ARE CONDUCTED FAIRLY THAT WITNESSES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ANSWERCHALLENGESTOTHEIREVIDENCE ANDTHATPARTIESTOTHESUITKNOWITMAYBE
NECESSARYTOCALLCORROBORATINGOROTHEREVIDENCERELEVANTTOTHECHALLENGETHAT
HASBEENRAISED"OESAK 3!#2## AT;= 3EEALSOFURTHER-AVININI
3!#23#! AT;=4HECIRCUMSTANCESOFEACHCASEWILLDETERMINE
THEEXTENTTOWHICHTHEDEFENCESHOULDBEPUTANDTHEEVIDENTIALCONSEQUENCES
OF A FAILURE TO DO SO )N 3COTT #ROSSLEY 3!#2 3#! IT WAS SAID AT
;= THAT@ITISNOTNECESSARYFORANACCUSEDSVERSIONTOBEPUTINALLITSDETAIL
TOEVERY3TATEWITNESS)NTHESAMEPARAGRAPHITWASALSOSAIDTHAT@THEFAILURETO
PUTAVERSION EVENWHEREITSHOULDHAVEBEENPUT DOESNOTNECESSARILYWARRANT
ANINFERENCETHATANACCUSEDSVERSIONISARECENTFABRICATION4HEFAILUREOFAN
UNDEFENDEDANDIGNORANTACCUSEDTOCROSS EXAMINEONMATTERSINDISPUTEOUGHT
NOT TO HAVE ANY ADVERSE EVIDENTIAL CONSEQUENCES )T HAS RIGHTLY BEEN SAID THAT
THERULE@DOESNOTSIMPLYPERFUNCTORILYOPERATETOTHEPREJUDICEOF;THEACCUSED=
BECAUSEOFHISLEGALREPRESENTATIVESSHORTCOMINGSORBECAUSEOFHISOWNINABILITY
TOCROSS EXAMINE!BADER 3!#27 ATC
2
E EXAMINATIONOF3TATEWITNESSESBYTHEPROSECUTOR
#ROSS EXAMINATIONOFA3TATEWITNESSISFOLLOWEDBYTHEPROSECUTORSRE EXAMINA
TION IFINDEEDSUCHRE EXAMINATIONISNECESSARY3EEFURTHERPARAABOVEAS
WELLASS OFTHE!CT
#LOSINGTHE3TATEmSCASE
!FTERALLTHEEVIDENCEFORTHEPROSECUTIONHASBEENDISPOSEDOF THEPROSECUTOR
MUSTCLOSEHISORHERCASE!PRESIDINGOFFICERDOESNOTHAVETHEAUTHORITYTOCLOSE
THE3TATESCASEIFTHEPROSECUTORISNOTWILLINGTODOSO)FTHEPROSECUTOR HOWEVER
AFTERANAPPLICATIONBYHIMORHERFORTHEPOSTPONEMENTOFTHETRIALHASBEENRE
FUSED REFUSESTOLEADEVIDENCEORTOCLOSETHE3TATESCASE ITISPRESUMEDTHATTHE
3TATESCASEISCLOSED ANDTHEJUDICIALOFFICERSHOULDCONTINUEWITHTHEPROCEED
INGSASIFTHEPROSECUTORHADINDEEDCLOSEDTHE3TATESCASE-AGODA 3!
# 3EEALSOPARAIN#HAPTERFORADISCUSSIONOFTHE-AGODACASEINTHE
CONTEXTOFTHEGENERALPRINCIPLETHATTHEPROSECUTIONISDOMINUSLITIS
$
)3#(!2'%/&!##53%$!44(%%.$/&4(%34!4%m3#!3%
4HEPROVISIONSOFS
)F ATTHECLOSEOFTHECASEFORTHEPROSECUTIONATANYTRIAL THECOURTISOFTHEOPINIONTHAT
THEREISNOEVIDENCETHATTHEACCUSEDCOMMITTEDTHEOFFENCEREFERREDTOINTHECHARGE
ORANYOFFENCEOFWHICHHEMAYBECONVICTEDONTHECHARGE ITMAYRETURNAVERDICTOF
NOTGUILTY
)N -ASONDO )N RE 3 V -THEMBU 3!#2 '3* AT ;= +GOMO * NOTED
THAT
PROCESSESUNDERSTRANSLATEINTOASTATUTORILYGRANTEDCAPACITYTODEPARTDISCRETION
ARILY INCERTAINSPECIFICANDLIMITEDCIRCUMSTANCES FROMTHEUSUALCOURSEACASESHOULD
TAKE)TISMEANTTOCUTTHETAILOFFASUPERFLUOUSPROCESS3UCHACAPACITYDOESNOTDETRACT

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
FROMEITHERTHERIGHTTOSILENCEORTHEPROTECTIONAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATION)FANACQUIT
TALFLOWSATTHEENDOFTHE3TATECASE THEOPPORTUNITYORNEEDTOPRESENTEVIDENCEBY
THEDEFENCEONTHECHARGES INISSUEFALLSAWAY)FDISCHARGEISREFUSED THEACCUSEDSTILL
HASTHECHOICEWHETHERTOTESTIFYORCLOSEHISCASEONTHECHARGES INISSUE4HEREISNO
OBLIGATIONONHIMTODOEITHER/NCETHECOURTRULESTHATTHEREISNO PRIMAFACIECASE
AGAINSTANACCUSED THEREALSOCANNOTBEANYNEGATIVECONSEQUENCESASARESULTOFTHE
ACCUSEDSSILENCEINTHISCONTEXT
"ACKGROUNDANDINTERPRETATION
4HEHISTORICALBACKGROUNDTOSWASSETOUTIN#OOPER 3!4 4HE
ORIGINOFTHESECTIONCANBETRACEDTOTRIALBYJURY*UDGESWHOHADTHEDUTYTO
DECIDEMATTERSOFLAW THOUGHTTHATTHEYSHOULDBEABLETOWITHDRAWACASEFROM
THEJURYWHOHADTODECIDEMATTERSOFFACT WHEREITWASCLEAR ATTHEENDOFTHE
CASEFORTHEPROSECUTION THATTHEREWASNOEVIDENCEUPONWHICHAREASONABLEPER
SONMIGHTCONVICT3EEGENERALLY,EGOTE 3!#23#! AT;=4HEJUDGES
ACCORDINGLYRULED ASAMATTEROFLAW THATTHEYCOULDINTHESECIRCUMSTANCES AND
INORDERTOAVOIDASO CALLEDPERVERSEVERDICT DIRECTTHEJURYTOACQUITTHEACCUSED
4HISPROCESSCAMETOBEKNOWNASTHE@DISCHARGEOFTHEACCUSEDATTHEENDOFTHE
3TATESCASE"UTSUCHADISCHARGEISFORALLPURPOSESTHESAMEASANACQUITTALON
THEMERITS)TPROVIDESANACCUSEDWITHTHEPLEAOFPRIORACQUITTALSHOULDHEORSHE
BERECHARGEDONTHESAMESUBJECTMATTER
4HEFACTTHATTHEDISCHARGEOFANACCUSEDATTHEENDOFTHE3TATESCASEISTREATED
ASAQUESTIONOFLAWMEANSTHATASSESSORSASFINDERSOFFACTANDREMNANTSOFTHE
JURY ARENOTENTITLEDTODECIDEWITHTHEJUDGEORMAGISTRATE ASTHECASEMAYBE
WHETHERADISCHARGEASPROVIDEDFORINSSHOULDBEGRANTED-AGXWALISA
3!.
4HEREISAGENERALRULETHATINDECIDINGWHETHERTOGRANTADISCHARGE AJUDGEOR
MAGISTRATEMAYNOTTAKEINTOACCOUNTTHECREDIBILITYOFTHE3TATEWITNESSES$LADLA
3!$ 4HISRULEISRATHERPECULIAR BUTMUSTBEUNDERSTOODINTHE
HISTORICALCONTEXTASEXPLAINEDABOVE/NCETHEJUDGESINJURYTRIALSHADCLAIMED
THATDISCHARGEWASAQUESTIONOFLAWANDNOTFACT THEYWEREFORTHESAKEOFCON
SISTENCYOBLIGEDTOACCEPTTHATCREDIBILITYCLEARLYAMATTEROFFACTTOBEDECIDEDBY
THEJURY COULDNOTPLAYAROLEINGRANTINGORREFUSINGDISCHARGE(OWEVER CASES
DECIDEDSINCE$LADLAABOVE HAVESHOWNGREATERFLEXIBILITY.ANDHA'OPAL.AIDOO
0((7 )N-PETHA 3!# ITWASHELDTHATTHECRED
IBILITYOF3TATEWITNESSESSHOULDPLAYALIMITEDROLE ANDTHATTHEIREVIDENCESHOULD
ONLY BE IGNORED WHERE THE QUALITY IS SO POOR THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD
ACCEPTIT3EEFURTHER3WARTZ 3!#27
7HERETHE3TATESCASECONSISTSOFCIRCUMSTANTIALEVIDENCEPERMITTINGVARIOUS
INFERENCES ADISCHARGEMAYBEREFUSEDIFONEOFTHEINFERENCESINDICATESTHATTHE
ACCUSEDISGUILTY#OOPERABOVE 4HESTANDARDOFPROOFBEYONDREASONABLE
DOUBTDOESNOTAPPLYATTHISSTAGESEEPARABELOW ANDTHERULESOFLOGICSET
OUTIN2V"LOM!$TOENSURECOMPLIANCEWITHTHISFINALSTANDARDDONOT
APPLY)TISACCORDINGLYPOSSIBLETHATANACCUSEDWHOHASNOTBEENDISCHARGEDIN
TERMSOFSMAYCLOSEHISORHERCASEWITHOUTLEADINGANYEVIDENCEANDYETBE
ACQUITTEDONACCOUNTTHEDIFFERENCEINTHESTANDARDSOFPROOFAPPLICABLETOEACH
STAGE3EEFURTHER-ASONDO)NRE3V-THEMBU 3!#2'3* AT;=AND
;=

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!DISCHARGEINTERMSOFSCANNOTBECONSIDEREDONCETHEDEFENCEHASCOM
MENCED THE PRESENTATION OF ITS CASE 3EE 0HURAVHALTHA 3!#2 6
WHEREMULTIPLEACCUSEDWEREINVOLVED
!NACCUSEDMAYBEDISCHARGEDINRESPECTOFONEORSOMEORALLOFTHECHARGES
AGAINSTHIMORHER3EE-ANEKWANE 3!#2/
!NACCUSEDSDENIALOFUNLAWFULNESSINRESPONSETOQUESTIONSPUTBYTHECOURT
INTERMSOFS B CANNOTBETAKENINTOACCOUNTFORPURPOSESOFADISCHARGEIN
TERMSOFS!DAMS 3!#2#
!COURTSHOULD WHEREAPPROPRIATE OFITSOWNACCORDRAISETHEQUESTIONOFADIS
CHARGE ANDSHOULDDOSOEVENWHERETHEACCUSEDHASLEGALREPRESENTATION,EGOTE
3!#23#! 4HECOURTSFAILURETOADVISEANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSED
OFHISORHERRIGHTTOAPPLYFORADISCHARGEINTERMSOFSCANAMOUNTTOAFATAL
IRREGULARITYINTHEPROCEEDINGS:WEZWE 3!#2. !MERIKA
3!#2#
!COURTSREFUSALTODISCHARGEANACCUSEDISNOTAPPEALABLE%BRAHIM
3!#27 4HEREASONFORTHISISTHATAREFUSALTODISCHARGEDOESNOTDECIDE
@ANYTHINGWITHFINALEFFECTAGAINSTTHEACCUSED6AN$EVENTER 3!#2
7## AT;=
4HEPROSECUTIONMAYAPPLYFORAREVIEWOFAMAGISTRATESDISCHARGEOFANACCUSED
IFSUCHDISCHARGECONSTITUTEDAGROSSIRREGULARITYASENVISAGEDINS C OFTHE
3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF3EE$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG,OCAL
$IVISION *OHANNESBURGV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE +RUGERSDORPANOTHER 3!#2
'* !T;=ITWASFOUNDTHAT@NOREASONABLEPRESIDINGOFFICERCOULDHAVEGRANTED
ADISCHARGE4HEDISCHARGEPREJUDICEDTHEPROSECUTIONAT;= !NEWTRIALBEFORE
ANOTHERMAGISTRATEWASORDEREDAT;=
4HETESTFORDISCHARGE
7
KHVRFDOOHGo6FKXSLQJWHVWp
)NTHEPRE CONSTITUTIONALERA THEFOLLOWINGTESTASSTATEDIN3CHUPING 3!
" AT(Ú)CAMETOBEACCEPTEDINMOST(IGH#OURTDECISIONS
!TTHECLOSEOFTHE3TATECASE WHENDISCHARGEISCONSIDERED THEFIRSTQUESTIONIS
I ISTHEREEVIDENCEONWHICHAREASONABLEMANMIGHTCONVICTIFNOTII ISTHERE
A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THE DEFENCE EVIDENCE MIGHT SUPPLEMENT THE 3TATE
CASE)FTHEANSWERTOEITHERQUESTIONISYES THERESHOULDBENODISCHARGEANDTHE
ACCUSEDSHOULDBEPLACEDONHISDEFENCE
7
KHo6FKXSLQJWHVWpLQWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOHUD
4HETWO LEGGEDTESTTHE@3CHUPINGTEST ASSETOUTINTHEPREVIOUSPARAGRAPHWAS
SUBJECTEDTOCONSTITUTIONALSCRUTINYINVARIOUS(IGH#OURTDECISIONS4AKINGINTO
ACCOUNTCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSSUCHASTHEPRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATIONAND
THERIGHTTOHUMANDIGNITYANDPERSONALFREEDOM THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
IN,UBAXA 3!#23#! TOOKTHEFOLLOWINGVIEW
A !NACCUSEDMUSTBEDISCHARGEDATTHEENDOFTHE3TATESCASEIFACONVICTION
WOULDONLYBEPOSSIBLEIFTHEACCUSEDWERETOTESTIFYANDINCRIMINATEHIMSELF
!T;=ITWASSAIDTHATTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTODIGNITYSOFTHE#ONSTI

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
TUTION ANDTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOFREEDOMSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION CALL

FORADISCHARGEIF@THEPROSECUTIONHASEXHAUSTED;ITS=EVIDENCEANDACONVIC
TION IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE EXCEPT BY SELF INCRIMINATION 4HE PROSECUTION IT
WASSAID WASINSTITUTEDONTHEBASISOFTHECOMMON LAWPRINCIPLETHATTHE
PROSECUTION HAD REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ACCUSED
WASGUILTYANDIFBYTHEENDOFTHE3TATESCASEPOSSIBLESELF INCRIMINATIONIS
THEONLYFORMOFINCRIMINATIONLEFT AFAIRTRIALDEMANDSADISCHARGE
B 4HEAPPROACHINA ABOVEWOULD ACCORDINGTOTHECOURTIN,UBAXAABOVE
NOT APPLY IN A CASE WHERE THERE ARE CO ACCUSED AND @THE PROSECUTIONS CASE
AGAINSTONEACCUSEDMIGHTBESUPPLEMENTEDBYTHEEVIDENCEOFACO ACCUSED
AT;= )NSUCHANINSTANCETHEREFUSALTODISCHARGEISNOTBASEDONANEX
PECTATIONOFSELF INCRIMINATION)TISTHEPROSPECTOFINCRIMINATIONBYACO
ACCUSEDWHICHCANJUSTIFYREFUSALTODISCHARGE
(OWEVER IFTHEREISATTHEENDOFTHE3TATESCASENOTHINGWHATSOEVERTOINDICATE
THATACO ACCUSEDWILLINCRIMINATEANACCUSED REFUSALOFADISCHARGEWOULD@UN
DOUBTEDLY;DENYTHEACCUSED=AFAIRTRIAL.KOSI 3!#23#! AT;=
4(%$%&%.#%#!3%
4HEDEFENCEISREQUIREDTOPROCEEDWITHITSCASEIFTHEREISNODISCHARGEASPRO
VIDEDFORINSOFTHE!CT6ARIOUSOPTIONSAREAVAILABLETOTHEACCUSED
4HEPASSIVEDEFENCERIGHTCLOSINGTHEDEFENCECASEASARESPONSE
4HEACCUSEDHASAPASSIVEDEFENCERIGHTINTHESENSETHATHEORSHECANREFUSETO
TESTIFYINHISORHEROWNDEFENCEANDCANALSOREFUSETOCALLANYPOSSIBLEDEFENCE
WITNESSES4HISISALEGITIMATERESPONSE4HEACCUSEDHASACONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTO
REFUSETOTESTIFYS H OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HEDEFENCECASECANBECLOSED
WITHOUT ANY DEFENCE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN LED 4HE COURTAFTER HAVING BEEN
ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIESIS THEN REQUIRED TO CONSIDER ITS VERDICT 3EE #HAPTER
BELOW 4HE POSSIBLE EVIDENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF AN ACCUSEDS DECISIONNOTTO
TESTIFYINHISORHEROWNDEFENCEWEREDISCUSSEDINPARAOF#HAPTER ABOVE
$EFENCEADDRESS
)FTHEACCUSEDINTENDSTOADDUCEDEFENCEEVIDENCE HEORSHE ORHISORHERLEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE @MAYADDRESSTHECOURTFORTHEPURPOSEOFINDICATINGTOTHECOURT
WITHOUT COMMENT WHAT EVIDENCE ;WILL BE LED= ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE 3EE
S A OFTHE!CT4HEACCUSEDSRIGHTTODELIVERADEFENCEADDRESSISRARELYEX
ERCISEDANDHARDLYEVERNECESSARYBECAUSETHEEARLIERCROSS EXAMINATIONOF3TATE
WITNESSESWOULDINMOSTINSTANCESHAVEDISCLOSEDTHENATUREOFTHEDEFENCE
4HEACTIVEDEFENCERIGHT
4HEACTIVEDEFENCERIGHTOFANACCUSEDHASTWOBASICCOMPONENTSHISORHERCON
STITUTIONALANDSTATUTORYRIGHTTOTESTIFYINHISORHEROWNDEFENCEANDHISORHER
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO CALL DEFENCE WITNESSES IF ANY ARE AVAILABLE
S H OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEREISNOTHINGTHATPREVENTSANACCUSEDFROMCOMBININGELEMENTSOFHISOR
HER ACTIVE AND PASSIVE DEFENCE RIGHTS 4HE ACCUSED MAY FOR EXAMPLE REFUSE TO
BEAWITNESSINHISORHEROWNDEFENCETHEREBYEXERCISINGTHEACCUSEDSPASSIVE
DEFENCERIGHT ANDYETINSISTONCALLINGDEFENCEWITNESSESRELYINGONTHISCOMPO
NENTOFTHEACCUSEDSACTIVEDEFENCERIGHT
4HEACTIVEDEFENCERIGHTANDTHESEQUENCEOFDEFENCEWITNESSES
!NACCUSEDWHOWISHESTOTESTIFYINHISORHEROWNDEFENCEANDWANTSTOCALLONE
ORMOREDEFENCEWITNESSESISINTERMSOFS B OFTHE!CTREQUIREDINPRIN
CIPLETOTESTIFYBEFORECALLINGTHEDEFENCEWITNESSES(OWEVER THECOURTMAY@ON
GOODCAUSESHOWNALLOWADEVIATIONFROMTHISSEQUENCE3EES B I .ENE
3!$ 4HEPURPOSEOFS B ISTOAVOIDASITUATIONWHEREANAC
CUSED HAVINGHEARDTHEDEFENCEWITNESSESFIRST CANTAILORHISORHERTESTIMONYTO
FITTHEIRS7HEREANACCUSEDDECIDESTOTESTIFYINHISORHEROWNDEFENCEAFTERHAV
INGCALLEDHISORHERDEFENCEWITNESSES @THECOURTMAYDRAWSUCHINFERENCEFROM
THEACCUSEDSCONDUCTASMAYBEREASONABLEINTHECIRCUMSTANCESS B II
%VIDENCE IN CHIEFOFDEFENCEWITNESSES

!LL DEFENCE WITNESSESINCLUDING THE ACCUSED AS A DEFENCE WITNESSGIVE EVI
DENCE IN CHIEFINTERMSOFTHEPROCESSIDENTIFIEDINPARAABOVE!NACCUSED
WHOWISHESTOTESTIFYFROMTHEDOCK ANDNOTTHEWITNESS BOX SHOULDBEPERMIT
TEDTODOSO4SANE 3!/ "ULALA 3!#2"6(#
#ROSS EXAMINATIONOFDEFENCEWITNESSESBYTHEPROSECUTION

)N TERMS OF S OF THE !CT A PROSECUTOR MAY CROSS EXAMINE ANY DEFENCE
WITNESS INCLUDINGANACCUSED CALLEDONBEHALFOFTHEDEFENCE3UCHCROSS EXAM
INATIONMUSTTAKEPLACEINTERMSOFTHERULESIDENTIFIEDINPARAABOVE4HE
FACTTHATTHELEGALREPRESENTATIVEOFTHEACCUSEDFAILSTOOBJECTTORUDE HECTORING
ANDUNREASONABLECROSS EXAMINATIONBYTHEPROSECUTORDOESNOTABSOLVETHETRIAL
COURTFROMITSDUTYTOINTERVENEINORDERTOSECUREAFAIRTRIAL/MAR 3!
. 5NFAIRCROSS EXAMINATIONOFANACCUSEDMAYRESULTINACONSTITUTIONAL
IRREGULARITY4SHOMAV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE5ITENHAGE "#,2%
)NPARAABOVEREFERENCEWASMADETOTHERULETHATWHEREAPARTYHASMORE
THAN ONE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ONLY ONE OF THEM WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CROSS
EXAMINEAPARTICULARWITNESS"UTIN"ASSON 3!#24 THECOURTWAS
PREPAREDTODEVIATEFROMTHISRULEFORTHESAKEOFSHORTENINGALONGANDCOMPLI
CATEDTRIAL)TDIDSOATTHEREQUESTOFTHEPROSECUTINGTEAMWHICHCONSISTEDOFFOUR
STATEADVOCATES4HEACCUSEDFACEDSEVERALFRAUDCHARGESANDOTHERCHARGES4HE
STATEADVOCATEWHOLEDTHETEAMINRESPECTOFTHEFRAUDCHARGESWASALLOWEDTO
CROSS EXAMINETHEACCUSEDONTHESECHARGES WHEREASTHESTATEADVOCATEWHOLED
THETEAMINRESPECTOFTHEOTHERCHARGESWASALLOWEDTOCROSS EXAMINEINRESPECT
OF THOSE CHARGES 4HE COURT HOWEVER ALSO SET CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR EXAMPLE
THATTHESTATEADVOCATEWHOCOMMENCEDCROSS EXAMINATIONWOULDNOTBEPERMIT
TEDTOPUTFURTHERQUESTIONSONCEHISORHERCOLLEAGUESTARTEDCROSS EXAMINING

#(!04%2r42)!,02).#)0,%3!.$4(%#/523%/&4(%#2)-).!,42)!,
2E EXAMINATIONOFDEFENCEWITNESSES

!LLDEFENCEWITNESSESINCLUDINGANACCUSEDWHOHASTESTIFIEDINHISORHEROWN
DEFENCECANBETAKENTHROUGHRE EXAMINATIONIFNECESSARY3UCHEXAMINATION
TAKESPLACEINTERMSOFTHERULESDESCRIBEDINPARAABOVE
&
).!,!2'5-%.43"902/3%#54)/.!.$$%&%.#%
/NCEALLTHEEVIDENCEHASBEENADDUCED THEPROSECUTORMAYADDRESSTHECOURT
ONTHEMERITS THATIS THEQUESTIONOFGUILTORINNOCENCEANDTHEDEFENCEMAY
THEREAFTERALSOADDRESSTHECOURTS $LAMINI 3!#2. 4HE
PROSECUTORHASTHERIGHTTOREPLYONANYMATTEROFLAWRAISEDBYTHEDEFENCEINITS
ADDRESSANDTHEPROSECUTORMAYALSO WITHTHECOURTSPERMISSION RESPONDTOANY
MATTEROFFACTRAISEDBYTHEDEFENCEINITSADDRESSS
4HECOURTSDUTYTOEXPLAINTOANUNDEFENDEDACCUSEDTHATHEORSHEHASTHE
RIGHTTOADDRESSTHECOURTMAYNOTBEDELEGATEDTOTHEINTERPRETER,EKHETHO
3!#2/ 4HEREFUSALOFANACCUSEDTOADDRESSTHECOURTMEANSTHATHE
ORSHEEITHERABANDONSORLOSESTHISRIGHT6ERMAAS 3!#24 4HE
COURTSFAILURETOALLOWANADDRESSCANINFRINGETHECONSTITUTIONALFAIRTRIALRIGHT
OFTHEACCUSED3EEGENERALLY-ULLER 3!#2# !DAMS 3!#2
# AND3HAMATLA 3!#2%
4
(%6%2$)#4/.4(%-%2)43
4HISMATTERISDEALTWITHINTHENEXTCHAPTER

#(!04%2
4HEVERDICT
3%VANDER-ERWE
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
6%2$)#44/"%$%,)6%2%$7)4().2%!3/.!",%4)-%
#/5242%15)2%$4/')6%2%!3/.3
#/-0%4%.46%2$)#43'%.%2!,25,%3
.ATURE PURPOSEANDSTATUTORYBASIS
#OMPETENTVERDICTSANDTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
#/-0%4%.46%2$)#433%,%#4%$%8!-0,%3
!TTEMPTSOFTHE!CT
!CCESSORYAFTERTHEFACTSOFTHE!CT
-URDERANDATTEMPTEDMURDERSOFTHE!CT
2OBBERYSOFTHE!CT
3EXUALOFFENCESINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCES
AND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOFSOFTHE
!CT
&URTHEREXAMPLESOFCRIMESCOVEREDBYCOMPETENTVERDICTS
SANDSSTO!OFTHE!CT
/FFENCESNOTSPECIFIEDINSSTO!OFTHE!CTSOFTHE
!CT
4HECRIMEOFlSTATUTORYINTOXICATIONmASACOMPETENTVERDICTON
ANYCHARGES OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF

4(%#/524m3!-%.$-%.4/&)43/7.6%2$)#43%#4)/.
/&4(%!#4


#(!04%2r4(%6%2$)#4
3EE BELOW
G TOHAVETHEIRTRIALCONCLUDEWITHOUTUNREASONABLEDELAY
3EE BELOW
N TOBETRIEDINALANGUAGETHATTHEACCUSEDUNDERSTANDSOR IFTHATISNOTPRACTI
CABLE TOHAVETHEPROCEEDINGSINTERPRETEDINTHATLANGUAGE
3EE BELOW
R OFAPPEALTO ORREVIEWBY AHIGHERCOURT
3EE BELOW
).42/$5#4)/.
!FTER HAVING HEARD THE FINAL ARGUMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE IN
SUPPORTOFTHEIRRESPECTIVECASESSEEPARAOF#HAPTERABOVE THECOURTISRE
QUIREDTOGIVEJUDGMENT4HISMEANSTHATTHECOURTMUSTCONSIDERANDDELIVERITS
VERDICTONTHE@MERITSOFTHECASE THATIS WHETHERTHEACCUSEDSHOULDBEACQUIT
TEDORCONVICTEDONTHECHARGES AGAINSTHIMORHER)NDEED INTERMSOFS
ASREADWITHSOFTHE!CTANACCUSEDISENTITLEDTODEMANDTHATHEORSHEBE
ACQUITTEDORCONVICTED3EEALSOPARAOF#HAPTERABOVE
*UDGMENT MUST BE DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT SEE #HAPTER ABOVE AND IN A
LANGUAGE THAT AN ACCUSED UNDERSTANDS S K OF THE #ONSTITUTION 7HERE
REQUIRED THEWHOLEJUDGMENTMUSTBEINTERPRETEDTOANACCUSEDINALANGUAGEHE
ORSHEUNDERSTANDS
4HEROLEOFASSESSORSINASSISTINGAJUDGEORMAGISTRATEINREACHINGAVERDICTON
THEMERITSOFTHECASEWASDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTERABOVE
7HERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE COUNTS IN A CHARGE OR INDICTMENT A COURT IS
REQUIREDTORETURNAVERDICTINRESPECTOFEACHCOUNTANDTODOSOINASINGLEJUDG
MENT3EE-ABAYI 3!# -THETWA 3!. !NACCUSED
WHOHASPLEADEDNOTGUILTYTOCHARGESINRESPECTOFWHICHTHETRIALCOURTHASGIVEN
NOVERDICTISONAPPEALORREVIEWENTITLEDTOANACQUITTALONALLTHESECHARGES3EE
3ITHOLE 3!#24 ATH$IFFERENTCONSIDERATIONSMIGHTAPPLYWHERE
NOVERDICTWASGIVENINRESPECTOFAPLEAOFGUILTYANDITISONAPPEALORREVIEW
CLEARTHATTHISPLEAWASADEQUATELYSUPPORTEDBYSTATEMENTSMADEBYTHEACCUSED
3EEGENERALLY&ONGOQA 3!#27## AT;=
6
%2$)#44/"%$%,)6%2%$7)4().2%!3/.!",%4)-%
!COURTWOULDNORMALLYGIVEITSJUDGMENTIMMEDIATELYWHERETHEFACTSANDLAW
ARESTRAIGHTFORWARD4HISISKNOWNASAN@EXTEMPOREJUDGMENT4HECOURT HOW
EVER ISALSOENTITLEDTOPOSTPONETHECASEFORPURPOSESOFCONSIDERINGITSVERDICT
ANDWOULDNORMALLYHAVETODOSOWHERETHEFACTUALANDLEGALISSUESSODEMAND
3EESOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASSTATED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THATTHEREISANETHICALDUTYONTHECOURTTOGIVEJUDGMENTPROMPTLYANDWITHOUT
UNDUEDELAY THATPARTIESAREENTITLEDTOJUDGMENTASSOONASREASONABLYPOSSIBLE
AND FURTHERMORE THATIMPROPERDELAYSDESTROYPUBLICCONFIDENCEINTHECOURTS
3EE 0HARMACEUTICAL 3OCIETY OF 3OUTH !FRICA V 4SHABALALA -SIMANG ../ .EW #LICKS
3OUTH!FRICA0TY ,TDV-INISTEROF(EALTH 3!3#! AT(!NAC
CUSEDALSOHASACONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOHAVEHISORHERTRIALCONCLUDED@WITHOUT
UNREASONABLEDELAYS D OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
! TRIAL IS CONCLUDED UPON ACQUITTAL IF CONVICTED THE MATTER OF SENTENCING
ASDISCUSSEDINTHENEXTCHAPTERMUSTBEDEALTWITHINORDERTOBRINGTHETRIAL
TOCONCLUSION2EVIEWSANDAPPEALSAREPOST TRIALPROCEDURESANDAREDEALTWITH
BELOWIN#HAPTERSAND RESPECTIVELY
!NAPPEALJUDGMENTMUSTALSOBEDELIVEREDWITHINAREASONABLETIME)N-YAKA
UNREPORTED '3*CASENO! 3EPT TWOOFTHETHREE
JUDGESWHOHEARDTHEAPPEALDELIVEREDTHEIROWNJUDGMENTSAFTERTHETHIRDJUDGE
WHOWASSUPPOSEDTOHAVEWRITTENADRAFTJUDGMENT HADFAILEDTODOSO
#/5242%15)2%$4/')6%2%!3/.3
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASPOINTEDOUTTHATANACCUSEDSCONSTITUTIONALRIGHT
TOAFAIRTRIALALSOMEANSTHATANACCUSED@ISENTITLEDTOBEPROVIDEDWITHREASONS
FOREACHCHARGEHEISCONVICTEDOFANDTHATTHISALSOEXTENDSTOTHERIGHTOFAPPEAL
TOAHIGHERCOURT"ARLOW 3!#2## AT;=
)N.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV.AIDOO 3!#23#! -PATI
0AND4SHIQI*!SAIDAT;=
4HEIMPORTANCEOFFURNISHINGREASONSFORAJUDGMENTISASALUTARYPRACTICE*UDICIALOF
FICERSEXPRESSTHEBASISFORTHEIRDECISIONSTHROUGHREASONEDJUDGMENTS!STATEMENTOF
REASONSGIVESASSURANCETOTHEPARTIESANDTOANYOTHERINTERESTEDMEMBEROFTHEPUBLIC
THATTHECOURTGAVEDUECONSIDERATIONTOTHEMATTER THEREBYENSURINGPUBLICCONFIDENCE
INTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
)NTERMSOFSOFTHE!CTAJUDGEISREQUIREDTOGIVEREASONSFORANYCONCLUSIONS
REACHED BY HIM OR HER IN RESPECT ANY QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT-AAKE
3!#23#! AT;=!MAGISTRATEISALSOOBLIGEDTOGIVEREASONSFORHISORHER
DECISIONONANYFACTUALORLEGALISSUESTER C TOE OFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS
!CTOF-AAKEABOVE AT;=-OLAWA 3!#2'3* AT;=n;=
)N-OKELA 3!#23#! AT;=ITWASSAID@0EOPLENEEDTOKNOWTHAT
COURTSDONOTACTARBITRARILY BUTBASETHEIRDECISIONSONRATIONALGROUNDS3EEALSO
3TRATEGIC,IQUOR3ERVICESV-VUMBI./ 3!## AT;="ARENDS
3!#2.#+ AT;=
0ROPERREASONSREQUIRE@ANINTELLIGENTANALYSISOFTHEEVIDENCEANDCANNOTCON
SISTOF@AMECHANICALREGURGITATIONOFTHEEVIDENCE"HENGU 3!#2.
FÜA0AUCITYOFREASONSANDTHEABSENCEOFANYSPECIFICFINDINGASREGARDS
THEEVIDENCEOFANACCUSEDARE@TANTAMOUNTTOASITUATIONWHERENOREASONSFOR
ACONVICTIONAREGIVEN.GABASE 3!#2%#' AT;=3EEALSO-COSELI
3!#2%#' (OWEVER @TERSEREASONSWHICHSETOUTTHEPRESIDINGJUDI
CIALOFFICERS@CENTRALREASONINGINREACHINGTHECONCLUSIONTHATHEDID COULDBE
SUFFICIENT,UZIPHO 3!#2%#' AT;=

#(!04%2r4(%6%2$)#4
4HEABSENCEOFREASONSHASANADVERSEEFFECTONTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTOFAN
ACCUSEDOFAPPEALTO ORREVIEWBY AHIGHERCOURTS O OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
#ALITZ 3!#23#! -OLAWA 3!#2'3* AT;=n;=)N
THEABSENCEOFREASONS ITBECOMESDIFFICULTFORTHEACCUSEDTOASSESSWHETHERAN
APPEAL OR REVIEW WOULD HAVE REASONABLE PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS 4HE TRIAL COURTS
FAILURE TO FURNISH REASONS ALSO HAMPERS THE TASK OF THE APPEAL OR REVIEW COURT
3EEGENERALLY-OLAWAABOVE AT;=&RAZENBURG 3!#2% 6ANDER
"ERG 3!#2# AT;=-AAKE 3!#23#! AT;=,UZIPHO
ABOVE AT;=
/NAPPEALATRIALCOURTSFINDINGSOFFACTAREINTHEABSENCEOFADEMONSTRA
BLEANDMATERIALMISDIRECTIONBYTHETRIALCOURTPRESUMEDTOBECORRECT UNLESS
THERECORDEDEVIDENCESHOWSTHESEFINDINGSTOBECLEARLYWRONG(ADEBE
3!#23#! ATE F3EEDAT 3!#2'0 AT;= !COURTOFAPPEAL
WOULDALSOBEABLETOCONSIDERTHEEVIDENCEAFRESHANDMAKEITSOWNFACTUALFIND
INGSIF@NOJUDGMENTWORTHSPEAKINGOFWASDELIVEREDBYTHETRIALCOURT3EE#ARTER
3!#2.#+ AT;=
#
/-0%4%.46%2$)#43'%.%2!,25,%3
.ATURE PURPOSEANDSTATUTORYBASIS
)T IS POSSIBLE THAT THE EVIDENCE MIGHT FALL SHORT OF PROVING THE CRIME CHARGED
BUTNEVERTHELESSSUCCEEDINPROVINGBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTTHECOMMISSIONOF
SOMEOTHEROFFENCENOTSPECIFICALLYFORMULATEDASANALTERNATIVECHARGE INTERMS
OFSOFTHE!CT TOTHECHARGEINTHEINDICTMENTORCHARGESHEET ASTHECASEMAY
BE4HISTYPEOFSITUATIONISGOVERNEDBYTHESTATUTORYRULESPERTAININGTOSO CALLED
COMPETENTVERDICTS THATIS THEUNEXPRESSEDORLATENTORIMPLIEDCHARGESWHICH
ONLYSURFACEONCETHECRIMECHARGEDISNOTPROVEDBUTSOMEOTHERCRIME WHICHIS
NORMALLYLESSERTHANORAKINTOTHECRIMECHARGED ISPROVED)N0HAKANE
3!#2## AT;=#AMERON*STATED@4HEPURPOSEOFTHECOMPETENTVERDICT
ISTOPROVIDETHESTATEWITHTHEABILITYTOPROSECUTEANINDIVIDUALFORALOWER LEVEL
CRIMEWHICHTHEEVIDENCEESTABLISHESINTHEEVENTTHATTHEMORESERIOUSCRIME
CANNOTBEPROVENBEYONDAREASONABLEDOUBT7HERETHESOLECHARGEAGAINSTTHE
ACCUSEDIS FOREXAMPLE MURDERANDTHESTATEFAILSTOPROVEINTENTIONTOKILLAN
ESSENTIALELEMENTOFMURDER BUTSUCCEEDSINPROVINGNEGLIGENCEANELEMENTOF
CULPABLEHOMICIDE THECOURTISINTERMSOFSA OFTHE!CTENTITLED ANDRE
QUIRED TOCONVICTTHEACCUSEDOFCULPABLEHOMICIDEEVENTHOUGHTHEACCUSEDHAD
NOT ORIGINALLY AND EXPRESSLY BEEN CHARGED WITH CULPABLE HOMICIDE 3EE FURTHER
PARABELOW
3ECTIONSnOFTHE!CTIDENTIFYTHESITUATIONSANDCRIMESTHATWILLGIVE
RISETOCOMPETENTVERDICTS(OWEVER SEEALSOPARABELOWFORADISCUSSIONOFTHE
PROVISIONSOFS OFTHE'ENERAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF
#OMPETENTVERDICTSAREONLYPOSSIBLEIFPERMITTEDBYSTATUTORYPROVISIONS4O
CONVICTANACCUSEDOFHOUSEBREAKINGWITHTHEINTENTIONTOSTEALISNOTACOMPE
TENTVERDICTONACHARGEOFROBBERYBECAUSENEITHERSNORSOFTHE!CT NOR
ANYOTHERSTATUTORYPROVISION ALLOWSHOUSEBREAKINGWITHTHEINTENTIONTOSTEALAS
ACOMPETENTVERDICTONACHARGEOFROBBERY.YAMZA 3!#2#K )F
THECHARGEOFHOUSEBREAKINGWITHINTENTTOSTEALHAD HOWEVER BEENINCLUDEDAS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ANEXPRESSALTERNATIVETOTHECHARGEOFROBBERY ASPROVIDEDFORINSOFTHE!CT
SUCHACONVICTIONWOULDHAVEBEENPOSSIBLEIFTHEMAINCHARGEWERENOTPROVED
/NEOFTHEOBJECTSOFCOMPETENTVERDICTSISTOMAKEITUNNECESSARYTOHAVEA
RANGE OF EXPRESS ALTERNATIVE CHARGES 3EE *ABULANI 3! . "n#
)N"- 3!#23#! AT;=n;=ITWASSAIDTHATWHENFORMULATINGTHE
CHARGES AGAINSTANACCUSED PROSECUTORSMUSTPAYPROPERATTENTIONTOPOSSIBLE
COMPETENTVERDICTS
)FTHEEXPRESSCHARGEAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDISPROVED ACOURTMAYNOTRESORTTO
ANYCOMPETENTVERDICTPROVIDEDFORINSTATUTORYPROVISIONS-MOLAWA 3!
" )NTHISINSTANCEACONVICTIONONTHEEXPRESSCHARGEISREQUIRED
4HE PROSECUTION IS NOT ENTITLED TO A COMPETENT VERDICT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS
FAILED TO PROVE THE EXPRESS CHARGE ! COMPETENT VERDICT CAN ONLY FOLLOW WHERE
THEREISPROOFBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTOFTHEIMPLIEDOFFENCE-BATHA
3!. ANDNOSUCHPROOFINRESPECTOFTHEOFFENCECHARGED
!CONVICTIONONACOMPETENTVERDICTMUSTBEREGARDEDASANACQUITTALONTHE
ORIGINAL CHARGE 3EE $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG V 0ISTORIUS
3!#23#! AT;=n;=
#OMPETENTVERDICTSANDTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
!N ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF AN ACCUSEDS COMMON LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO A FAIR TRIAL IS THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE CHARGES WITH SUFFICIENT DETAIL
S A OFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HWALA "#,2## AT;=*UGAZI
3!#2# &IELIES 3!#2# AT;= #OMPETENTVERDICTSCLEARLY
CREATEARISKOF@TRIALBYAMBUSHINBREACHOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL-OTSOMI
*$24 AT;= /URCOURTSHAVETHEREFOREOVERTHEYEARSDEVELOPEDRULESOF
PRACTICETOENSURETHATTHECONVENIENCEOFHAVINGCOMPETENTVERDICTSDOESNOT
RENDER A TRIAL UNFAIR #HAUKE 3!#26 JnA-ASITA
3!#2# +ESTER 3!#2" 4HESERULESWERESETOUTASFOLLOWSBY
'RIESEL*IN&IELIESABOVE AT;=
A 4HECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOBEINFORMEDOFTHECHARGEINCLUDESTHERIGHTTOBEIN
FORMEDOFCOMPETENTVERDICTSONTHECHARGE
B 7HILE IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO REFER TO COMPETENT VERDICTS IN THE CHARGE SHEET IT IS
EXTREMELY DESIRABLE THAT AN UNDEFENDED ACCUSED BE INFORMED TIMEOUSLY OF ANY
COMPETENTVERDICTSTHATMIGHTBERETURNEDONCONVICTIONx
C )NORDERTOGIVEEFFICACYTOTHISRIGHT ITISIMPORTANTTHATTHEACCUSEDBEINFORMED
OFCOMPETENTVERDICTSBEFOREPLEADING
D 4HESEPRINCIPLESHAVEPARTICULARRELEVANCEBUTARENOTLIMITEDTOTHESITUATION
WHEREASTATUTORYPROVISIONPLACESANONUSONTHEACCUSED
E &AILURETOINFORMANACCUSEDOFACOMPETENTVERDICTDOESNOTPERSEPRECLUDETHE
COURT FROM RECORDING SUCH COMPETENT VERDICT %VERYTHING WILL DEPEND UPON THE
FACTSOFEACHPARTICULARCASEANDTHEEXTENTTOWHICHANACCUSEDMAYORMAYNOT
BEPREJUDICEDINTHECONDUCTOFHISORHERDEFENCEBYSUCHOMISSION7HERETHERE
ISTHELIKELIHOODOFPREJUDICETOTHEUNREPRESENTEDACCUSED THERETURNOFACOMPE
TENTVERDICTWOULDNOTBESANCTIONED
F )NTHEULTIMATEANALYSIS THEENQUIRYISSIMPLYWHETHERTHEACCUSEDHASBEENGIVEN
AFAIRTRIAL
@0REJUDICEASENVISAGEDINPARAE ABOVEISABSENTWHERETHECOURTCONCLUDESTHAT
ANACCUSEDHADHISORHERATTENTIONBEENDRAWNTOTHERISKOFACOMPETENTVER

#(!04%2r4(%6%2$)#4
DICTCOULDNOTHAVECONDUCTEDHISORHERDEFENCEANYDIFFERENTLYORWOULDNOT
HAVEHADANYOTHERDEFENCE-WALI3!#2!
0REJUDICEISPRESENTWHERETHEABSENCEOFTHEWARNINGOFTHERISKOFACOMPETENT
VERDICTLEAVESANUNREPRESENTEDACCUSED@TOFLOUNDER$AYIMANI 3!#2
% AT ;= OR WHERE AN ACCUSED IS ONLY DURING THE TRIAL COURTS JUDGMENT
INFORMEDOFTHERELEVANTCOMPETENTVERDICT&IELIESABOVE AT;= ORWHEREATRIAL
COURTWARNSANACCUSEDOFTHERISKOFACOMPETENTVERDICTONLYAFTERTHECOURTHAS
NOTEDTHEACCUSEDSADMISSIONSINRESPECTOFSUCHACOMPETENTVERDICT(LAKWANE
3!#2/
)NCASESWHERETHEACCUSEDHADLEGALREPRESENTATION THECOURTSWOULDNORMALLY
BESLOWTOCONCLUDETHATTHEABSENCEOFAWARNINGCONCERNINGACOMPETENTVER
DICTHADRENDEREDTHETRIALUNFAIR*ASAT 3!#23#! HnA "UT
ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW MAY BE SUCH THATANUNFAIRTRIALMAYRESULT DESPITE LEGAL
REPRESENTATION-UKWEVHO 3!#2'3* ATAnD
!N ACCUSED CAN PLEAD GUILTY TO AN OFFENCE WHICH IS A COMPETENT VERDICT IN
RESPECTOFTHEOFFENCECHARGED3EES A OFTHE!CT
#
/-0%4%.46%2$)#433%,%#4%$%8!-0,%3
)NAWORKOFTHISNATUREITISNOTPOSSIBLETODEALWITHALLTHEPOSSIBLECOMPETENT
VERDICTSONPARTICULARCHARGES7HATFOLLOWSISASELECTION BUTSHOULDNOTDETRACT
FROMTHEFACTTHATBOTHPROSECUTORANDDEFENCELAWYERSHOULDATALLTIMESBEALERT
TOPOSSIBLECOMPETENTVERDICTSINRESPECTOFCASESTHEYAREINVOLVEDIN
!TTEMPTSOFTHE!CT
)NTERMSOFTHEABOVESECTIONANYPERSONCHARGEDWITHANOFFENCEMAYBEFOUND
GUILTY OF AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUCH OFFENCE OR OF AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ANY
OTHER OFFENCE OF WHICH HE OR SHE MAY BE CONVICTED ON THE CHARGE IF SUCH BE
THEFACTSPROVED4HUS IF!ISCHARGEDWITHMURDERANDMURDERISNOTPROVED A
CONVICTIONOFATTEMPTEDMURDERMUSTFOLLOWIFSUCHANATTEMPTISPROVEDAND
IFATTEMPTEDMURDERISALSONOTPROVED BUTONLYANATTEMPTEDROBBERY THENA
CONVICTIONOFATTEMPTEDROBBERYWOULDBEINORDERBECAUSEROBBERYISINTERMSOF
SACOMPETENTVERDICTONACHARGEOFMURDER3EEPARABELOW
! VERDICT OF ATTEMPT IS NOT PERMITTED WHERE THE EVIDENCE PROVES THE OFFENCE
CHARGED-AKHUTLA 3!/ (
!NACCUSEDCHARGEDWITHANATTEMPTCANNOTBECONVICTEDOFTHECOMPLETED
CRIMEEVENIFSUCHCOMPLETIONISPROVED)NSUCHANINSTANCESDOESNOT
PROHIBIT A CONVICTION ON THE ATTEMPT AS CHARGED 3IKHAKANE 3!
.
!NACCUSEDACQUITTEDUPONACHARGEOFHAVINGCOMMITTEDANOFFENCECANSUC
CESSFULLYRAISETHEPLEAOFPRIORACQUITTALAUTREFOISACQUIT IFSUBSEQUENTLYCHARGED
WITHANATTEMPTTOHAVECOMMITTEDSUCHOFFENCE4HEREASONFORTHISISTHATATHIS
ORHERFIRSTTRIALSUCHACCUSEDWASALREADY ONACCOUNTOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS
INJEOPARDYINRESPECTOFTHEATTEMPT3EEFURTHERS D OFTHE!CTASWELLAS
THEDISCUSSIONOFAUTREFOISACQUITINPARAIN#HAPTER ABOVE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!CCESSORYAFTERTHEFACTSOFTHE!CT
)F THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE ACCUSED WAS A PERPETRATOR OR CO PERPETRATOR OR AC
COMPLICEINTHECRIMECHARGED HEORSHEMAYBECONVICTEDASANACCESSORYAFTER
THEFACTTOTHECRIMECHARGEDSHOULDTHEREINDEEDBEPROOFTHATHEORSHEACTED
INSUCHACAPACITY3EEFURTHERPARAIN#HAPTERABOVE WHERETHEDIFFERENCE
BETWEENAPARTICIPANTANDANACCESSORYISDISCUSSED
4HESENTENCEIMPOSEDONANACCESSORYMAYNOTEXCEEDTHESENTENCEWHICHMAY
BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCE WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE ACCUSED WAS
CONVICTEDASANACCESSORYS
-URDERANDATTEMPTEDMURDERSOFTHE!CT
4HE ABOVE SECTION PROVIDES FOR THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE COMPETENT VERDICTS ON A
CHARGEOFMURDERORATTEMPTEDMURDER
A THEOFFENCEOFCULPABLEHOMICIDE
B THEOFFENCEOFASSAULTWITHINTENTTODOGRIEVOUSBODILYHARM
C THEOFFENCEOFROBBERY
D INACASERELATINGTOACHILD THEOFFENCEOFEXPOSINGANINFANT WHETHERUN
DERASTATUTEORATCOMMONLAW ORTHEOFFENCEOFDISPOSINGOFTHEBODYOFA
CHILD INCONTRAVENTIONOFSECTIONOFTHE'ENERAL,AW!MENDMENT!CT
OF WITHINTENTTOCONCEALTHEFACTOFITSBIRTH
E THEOFFENCEOFCOMMONASSAULT
F THEOFFENCEOFPUBLICVIOLENCEOR
G THEOFFENCEOFPOINTINGAFIRE ARM AIR GUNORAIR PISTOLINCONTRAVENTIONOF
ANYLAW
2OBBERYSOFTHE!CT
4HEABOVESECTIONDETERMINESTHECOMPETENTVERDICTSINRESPECTOFROBBERYORAT
TEMPTEDROBBERY%XAMPLESOFSUCHPOSSIBLEVERDICTSAREASSAULTWITHINTENTTODO
GRIEVOUSBODILYHARMSA ORCOMMONASSAULTSB ORTHEFTSD
2OBBERY IS THE ONLY CRIME WHERE AN ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED OF TWO OTHER
CRIMESIFTHESINGLEROBBERYCHARGEISNOTPROVEDBUTTHETWOOTHERLATENTCRIMES
ARETHEFTANDCOMMONASSAULTASTWOSEPARATECOMPETENTVERDICTSORTHEFTAND
ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO DO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM AS TWO SEPARATE COMPETENT VER
DICTS4HISUNIQUEPROVISIONINSMUSTBEUNDERSTOODINTHECONTEXTOFTHE
SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY NAMELY THAT IT IS
REALLYTHEFTOFPROPERTYTHROUGHTHEUSEOFVIOLENCEWHERETHEREISACAUSALLINK
BETWEENTHEVIOLENCEANDTHETAKINGOFTHEPROPERTY3EE3NYMAN#RIMINAL,AW
ED AT4HISMEANSTHATWHERETHEREISASINGLECHARGEOFROBBERYANDTHE
EVIDENCEFAILSTOESTABLISHTHECAUSALLINKBETWEENTHETHEFTANDVIOLENCE THERE
MAYNEVERTHELESSBEPROOFOFTHEFTANDVIOLENCEHENCETHETWOCOMPETENTVER
DICTS3EEFURTHER-ATJEKE " 4HECUMULATIVEEFFECTOFTHESENTENCE
IMPOSEDONEACHOFTHETWOCONVICTIONSMUSTBEBORNEINMINDINDECIDINGUPON
ANAPPROPRIATEPUNISHMENT3EE*ABULANI 3!.
)N 2AUTENBACH 3!#2 '3* THE ACCUSED WAS CHARGED WITH AMONGST
OTHERCHARGES MURDERANDROBBERY)NRESPECTOFTHEROBBERYCHARGEHEWASONLY

#(!04%2r4(%6%2$)#4
CONVICTEDOFTHEFTASACOMPETENTVERDICTASPROVIDEDFORINSD ITWASONLY
AFTER THE MURDER THAT THE INTENTION TO STEAL FROM THE DECEASED WAS FORMED AT
;=
3EXUALOFFENCESINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND
2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOFSOFTHE!CT
#OMPETENTVERDICTSINRESPECTOFTHEABOVESTATUTORYOFFENCESAREREGULATEDEX
TENSIVELYBYSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT3EEGENERALLY-NGUNI
3!#2'0 .KOSI 3!#2'0 +HALA*$2'0 7HERE
THESTATEFAILSTOPROVEATTEMPTEDRAPE BUTTHEEVIDENCEISSUFFICIENTTOPROVEA
@SEXUALASSAULT THELATTERSTATUTORYOFFENCEWOULDBEACOMPETENTVERDICTINTERMS
OFS C OFTHE!CT3EE"- 3!#23#! AT;=
&URTHEREXAMPLESOFCRIMESCOVEREDBYCOMPETENTVERDICTSSAND
SSTO!OFTHE!CT
4HE!CTALSOPROVIDESFORCOMPETENTVERDICTSINRESPECTOFTHEFOLLOWINGCRIMES
CULPABLEHOMICIDES TRAFFICKINGINPERSONSINCONTRAVENTIONOFSOFTHE
0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS!CTOFHOUSEBREAK
INGWITHINTENTTOCOMMITANOFFENCES STATUTORYOFFENCEOFBREAKINGAND
ENTERINGOROFENTERINGPREMISESS THEFTS RECEIVINGSTOLENPROPERTY
KNOWING IT TO HAVE BEEN STOLEN S ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO DO BODILY HARM
S COMMONASSAULTS STATUTORYUNLAWFULCARNALINTERCOURSES AND
CERTAINOFFENCESUNDERTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF#ORRUPT!CTIVITIES!CT
OFS!
/FFENCESNOTSPECIFIEDINSSTO!OFTHE!CTSOFTHE!CT
3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATIFTHEEVIDENCEONACHARGEOFANYOFFENCENOTREFERRED
TOINSSTO!OFTHE!CTDOESNOTPROVETHEOFFENCECHARGED@BUTPROVES
THECOMMISSIONOFANOFFENCEWHICHBYREASONOFTHEESSENTIALELEMENTSOFTHAT
OFFENCEISINCLUDEDINTHEOFFENCESOCHARGED THEACCUSEDMAYBEFOUNDGUILTYOF
THEOFFENCESOPROVED3EE6AN)EPEREN 3!#27## AT;=
! COURT SHOULD NOT RESORT TO S IN ORDER TO REMEDY THE INEPT OR SLOVENLY
WORKOFPROSECUTORSWHOFAILTODRAFTTHECORRECTCHARGES#OWLING 3!#*
)N"USUKU 3!#2% AT;=ITWASCORRECTLYNOTEDTHAT@THE
ENQUIRY WHENDETERMININGWHETHERTOINVOKExSxISWHETHERTHEESSENTIAL
ELEMENTSOFTHEALLEGEDCOMPETENTVERDICTWEREINCLUDEDINTHEORIGINALCHARGE
)N -ITCHELL 3!#2 ! IT WAS HELD FOR EXAMPLE THAT ALL THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY TO ASSAULT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CHARGE OF
MURDERANDTHATSCOULDTHEREFORENOTBEINVOKED!MAS 3!#2
. PROVIDESANOTHEREXAMPLEWHERESCOULDNOTBEINVOKEDSOMEESSENTIAL
ELEMENTSOFTHEALLEGEDCOMPETENTVERDICTCONTEMPTOFCOURT WERENOTINCLUDED
INTHEORIGINALCHARGETHESTATUTORYOFFENCEOFFAILINGTOGRANTOTHERPARENTACCESS
TOCHILDREN
4HEELEMENTSOFTHEOFFENCEOFESCAPINGCONTRAVENINGS OFTHE!CT ARE
ESSENTIALLYTHESAMEASTHEELEMENTSOFTHEOFFENCEOFESCAPINGASPROVIDEDFORIN

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SA OFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOF)NTHISINSTANCESWOULD
APPLY
4HECRIMEOFlSTATUTORYINTOXICATIONmASACOMPETENTVERDICTONANY
CHARGES OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF
)NTERMSOFS OFTHEABOVE!CTAPERSONWHOVOLUNTARILYCONSUMESALCOHOLOR
USESANYOTHERDRUG TOSUCHANEXTENTTHATITLEADSTOCRIMINALNON RESPONSIBILITY
ANDWHOWHILSTINTHISCONDITIONCOMMITSANACTPUNISHABLEBYLAWOFWHICH
HEORSHEWOULDHAVEBEENCONVICTEDBUTFORHISORHERSELF INDUCEDLACKOFCRIMI
NALRESPONSIBILITY ISGUILTYOFANOFFENCE3NYMAN#RIMINAL,AWED AT
REFERSTOTHISOFFENCEAS@STATUTORYINTOXICATION4HISOFFENCEMAYBEPUTASTHE
ONLYCHARGE ORASANEXPRESSALTERNATIVETOTHEMAINCHARGE FOREXAMPLE MURDER
ALTERNATIVELYCONTRAVENTIONOFS OF!CTOF(OWEVER INTERMSOFS
OF!CTOF ACONVICTIONOFSTATUTORYINTOXICATIONTHATIS CONTRAVENTION
OFS MAYALSOBEACOMPETENTVERDICTINANYPROSECUTIONFORANYOFFENCE
)TIS LIKEATRUECOMPETENTVERDICT ANAUTOMATICALTERNATIVETOTHEMAINCHARGE
-PHUNGATJE 3!/ ! 3ECTION STATES
)FINANYPROSECUTIONFORANYOFFENCEITISFOUNDTHATTHEACCUSEDISNOTCRIMI
NALLYLIABLEFORTHEOFFENCECHARGEDONACCOUNTOFTHEFACTTHATHISORHERFACULTIES
REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION WERE IMPAIRED BY THE CONSUMPTION OR USE OF ANY
SUBSTANCE SUCHACCUSEDMAYBEFOUNDGUILTYOFACONTRAVENTIONOFSUBSECTION
IFTHEEVIDENCEPROVESTHECOMMISSIONOFSUCHCONTRAVENTION
7HEREANACCUSEDISFOUNDGUILTYOF@STATUTORYINTOXICATIONASACOMPETENTVER
DICT THECOURTSFINDINGMUSTMAKEREFERENCETOTHEORIGINALCHARGE FOREXAMPLE
@GUILTYOFCONTRAVENINGS OF!CTOFMURDER 3EEGENERALLY/LIPHANT
3!/ 0IETERSEN 3!#2# !NACCUSEDCANOBVIOUSLYNOT
BECONVICTEDOFTHEORIGINALCHARGEANDCONTRAVENTIONOFS OF!CTOF
'RIESSEL 3!#2/
! COMPETENT VERDICT LIKE THE ONE CREATED IN S OF !CT OF EXISTS
LIKEOTHERCOMPETENTVERDICTSCREATEDBYSSnOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTFOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BUT MAY NEVER SERVE AS A PROCEDURAL TRAP FOR
THEIGNORANT6ANDER-ERWE 3TELL,2AT 4HEULTIMATETESTISTHE
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALAMATTERTHATWASDISCUSSEDINPARAABOVE
4
(%#/524m3!-%.$-%.4/&)43/7.6%2$)#43%#4)/./&
4(%!#4
4HECOMMON LAWPRINCIPLEISTHATACOURTISFUNCTUSOFFICIOONCEITHASDELIVERED
ITSJUDGMENT4HISMEANSTHATTHECOURTITSELFMAYNOTALTERORREVOKEITSVERDICT
3EE GENERALLY #HAUKE 3!#2 '3* 3ECTION OF THE !CT CREATES A
VERYLIMITEDEXCEPTIONTOTHISPRINCIPLE4HISSECTIONPROVIDESASFOLLOWS@7HEN
BYMISTAKEAWRONGJUDGMENTISDELIVERED THECOURTMAY BEFOREORIMMEDIATELY
AFTERITISRECORDED AMENDTHEJUDGMENT3ECTIONOFTHE!CTCONTAINSASIMI
LARPROVISIONINRESPECTOFTHESENTENCEPASSEDBYTHECOURT
3ECTIONDOESNOTENTITLEATRIALCOURTTOAMENDAVERDICTGIVENASARESULTOF
AMISDIRECTIONORINCORRECTPROCEDURE"RAND 3!#2.M

#(!04%2r4(%6%2$)#4
3ECTIONISPRIMARILYAIMEDATTHESITUATIONWHEREACOURTINTENDSTOPRO
NOUNCEAVERDICTOFGUILTY FOREXAMPLE OFTHEFT BUTINADVERTENTLYANNOUNCESA
VERDICTOFGUILTYOFROBBERYANDTHENWISHESTORECTIFYTHISMISTAKE
4HEREISACOMMON LAWRULEWHICHPERMITSACOURTTOEFFECTLINGUISTICOROTHER
MINORCHANGESTOITSJUDGMENTASPRONOUNCED WITHOUTCHANGINGTHEOUTCOMEOR
SUBSTANCETHEREOF7ELLS 3!! 3ECTIONMUSTBEREADINCONJUNC
TIONWITHTHISCOMMON LAWAPPROACH-AIFALA 3!#2"!

0HASE4HREE4HE3ENTENCE

#(!04%2
4HESENTENCE
334ERBLANCHE
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
#/.#%043
3ENTENCE
0UNISHMENT
3ENTENCING
/FFENDERCRIMINALACCUSED
/FFENCECRIME
4(%3%.4%.#%$)3#2%4)/.
'%.%2!,02).#)0,%37)4(2%'!2$4/3%.4%.#).'
0%.!,49#,!53%3
'ENERAL
4HE!DJUSTMENTOF&INES!CTOF
-INIMUMSENTENCES
4(%02% 3%.4%.#%).6%34)'!4)/.
'ENERAL
0REVIOUSCONVICTIONS
4HEACCUSEDONSENTENCE
4HEDUTYTOSUPPLYINFORMATION
!"3%.#%/&*5$)#)!,/&&)#%2
-)4)'!4).'!.$!''2!6!4).'&!#4/23
9OUTHASAMITIGATINGFACTOR
0REVIOUSCONVICTIONSASANAGGRAVATINGFACTOR
4(%5.#/.34)454)/.!,)49/&4(%$%!4(0%.!,49
'ENERALREMARKS
)NTRODUCTION
!RBITRARINESSINTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTY
4HEDEATHPENALTYINFOREIGNLAW
0UBLICOPINION


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
#RUEL INHUMANANDDEGRADINGPUNISHMENT

4HELIMITATIONCLAUSE
#ONCLUSION
4(%&/2-3/&05.)3(-%.44(!4-!9"%)-0/3%$
)NTRODUCTION
)MPRISONMENT
'ENERAL
4HEVARIOUSFORMSOFIMPRISONMENT
/RDINARYIMPRISONMENTFORATERMDETERMINED
BYTHECOURT
)MPRISONMENTFORLIFE
$ECLARATIONASDANGEROUSCRIMINAL
$ECLARATIONASAHABITUALCRIMINAL
0ERIODICALIMPRISONMENT
3ECTION I IMPRISONMENT
&URTHERPROVISIONSONIMPRISONMENT
2EDUCTIONOFSENTENCE
4HEVALUEOFIMPRISONMENT
&INE
'ENERAL
7HENAREFINESIMPOSED
4HEAMOUNTOFTHEFINE
$ETERMININGTHEMEANSOFTHEOFFENDER
2ECOVERINGTHEFINE
)MPRISONMENTINDEFAULTOFPAYMENT
$EFERMENTOFPAYMENTOFTHEFINE
&URTHERRELIEFAFTERTHESTARTOFTHEPRISONTERM
/THERMETHODSOFRECOVERY
4OWHOMDOESTHEFINEGO
#ORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
'ENERAL
4HENATUREOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
4HEVARIOUSFORMSOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
4HEPENALVALUEOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
&ACTORSINFLUENCINGTHEIMPOSITIONOFCORRECTIONAL
SUPERVISION
4HEEXECUTIONOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
#OMMITTALTOATREATMENTCENTRE
*UVENILEOFFENDERS

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
)NTRODUCTION

'ENERALSENTENCINGPRINCIPLES
3ENTENCESINTRODUCEDBYTHE!CT
)NTRODUCTION
'ENERALPRINCIPLES
)MPRISONMENT
#OMPULSORYRESIDENCEINACARECENTRE
&INES
2ESTORATIVEJUSTICE
#OMMUNITY BASEDSENTENCE
3USPENSIONOFSENTENCEANDPOSTPONEMENTOF
SENTENCING
#AUTIONANDDISCHARGE
3530%.$%$!.$0/340/.%$3%.4%.#%3
'ENERAL
%XCLUSIONARYPROVISIONS
0OSTPONEMENTOFPASSINGOFSENTENCE
3USPENSIONOFSENTENCE
4HECONDITIONS
"REACHINGTHECONDITIONS
3%.4%.#%3&/2-/2%4(!./.%#2)-%
#/-0%.3!4)/.!.$2%34)454)/.
#OMPENSATION
2ESTITUTION
3ECTIONr%QUALITY
OFTHELAW
%QUALITYINCLUDESTHEFULLANDEQUALENJOYMENTOFALLRIGHTSANDFREEDOMSr
4HESTATEMAYNOTUNFAIRLYDISCRIMINATEDIRECTLYORINDIRECTLYAGAINSTANYONEONONE
ORMOREGROUNDS INCLUDINGRACE GENDER SEX PREGNANCY MARITALSTATUS ETHNICOR
SOCIALORIGIN COLOUR SEXUALORIENTATION AGE DISABILITY RELIGION CONSCIENCE BELIEF
CULTURE LANGUAGEANDBIRTH


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
$ISCRIMINATIONONONEORMOREOFTHEGROUNDSLISTEDINSUBSECTION ISUNFAIRUNLESS
ITISESTABLISHEDTHATTHEDISCRIMINATIONISFAIR
3EE BELOW
%VERYONE HAS INHERENT DIGNITY AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR DIGNITY RESPECTED AND PRO
TECTED
3ECTIONr,IFE
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOLIFE
RIGHTr
D NOTBEDEPRIVEDOFFREEDOMARBITRARILYORWITHOUTJUSTCAUSE

G NOTTOBETORTUREDINANYWAY
H NOTTOBETREATEDORPUNISHEDINACRUEL INHUMANORDEGRADINGWAY
3EEAND BELOW
3ECTIONr$ETAINED ARRESTEDANDACCUSEDPERSONS
%VERYONEWHOISDETAINED INCLUDINGEVERYSENTENCEDPRISONER HASTHERIGHTr

H TOCONDITIONSOFDETENTIONTHATARECONSISTENTWITHHUMANDIGNITY INCLUDINGAT
LEASTEXERCISEANDTHEPROVISION ATSTATEEXPENSE OFADEQUATEACCOMMODATION
NUTRITION READINGMATERIALANDMEDICALTREATMENT

Q TOTHELEASTSEVEREOFTHEPRESCRIBEDPUNISHMENTSIFTHEPRESCRIBEDPUNISHMENT
FORTHEOFFENCEHASBEENCHANGEDBETWEENTHETIMETHATTHEOFFENCEWASCOM
MITTEDANDTHETIMEOFSENTENCING
3ECTIONr,IMITATION
D THENATUREOFTHERIGHT
E THEIMPORTANCEOFTHEPURPOSEOFTHELIMITATION
F THENATUREANDEXTENTOFTHELIMITATION
G THERELATIONBETWEENTHELIMITATIONANDITSPURPOSEAND
H LESSRESTRICTIVEMEANSTOACHIEVETHEPURPOSE
%XCEPTASPROVIDEDINSUBSECTION ORINANYOTHERPROVISIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION NO
LAWMAYLIMITANYRIGHTENTRENCHEDINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
3EEAND BELOW

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
3ECTIONr#HILDTOBESENTENCEDINTERMSOFTHIS#HAPTER
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTMUST AFTERCONVICTINGACHILD IMPOSEASENTENCEINACCORDANCEWITH
THIS#HAPTER
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr/BJECTIVESOFSENTENCINGANDFACTORSTOBECONSIDERED
)N ADDITION TO ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO SENTENCING THE OBJECTIVES OF
SENTENCINGINTERMSOFTHIS!CTARETOr
D ENCOURAGETHECHILDTOUNDERSTANDTHEIMPLICATIONSOFANDBEACCOUNTABLEFOR
THEHARMCAUSED
E PROMOTE AN INDIVIDUALISED RESPONSE WHICH STRIKES A BALANCE BETWEEN THE CIR
CUMSTANCESOFTHECHILD THENATUREOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHEINTERESTSOFSOCIETY
F PROMOTETHEREINTEGRATIONOFTHECHILDINTOTHEFAMILYANDCOMMUNITY
G ENSURETHATANYNECESSARYSUPERVISION GUIDANCE TREATMENTORSERVICESWHICH
FORMPARTOFTHESENTENCEASSISTTHECHILDINTHEPROCESSOFREINTEGRATIONAND
H USEIMPRISONMENTONLYASAMEASUREOFLASTRESORTANDONLYFORTHESHORTESTAP
PROPRIATEPERIODOFTIME
)NORDERTOPROMOTETHEOBJECTIVESOFSENTENCINGREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION ANDTO
ENCOURAGEARESTORATIVEJUSTICEAPPROACH SENTENCESMAYBEUSEDINCOMBINATION
7HENCONSIDERINGTHEIMPOSITIONOFASENTENCEINVOLVINGCOMPULSORYRESIDENCEIN
ACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTREINTERMSOFSECTION WHICHPROVIDESAPROGRAMME
REFERREDTOINSECTION M OFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT ACHILDJUSTICECOURTMUST INAD
DITIONTOTHEFACTORSREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION RELATINGTOIMPRISONMENT CONSIDER
THEFOLLOWING
D 7HETHERTHEOFFENCEISOFSUCHASERIOUSNATURETHATITINDICATESTHATTHECHILD
HASATENDENCYTOWARDSHARMFULACTIVITIES
E WHETHERTHEHARMCAUSEDBYTHEOFFENCEINDICATESTHATARESIDENTIALSENTENCEIS
APPROPRIATE
F THEEXTENTTOWHICHTHEHARMCAUSEDBYTHEOFFENCECANBEAPPORTIONEDTOTHE
CULPABILITYOFTHECHILDINCAUSINGORRISKINGTHEHARMAND
G WHETHERTHECHILDISINNEEDOFAPARTICULARSERVICEPROVIDEDATACHILDANDYOUTH
CARECENTRE
7HENCONSIDERINGTHEIMPOSITIONOFASENTENCEINVOLVINGIMPRISONMENTINTERMSOF
SECTION THECHILDJUSTICECOURTMUSTTAKETHEFOLLOWINGFACTORSINTOACCOUNT
D 4HESERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE WITHDUEREGARDTO
I THEAMOUNTOFHARMDONEORRISKEDTHROUGHTHEOFFENCEAND
II THECULPABILITYOFTHECHILDINCAUSINGORRISKINGTHEHARM
E THEPROTECTIONOFTHECOMMUNITY
F THESEVERITYOFTHEIMPACTOFTHEOFFENCEONTHEVICTIM
G THE PREVIOUS FAILURE OF THE CHILD TO RESPOND TO NON RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES IF
APPLICABLEAND
H THEDESIRABILITYOFKEEPINGTHECHILDOUTOFPRISON
3EE AND BELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr)MPACTOFOFFENCEONVICTIM
&ORPURPOSESOFTHISSECTION AVICTIMIMPACTSTATEMENTMEANSASWORNSTATEMENT
BYTHEVICTIMORSOMEONEAUTHORISEDBYTHEVICTIMTOMAKEASTATEMENTONBEHALF
OFTHEVICTIMWHICHREFLECTSTHEPHYSICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FINANCIALORANYOTHER
CONSEQUENCESOFTHEOFFENCEFORTHEVICTIM
4HEPROSECUTORMAY WHENADDUCINGEVIDENCEORADDRESSINGTHECOURTONSENTENCE
CONSIDERTHEINTERESTSOFAVICTIMOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHEIMPACTOFTHECRIMEONTHE
VICTIM AND WHEREPRACTICABLE FURNISHTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTWITHAVICTIMIMPACT
STATEMENTPROVIDEDFORINSUBSECTION
)FTHECONTENTSOFAVICTIMIMPACTSTATEMENTARENOTDISPUTED AVICTIMIMPACTSTATE
MENTISADMISSIBLEASEVIDENCEONITSPRODUCTION
3ECTIONr0RE SENTENCEREPORTS
D !
CHILD JUSTICE COURT IMPOSING A SENTENCE MUST SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH B
REQUESTAPRE SENTENCEREPORTPREPAREDBYAPROBATIONOFFICERPRIORTOTHEIM
POSITIONOFSENTENCE
E !CHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYDISPENSEWITHAPRE SENTENCEREPORTWHEREACHILDIS
CONVICTEDOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEORWHEREREQUIRINGTHEREPORT
WOULD CAUSE UNDUE DELAY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE TO THE PREJUDICE OF
THECHILD BUTNOCHILDJUSTICECOURTSENTENCINGACHILDMAYIMPOSEASENTENCE
INVOLVING COMPULSORY RESIDENCE IN A CHILD AND YOUTH CARE CENTRE PROVIDING A
PROGRAMMEREFERREDTOINSECTION M OFTHE#HILDRENmS!CTORIMPRISON
MENT UNLESSAPRE SENTENCEREPORTHASFIRSTBEENOBTAINED
4HEPROBATIONOFFICERMUSTCOMPLETETHEREPORTASSOONASPOSSIBLEBUTNOLATERTHAN
SIXWEEKSFOLLOWINGTHEDATEONWHICHTHEREPORTWASREQUESTED
7HERE A PROBATION OFFICER RECOMMENDS THAT A CHILD BE SENTENCED TO COMPULSORY
RESIDENCE IN A CHILD AND YOUTH CARE CENTRE PROVIDING A PROGRAMME REFERRED TO IN
SECTION M OFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT THERECOMMENDATIONMUSTBESUPPORTEDBY
CURRENTANDRELIABLEINFORMATION OBTAINEDBYTHEPROBATIONOFFICERFROMTHEPERSON
INCHARGEOFTHATCENTRE REGARDINGTHEAVAILABILITYOROTHERWISEOFACCOMMODATION
FORTHECHILDINQUESTION
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYIMPOSEASENTENCEOTHERTHANTHATRECOMMENDEDINTHE
PRE SENTENCEREPORTANDMUST INTHATEVENT ENTERTHEREASONSFORTHEIMPOSITIONOF
ADIFFERENTSENTENCEONTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
3ECTIONr#OMMUNITY BASEDSENTENCES
! COMMUNITY BASED SENTENCE IS A SENTENCE WHICH ALLOWS A CHILD TO REMAIN IN THE
COMMUNITYANDINCLUDESANYOFTHEOPTIONSREFERREDTOINSECTION ASSENTENCING
OPTIONS ORANYCOMBINATIONTHEREOFANDASENTENCEINVOLVINGCORRECTIONALSUPERVI
SIONREFERREDTOINSECTION
! CHILD JUSTICE COURT THAT HAS IMPOSED A COMMUNITY BASED SENTENCE IN TERMS OF
SUBSECTION MUSTr
D REQUESTTHEPROBATIONOFFICERCONCERNEDTOMONITORTHECHILDmSCOMPLIANCEWITH
THERELEVANTORDERANDTOPROVIDETHECOURTWITHPROGRESSREPORTS INTHEPRE
SCRIBEDMANNER INDICATINGCOMPLIANCEAND
E WARNTHECHILDTHATANYFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHESENTENCEWILLRESULTINHIMOR
HERBEINGBROUGHTBACKBEFORETHECHILDJUSTICECOURTFORANINQUIRYTOBEHELD
INTERMSOFSECTION
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
3ECTIONr2ESTORATIVEJUSTICESENTENCES
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTTHATCONVICTSACHILDOFANOFFENCEMAYREFERTHEMATTERr
D TOAFAMILYGROUPCONFERENCEINTERMSOFSECTION
E FORVICTIM OFFENDERMEDIATIONINTERMSOFSECTIONOR
F TOANYOTHERRESTORATIVEJUSTICEPROCESSWHICHISINACCORDANCEWITHTHEDEFINI
TIONOFRESTORATIVEJUSTICE
/NRECEIPTOFTHEWRITTENRECOMMENDATIONSFROMAFAMILYGROUPCONFERENCE VICTIM
OFFENDER MEDIATION OR OTHER RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROCESS THE CHILD JUSTICE COURT MAY
IMPOSEASENTENCEBYCONFIRMING AMENDINGORSUBSTITUTINGTHERECOMMENDATIONS
)FTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTDOESNOTAGREEWITHTHETERMSOFTHEPLANMADEATAFAMILY
GROUPCONFERENCE VICTIM OFFENDERMEDIATIONOROTHERRESTORATIVEJUSTICEPROCESS THE
COURTMAYIMPOSEANYOTHERSENTENCEPROVIDEDFORINTHIS#HAPTERANDENTERTHEREA
SONSFORSUBSTITUTINGTHEPLANWITHTHATSENTENCEONTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTTHATHASIMPOSEDASENTENCEINTERMSOFSUBSECTION MUSTr
D REQUEST THE PROBATION OFFICER CONCERNED TO MONITOR THE CHILDmS COMPLIANCE
WITHTHESENTENCEREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION ANDTOPROVIDETHECOURTWITH
PROGRESSREPORTS INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNER INDICATINGCOMPLIANCEAND
E WARNTHECHILDTHATANYFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHESENTENCEWILLRESULTINTHE
CHILDBEINGBROUGHTBACKBEFORETHECHILDJUSTICECOURTFORANINQUIRYTOBEHELD
INTERMSOFSECTION
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr&INEORALTERNATIVESTOFINE
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTCONVICTINGACHILDOFANOFFENCEFORWHICHAFINEISAPPROPRIATE
MUST BEFOREIMPOSINGAFINEr
D INQUIREINTOTHEABILITYOFTHECHILDORHISORHERPARENTS ANAPPROPRIATEADULTOR
AGUARDIANTOPAYTHEFINE WHETHERINFULLORININSTALMENTSAND
E CONSIDERWHETHERTHEFAILURETOPAYTHEFINEMAYCAUSETHECHILDTOBEIMPRIS
ONED
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYCONSIDERTHEIMPOSITIONOFANYOFTHEFOLLOWINGOPTIONSAS
ANALTERNATIVETOTHEPAYMENTOFAFINE
D 3YMBOLICRESTITUTIONTOASPECIFIEDPERSON PERSONS GROUPOFPERSONSORCOM
MUNITY CHARITYORWELFAREORGANISATIONORINSTITUTION
E PAYMENTOFCOMPENSATIONTOASPECIFIEDPERSON PERSONS GROUPOFPERSONSOR
COMMUNITY CHARITYORWELFAREORGANISATIONORINSTITUTIONWHERETHECHILDORHIS
ORHERFAMILYISABLETOAFFORDTHIS
F ANOBLIGATIONONTHECHILDTOPROVIDESOMESERVICEORBENEFITTOASPECIFIEDPER
SON PERSONS GROUPOFPERSONSORCOMMUNITY CHARITYORWELFAREORGANISATION
ORINSTITUTION0ROVIDEDTHATANOBLIGATIONTOPROVIDESOMESERVICEORBENEFIT
MAYONLYBEIMPOSEDONACHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDEROR
G ANYOTHEROPTIONTHATTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTCONSIDERSTOBEAPPROPRIATEINTHE
CIRCUMSTANCES
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTTHATHASIMPOSEDASENTENCEINTERMSOFTHISSECTIONMUSTr
D REQUESTTHEPROBATIONOFFICERCONCERNEDTOMONITORTHECOMPLIANCEWITHTHE
SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH PROGRESS REPORTS IN THE PRESCRIBED
MANNER INDICATINGCOMPLIANCEAND
E WARNTHECHILDTHATANYFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHESENTENCEWILLRESULTINTHE
CHILDBEINGBROUGHTBACKBEFORETHECHILDJUSTICECOURTFORANINQUIRYTOBEHELD
INTERMSOFSECTION
3EE BELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr3ENTENCESOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTTHATCONVICTSACHILDOFANOFFENCEMAYIMPOSEASENTENCEOFCORREC
TIONALSUPERVISIONENVISAGEDINSECTION K OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr3ENTENCEOFCOMPULSORYRESIDENCEINCHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE
! CHILD JUSTICE COURT THAT CONVICTS A CHILD OF AN OFFENCE MAY SENTENCE HIM OR HER
TOCOMPULSORYRESIDENCEINACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTREPROVIDINGAPROGRAMME
REFERREDTOINSECTION M OFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT
!SENTENCEREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION MAY SUBJECTTOSUBSECTION BEIMPOSED
FORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGFIVEYEARSORFORAPERIODWHICHMAYNOTEXCEEDTHEDATE
ONWHICHTHECHILDINQUESTIONTURNSYEARSOFAGE WHICHEVERDATEISTHEEARLIEST
D !
CHILDJUSTICECOURTTHATCONVICTSACHILDOFANOFFENCEr
I REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEAND
II WHICH IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED A TERM OF IMPRIS
ONMENTEXCEEDINGTENYEARS MAY IFSUBSTANTIALANDCOMPELLINGREASONS
EXIST IN ADDITION TO A SENTENCE IN TERMS OF SUBSECTION SENTENCE THE
CHILDTOAPERIODOFIMPRISONMENTWHICHISTOBESERVEDAFTERCOMPLETION
OFTHEPERIODDETERMINEDINACCORDANCEWITHSUBSECTION
E 4HEHEADOFTHECHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRETOWHICHACHILDHASBEENSENTENCED
INTERMSOFSUBSECTION MUST ONTHECHILDmSCOMPLETIONOFTHATSENTENCE SUB
MITAPRESCRIBEDREPORTTOTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTWHICHIMPOSEDTHESENTENCE
CONTAININGHISORHERVIEWSONTHEEXTENTTOWHICHTHERELEVANTOBJECTIVESOF
SENTENCINGREFERREDTOINSECTIONHAVEBEENACHIEVEDANDTHEPOSSIBILITYOF
THE CHILDmS REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY WITHOUT SERVING THE ADDITIONAL TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT
F 4HECHILDJUSTICECOURT AFTERCONSIDERATIONOFTHEREPORTANDANYOTHERRELEVANT
FACTORS MAY IFSATISFIEDTHATITWOULDBEINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETODOSOr
I CONFIRM THE SENTENCE AND PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT ORIGINALLY IMPOSED
UPONWHICHTHECHILDMUSTIMMEDIATELYBETRANSFERREDFROMTHECHILDAND
YOUTHCARECENTRETOTHESPECIFIEDPRISON
II SUBSTITUTETHATSENTENCEWITHANYOTHERSENTENCETHATTHECOURTCONSIDERS
TOBEAPPROPRIATEINTHECIRCUMSTANCESOR
III ORDERTHERELEASEOFTHECHILD WITHORWITHOUTCONDITIONS
G )FASENTENCEHASBEENCONFIRMEDINACCORDANCEWITHPARAGRAPH F I THEPE
RIODSERVEDBYTHECHILDINACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTREMUSTBETAKENINTO
ACCOUNTWHENCONSIDERATIONISGIVENASTOWHETHERORNOTTHECHILDSHOULDBE
RELEASEDONPAROLEINACCORDANCEWITH#HAPTER6))OFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES
!CT !CTOF
D !
CHILD WHO IS SENTENCED IN TERMS OF THIS SECTION MUST BE TAKEN IN THE PRE
SCRIBEDMANNERTOTHECENTRESPECIFIEDINTHEORDERASSOONASPOSSIBLE BUTNOT
LATERTHANONEMONTHAFTERTHEORDERWASMADE
E 7HEN MAKING AN ORDER REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION THE CHILD JUSTICE COURT
MUSTr
I SPECIFYTHECENTRETOWHICHTHECHILDMUSTBEADMITTED WITHDUEREGARD
TOTHEINFORMATIONOBTAINEDBYTHEPROBATIONOFFICERREFERREDTOINSECTION

II CAUSETHEORDERTOBEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFRELEVANTFUNCTIONARIESIN
THEPRESCRIBEDMANNER

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
III GIVEDIRECTIONSWHERETHECHILDISTOBEPLACEDFORANYPERIODBEFOREBEING
ADMITTEDTOTHECENTRESPECIFIEDINTHEORDER PREFERABLYINANOTHERCHILD
ANDYOUTHCARECENTREREFERREDTOINSECTION K OFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT
BUTNOTINAPOLICECELLORLOCK UPAND
IV DIRECT A PROBATION OFFICER TO MONITOR THE MOVEMENT OF THE CHILD TO THE
CENTRESPECIFIEDINTHEORDER INCOMPLIANCEWITHTHEORDER ANDTOREPORT
TOTHECOURTINWRITINGONCETHECHILDHASBEENADMITTEDTOTHECENTRE
F 7HERETHEINFORMATIONREFERREDTOINSECTION IS FORANYREASON NOTAVAIL
ABLE THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMAYREQUESTANYOFFICIALOFTHERANKOF$IRECTOROR
ABOVE AT THE $EPARTMENT OF 3OCIAL $EVELOPMENT DEALING WITH THE DESIGNA
TION OF CHILDREN TO CHILD AND YOUTH CARE CENTRES TO FURNISH THAT INFORMATION
INRESPECTOFTHEAVAILABILITYOROTHERWISEOFACCOMMODATIONFORTHECHILDIN
QUESTION
G 7HEREAPRESIDINGOFFICERHASSENTENCEDACHILDINTERMSOFTHISSECTION HEOR
SHEMUSTCAUSETHEMATTERTOBERETAINEDONTHECOURTROLLFORONEMONTH AND
MUST ATTHERE APPEARANCEOFTHEMATTER INQUIREWHETHERTHECHILDHASBEEN
ADMITTEDTOTHECHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE
H )FTHECHILDHASNOTBEENADMITTEDTOACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE THEPRESID
INGOFFICERMUSTHOLDANINQUIRYANDTAKEAPPROPRIATEACTION WHICHMAY AFTER
CONSIDERATIONOFTHEEVIDENCERECORDED INCLUDETHEIMPOSITIONOFANALTERNA
TIVESENTENCE UNLESSTHECHILDHASBEENSENTENCEDINTERMSOFSUBSECTION
I )F THE PRESIDING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE FAILURE TO ADMIT THE CHILD IS DUE TO THE
FAULTOFANYOFFICIAL HEORSHEMUSTCAUSEACOPYOFTHEFINDINGTOTHISEFFECTTO
BEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEAPPROPRIATEAUTHORITYTOTAKETHENECESSARY
ACTION
3EEAND BELOW
3ECTIONr3ENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENT
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTr
D MAYNOTIMPOSEASENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTONACHILDWHOISUNDERTHEAGE
OFYEARSATTHETIMEOFBEINGSENTENCEDFORTHEOFFENCEAND
E WHEN SENTENCING A CHILD WHO IS YEARS OR OLDER AT THE TIME OF BEING SEN
TENCEDFORTHEOFFENCE MUSTONLYDOSOASAMEASUREOFLASTRESORTANDFORTHE
SHORTESTAPPROPRIATEPERIODOFTIME

!CHILDWHOISYEARSOROLDERATTHETIMEOFBEINGSENTENCEDFORTHEOFFENCEMAY
ONLYBESENTENCEDTOIMPRISONMENT IFTHECHILDISCONVICTEDOFANOFFENCEREFERRED
TOINr
D 3CHEDULE
E 3CHEDULE IFSUBSTANTIALANDCOMPELLINGREASONSEXISTFORIMPOSINGASENTENCE
OFIMPRISONMENT
F 3CHEDULE IFTHECHILDHASARECORDOFRELEVANTPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSANDSUB
STANTIALANDCOMPELLINGREASONSEXISTFORIMPOSINGASENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENT
! CHILD REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION MAY BE SENTENCED TO A SENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENTr
D FORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGYEARSOR
E ENVISAGEDINSECTION L OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTIMPOSINGASENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTMUSTTAKEINTOACCOUNT
THENUMBEROFDAYSTHATTHECHILDHASSPENTINPRISONORACHILDANDYOUTHCARECEN
TREPRIORTOTHESENTENCEBEINGIMPOSED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)NCOMPLIANCEWITHTHE2EPUBLICmSINTERNATIONALOBLIGATIONS NOLAW ORSENTENCEOF

IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED ON A CHILD INCLUDING A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE
MAY DIRECTLYORINDIRECTLY DENY RESTRICTORLIMITTHEPOSSIBILITYOFEARLIERRELEASEOFA
CHILDSENTENCEDTOANYTERMOFIMPRISONMENT
3EE BELOW3ECTIONr0OSTPONEMENTORSUSPENSIONOFPASSINGOFSENTENCE
4HEPROVISIONSOFSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTAPPLYINRELATIONTOTHE
POSTPONEMENTORSUSPENSIONOFPASSINGOFSENTENCEBYACHILDJUSTICECOURTINTERMS
OFTHIS!CT
)NADDITIONTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT THEFOL
LOWINGMAYBECONSIDEREDASCONDITIONS
A &ULFILMENTOFORCOMPLIANCEWITHANYOPTIONREFERREDTOINSECTION A
TOM Q AND OFTHIS!CTAND
E AREQUIREMENTTHATTHECHILDORANYOTHERPERSONDESIGNATEDBYTHECHILDJUSTICE
COURTMUSTAGAINAPPEARBEFORETHATCHILDJUSTICECOURTONADATEORDATESTOBE
DETERMINEDBYTHECHILDJUSTICECOURTFORAPERIODICPROGRESSREPORT
!CHILDJUSTICECOURTTHATHASPOSTPONEDTHEPASSINGOFSENTENCEINTERMSOFSUBSEC
TION ONONEORMORECONDITIONSMUSTREQUESTTHEPROBATIONOFFICERCONCERNED
TOMONITORTHECHILDmSCOMPLIANCEWITHTHECONDITIONSIMPOSEDANDTOPROVIDETHE
COURTWITHPROGRESSREPORTSINDICATINGCOMPLIANCE
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr&AILURETOCOMPLYWITHCERTAINSENTENCES
)FAPROBATIONOFFICERREPORTSTOACHILDJUSTICECOURTTHATACHILDHASFAILEDTOCOMPLY
WITHACOMMUNITY BASEDSENTENCEIMPOSEDINTERMSOFSECTION ORARESTORATIVE
JUSTICESENTENCEIMPOSEDINTERMSOFSECTION ORHASFAILEDTOPAYAFINE RESTITU
TIONORCOMPENSATIONPROVIDEDFORINSECTION THECHILDMAY INTHEPRESCRIBED
MANNER BEBROUGHTBEFORETHECHILDJUSTICECOURTWHICHIMPOSEDTHEORIGINALSEN
TENCEFORTHEHOLDINGOFANINQUIRYINTOTHEFAILUREOFTHECHILDTOCOMPLY
)F UPONTHECONCLUSIONOFTHEINQUIRY ITISFOUNDTHATTHECHILDHASFAILEDTOCOMPLY
WITHTHESENTENCEPROVIDEDFORINSUBSECTION THECHILDJUSTICECOURTMAYCON
FIRM AMENDORSUBSTITUTETHESENTENCE
3EE INGENERAL BELOW
).42/$5#4)/.
$ETERMININGASUITABLESENTENCEISONEOFTHEMOSTDIFFICULTTASKSAJUDICIALOFFICER
HASTOFACE7HATMAKESITPARTICULARLYDIFFICULTISTHEFACTTHATITINVOLVESSOMANY
OFTENCONTRADICTORY FACTORS4HEJUDICIALOFFICERIMPOSINGSENTENCEHASTOMAKE
AVALUEJUDGMENTANDDETERMINEHOWMUCHWEIGHTEVERYFACTANDFACTORSHOULD
BEAFFORDED ANDTHESECONSIDERATIONSMUSTTHENBECONVERTEDINTOASENTENCEOF
SOMEKINDANDSOMEEXTENT)NTHISPROCESSTHEPERSONALITYOFTHESENTENCINGOF
FICIALPLAYSANIMPORTANTROLE
)N THIS CHAPTER WE INVESTIGATE ONLY CERTAIN PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF SENTENCING
ANDMOSTLYLEAVETHESUBSTANTIVEASPECTSASIDE7EPLACESPECIFICEMPHASISONTHE
STATUTORYFRAMEWORKSSUPPLIEDBYTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFANDTHE
#HILD*USTICE!CTOF

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
#/.#%043
)TISIMPORTANTTOMAKEAFEWREMARKSABOUTSOMEOFTHETERMSTHATAREUSEDIN
THISCHAPTER
3ENTENCE
4HESENTENCEISANYMEASUREAPPLIEDBYACOURTTOTHEPERSONCONVICTEDOFACRIME
AND WHICH FINALISES THE CASE )N SOME INSTANCES SPECIFIC PROVISION IS MADE FOR
RECONSIDERATIONOFASENTENCE BUTTHISISTHEEXCEPTION#ONDITIONSOFSUSPENDED
SENTENCESARENOT@SENTENCES!CAUTION HOWEVER DOESAMOUNTTOASENTENCE
0
UNISHMENT
0UNISHMENT IS USED HERE IN THE USUAL SENSE OF THE WORD NAMELY AS SOMETHING
WHICHISUNPLEASANTTOEXPERIENCE EXCEPTTHATITISLIMITEDTOMEASURESIMPOSED
BYACOURTAFTERCONVICTION3OMESENTENCESDONOTCONSTITUTEPUNISHMENT SUCHAS
MOSTFULLYSUSPENDEDSENTENCESANDACAUTION3OMEFORMSOFPUNISHMENTARENOT
SENTENCES FOREXAMPLEWHERECOMMUNITYSERVICEISIMPOSEDASCONDITIONFORTHE
SUSPENSIONOFSENTENCE-OSTFORMSOFPUNISHMENTARE NEVERTHELESS SENTENCES
3ENTENCING
3ENTENCINGISTHEIMPOSITIONOFASENTENCEBYTHECOURT ONAPARTICULAROFFENDER
/FFENDERCRIMINALACCUSED
4HESETERMSAREUSEDTODESCRIBETHEPERSONWHOISACCUSEDORCONVICTEDOFHAVING
COMMITTEDTHECRIME!LTHOUGHTHESEWORDSCAN THEORETICALLY BEDISTINGUISHED
NOSUCHADISTINCTIONISDRAWNFORTHEPURPOSESOFTHISCHAPTERANDTHETERMSARE
USEDINTERCHANGEABLY
/
FFENCECRIME
4HESE TERMS ARE USED TO DESCRIBE THE ACTION WHICH CAUSED THE OFFENDER TO BE
TRIED AND SENTENCED IN COURT &OR PRESENT PURPOSES THE CONCEPTS ARE USED AS
SYNONYMOUS
4(%3%.4%.#%$)3#2%4)/.
!COURTHASWIDE RANGINGPOWERSTOIMPOSESENTENCES)NDECIDINGHOWTOEXER
CISETHISPOWERINASPECIFICCASE THECOURTEXERCISESADISCRETION WHICHINVOLVES
MAKINGACHOICEFROMVARIOUSPOSSIBILITIES)NTHECASEOFSENTENCINGTHESE@POS
SIBILITIESCONSISTOFTHEVARIOUSTYPESOFSENTENCES ANDNORMALLYALSOTHEEXTENT
ORQUANTITY OFTHETYPEOFSENTENCEDECIDEDUPON
4HIS DISCRETION MAY NOT BE EXERCISED ARBITRARILY A COURT IS EXPECTED TO ACT
WITHINTHELIMITSPRESCRIBEDBYTHELEGISLATUREANDINACCORDANCEWITHTHEGUIDE
LINESLAIDDOWNINJUDGMENTSOFTHEHIGHERCOURTS4HEBASICREQUIREMENTSETBY
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISTHATTHEDISCRETIONMUSTBEEXERCISEDREASONABLY
ANDJUDICIALLYCF0IETERS 3!!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE MAIN ADVANTAGE OF A WIDE DISCRETION IS THAT THE COURTS CAN ADAPT THEIR
SENTENCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CASES 4HE DISADVAN
TAGE IS THAT SHOULD THE SAME CASE BE HEARD BY TWO DIFFERENT JUDICIAL OFFICERS
THEYMIGHTIMPOSEVERYDIFFERENTSENTENCES4HISPROBLEMCREATESACONFLICTWITH
SOFTHE#ONSTITUTION WHICHSTRESSESTHEEQUALITYOFALLPEOPLEBEFORETHELAW
)NCONSISTENCYWASDESCRIBEDIN-ARX 3!! ASSOMETHINGWHICHIS
GENERALLYVIEWEDASUNJUST4HEREFORE INCONSISTENTSENTENCESARENOTCONSONANT
WITHJUSTICEANDFAIRNESS4HE3OUTH!FRICAN,AW#OMMISSIONIDENTIFIEDALACK
OF CONSISTENCY IN SENTENCING AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS OF OUR SENTENCING
SYSTEMANDPROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTOFSENTENCINGGUIDELINESTOREDUCEDISPARITY
2EPORT3ENTENCING!NEWSENTENCINGFRAMEWORK 0ROJECT
&ORALONGTIMETHEDOMINANTVIEWWASTHATEACHCASEISUNIQUEANDTHATAN
APPROPRIATESENTENCESHOULDBEBASEDONTHEFACTSANDCONSIDERATIONSOFTHATCASE
ALONEACCORDINGLY ITWASCONSIDEREDAN@IDLEEXERCISETOCOMPARETHESENTENCES
IMPOSEDINDIFFERENTCASES&RASER 3!! -ORERECENTLY COMPARISONS
WITHTHESENTENCESIMPOSEDFORSIMILAROFFENCESINTHEPASTHAVEBECOMECOM
MONCF8ABA 3!#23#! 0REVIOUSSENTENCESCANBEAUSEFULGUIDE
OFWHATANAPPROPRIATESENTENCECANBEFOLLOWINGSUCHGUIDESCANBEUSEFULTO
LIMITUNNECESSARYDISPARITYINSENTENCES$ESPITETHECOMMONPRACTICE THEIDEA
THATEACHCASEISDIFFERENTISSTILLRAISEDFROMTIMETOTIMECF0" 3!#2
3#! 3UCH UNIQUENESS IS PROBABLY OVERSTATED AS IN THE @VAST MAJORITY OF
CASESTHEUNIQUEFACTSANDFEATURESLIEINTHEMINUTIAETHATHAVELITTLEORNOEFFECT
ONTHEEVENTUALSENTENCE4ERBLANCHE!'UIDETO3ENTENCINGIN3OUTH!FRICA
n
'%.%2!,02).#)0,%37)4(2%'!2$4/3%.4%.#).'
4HEGENERALPRINCIPLESOFSENTENCINGWERESUMMARISEDIN2ABIE 3!
! 'ASFOLLOWS
0UNISHMENTSHOULDFITTHECRIMINALASWELLASTHECRIME BEFAIRTOSOCIETY ANDBEBLEND
EDWITHAMEASUREOFMERCYACCORDINGTOTHECIRCUMSTANCES
4HESE THREE ELEMENTS THE CRIME THE OFFENDER AND THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY ARE
KNOWNASTHE@TRIADOF:INN AFTERTHEJUDGMENTIN:INN 3!!
&URTHERMORE ALL SENTENCES SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SO CALLED MAIN
PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT NAMELY RETRIBUTION DETERRENCE PREVENTION AND REHA
BILITATION/FTHESEPURPOSESDETERRENCEHASFORALONGTIMEBEENCONSIDEREDTHE
MOSTIMPORTANTSEEEG" 3!! BUTIN.KAMBULE 3!#2
! #ITWASPOINTEDOUTTHATTHISWASANOVERSIMPLIFICATION ASTHEPOSI
TIONISNOTSTATIC
4HEPROCESSWHICHSHOULDENSURETHATEVERYSENTENCEFITSTHECRIMINALASWELL
ASTHECRIMEANDISFAIRTOSOCIETYISKNOWNASPERSONALISATIONORINDIVIDUALISA
TION OFPUNISHMENT4HISPROCESSISCONSIDEREDTOBETHEMAINREASONFORLEAVING
SENTENCERSWITHSUCHAWIDEDISCRETION

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
0%.!,49#,!53%3
'ENERAL
-OST STATUTORY OFFENCES ARE ENACTED WITH AN ATTENDANT PENALTY CLAUSE
)MPRISONMENT MAY NORMALLY BE IMPOSED FOR THESE CRIMES ONLY IF IT IS SPECIFI
CALLYPROVIDEDFOR ASITALMOSTINVARIABLYIS4HESAMEGOESFORAFINE)FAPENALTY
CLAUSEPROVIDESFORAFINEORIMPRISONMENTEG2ORYEARSIMPRISONMENT
THECOURTHASADISCRETIONTOIMPOSEEITHERAFINEORIMPRISONMENT BUTNOTBOTH
)TMAYNOT FORINSTANCE IMPOSEIMPRISONMENTDIRECTLYANDASANALTERNATIVETO
AFINE&ORTHATPOSSIBILITYTOEXIST THEPENALTYCLAUSESHOULDPRESCRIBEAFINEOR
IMPRISONMENT ORBOTHCF!RENDS 3!% )n"
4HE!DJUSTMENTOF&INES!CTOF
!LLPENALTYCLAUSESPROVIDINGFORAFINEMUST HOWEVER BEREADTOGETHERWITHTHE
PROVISIONS OF THE !DJUSTMENT OF &INES !CT OF 4HIS !CT REPLACES WITH
SOME EXCEPTIONS ALL EXISTING PENALTY CLAUSES )T NOW REQUIRES A CALCULATION TO
BE MADE OF THE MAXIMUM FINE THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BASED ON THE MAXIMUM
TERMOFIMPRISONMENTPRESCRIBEDFORAPARTICULAROFFENCE4HERATIOBETWEENFINE
ANDIMPRISONMENTISDETERMINEDBYTHESTANDARDJURISDICTIONOFTHEMAGISTRATES
COURT WHICHATPRESENTIS2ORTHREEYEARSIMPRISONMENTIE2FOR
EACHMONTHSIMPRISONMENT 4HISRATIOAPPLIESINPARTICULARTOPENALTYCLAUS
ESWHICHPROVIDEFORTHEIMPOSITIONOFAFINEWITHOUTREFERENCETOAMAXIMUM
AMOUNTSEE4ERBLANCHE!'UIDETO3ENTENCINGIN3OUTH!FRICA n"UT
EVENAPENALTYCLAUSEALLOWINGAPENALTYOF@NOTMORETHAN2ORSIXMONTHS
IMPRISONMENTMUSTBEREADWITHTHE!DJUSTMENTOF&INES!CTASPROVIDINGFOR
@NOTMORETHAN2ORSIXMONTHSIMPRISONMENT
-INIMUMSENTENCES
3TATUTES THAT PRESCRIBE MINIMUM SENTENCES HAD BEEN FEW AND FAR BETWEEN IN
3OUTH!FRICANLAWFORSOMEDECADES BUTTHEPOSITIONWASCHANGEDWITHTHEPASS
ING OF S OF THE #RIMINAL ,AW !MENDMENT !CT OF 4HE MINIMUM
SENTENCES WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO APPLY FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
ONLY WHICHCOULDBEEXTENDEDFROMTIMETOTIME(OWEVER FOLLOWINGSUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENTSBYTHE#RIMINAL,AW3ENTENCING !MENDMENTOF THEYARE
NOWINFORCEUNTILEXPRESSLYSCRAPPED
"ROADLYSPEAKING SPROVIDESFORTHEIMPOSITIONOFMINIMUMSENTENCESFOR
A WIDE RANGE OF THE MORE SERIOUS CRIMES &OR EXAMPLE IT PRESCRIBES LIFE IMPRIS
ONMENT FOR PREMEDITATED MURDER AND RAPE WHERE CERTAIN SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING
FACTORS ARE INVOLVED 3PECIFIC MINIMUM TERMS RANGING FROM FIVE YEARS TO
YEARSIMPRISONMENT AREPRESCRIBEDFORAWIDERANGEOFOTHERCRIMES ESPECIALLY
WHENCOMMITTEDBYGANGSORCRIMESYNDICATES ORBYLAWENFORCEMENTOFFICERS
/NLY(IGH#OURTSANDREGIONALCOURTSMAYIMPOSETHESESENTENCES
)FTHESENTENCINGCOURTISSATISFIEDTHATTHEREARE@SUBSTANTIALANDCOMPELLINGCIR
CUMSTANCESJUSTIFYINGALESSERSENTENCETHANTHATPRESCRIBEDINAPARTICULARCASE
ITMUSTIMPOSESUCHLESSERSENTENCES A )N-ALGAS 3!#23#!
THECOURTDECIDEDTHATTHISPROVISIONSHOULDBEINTERPRETEDTOHAVETHEFOLLOWING

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
EFFECT4HESENTENCINGCOURTSHOULDCONSIDERTHESENTENCESPRESCRIBEDIN!CT
OFASTHEPOINTOFDEPARTURE WHICHSHOULDNORMALLYBEIMPOSED ANDNOTBE
DEPARTEDFROMLIGHTLY(OWEVER IFTHECUMULATIVEEFFECTOFALLTHEMITIGATINGFAC
TORSTHATACOURTWOULDTRADITIONALLYTAKEINTOACCOUNTWHENIMPOSINGSENTENCE
WOULDJUSTIFYTHECOURTINDEPARTINGFROMTHEPRESCRIBEDSENTENCEINAPARTICULAR
CASE THECOURTSHOULDCONSIDERDOINGSO7HENTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHEPRESCRIBED
SENTENCEWOULDAMOUNTTOANINJUSTICEINTHATPARTICULARCASE THECOURTSHOULD
ACTTOPREVENTSUCHINJUSTICE ANDIMPOSEALESSER APPROPRIATESENTENCE)TWASNOT
THEINTENTIONOFTHELEGISLATURETOELIMINATETHECOURTSDISCRETIONINSENTENCING
OFFENDERSFORTHEOFFENCESEARMARKEDIN!CTOF4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
ENDORSEDTHESEVIEWSIN$ODO 3!#2##
4HEPRESCRIBEDMINIMUMSENTENCESARENOTAPPLICABLETOANOFFENDERWHOWAS
UNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSWHENTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED)N#ENTREFOR#HILD
,AWV-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2##
THE COURT DECLARED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE PREVIOUS PROVISION IN S WHICH
SET THIS AGE LIMIT AT 4HE COURTS MAIN REASON WAS THAT ALL PERSONS UNDER
ARE CHILDREN THAT THE MINIMUM SENTENCES SHOULD BE USED AS A STARTING POINT
ANDTHATASTARTING POINTOFLIFEIMPRISONMENTCANNOTBEINACCORDANCEWITHTHE
CONSTITUTIONALREQUIREMENTINSTHATCHILDRENBEINCARCERATEDIFSUCHINCAR
CERATIONISUNAVOIDABLE FORTHEBRIEFESTPOSSIBLEPERIOD
4HE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS HAS BEEN QUESTIONED 4HE
MATTERWASDEALTWITHIN$ODO 3!#2## 4HECOURTFOUNDTHATIT
WOULDHAVEBEENUNCONSTITUTIONALHADTHELEGISLATUREATTEMPTEDTOCOMPELANY
COURT TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE "ILL OF 2IGHTS 3ECTION
E OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONREQUIRESTHATTHEEXTENTOFANYPUNISHMENTSHOULDBE
PROPORTIONATETOTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE4HERIGHTSCONTAINEDINTHATSEC
TIONAREBREACHEDWHENTHEPUNISHMENTISGROSSLYDISPROPORTIONATETOTHEOFFENCE
3INCETHESENTENCINGCOURTSAREALLOWEDTODEVIATEFROMTHEPRESCRIBEDSENTENCES
IN THE PRESENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH DISPROPOR
TIONALITYCANBEPREVENTED)NGENERAL THEREFORE SISCONSTITUTIONAL(OWEVER
SOMEAUTHORITIESARGUETHATTHISPOSITIONHASCHANGEDNOWTHATTHELEGISLATIONHAS
BECOMEPERMANENT ANDSINCETHEUNEQUALAPPLICATIONOFTHESEPOWERSAPPEARS
TOBEUNAVOIDABLECF6AN:YL3MITIN7OOLMANETAL#ONSTITUTIONAL,AWOF3OUTH
!FRICAED n
!SNOTEDABOVEIN#HAPTER;P= PROSECUTORSSHOULDINCLUDEANAPPROPRIATE
REFERENCETOSINTHECHARGESHEET TOALERTTHEACCUSEDOFTHEHEAVIERSENTENCES
THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE MINIMUM SENTENCES 0ROSECUTORS
FREQUENTLYFAILTOCOMPLYWITHTHISRESPONSIBILITY RESULTINGINMANYJUDGMENTSIN
WHICHTHECOURTSHAVEATTEMPTEDTOBRINGCLARITYWHETHERORNOTTHEPRESCRIBED
SENTENCESSTILLAPPLY3EVERALCASESMADETHEIRWAYTOENDEDINTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURT)N.DLOVU 3!#2## THECOURTSTRESSEDTHAT IFACASEISTRIED
IN A REGIONAL COURT AND THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE CONVICTION SPECIFICALLY REFERS
TOS WHICHPROVIDESFORAMAXIMUMSENTENCEOFYEARSIMPRISONMENT
THE REGIONAL COURT SIMPLY CANNOT ACQUIRE THE INCREASED JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE
LIFEIMPRISONMENT4HISPOSITIONAPPLIESREGARDLESSOFTHEFACTTHATEVENTHOUGH
THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWED THAT THE OFFENDER HAD ACTUALLY COMMITTED A RAPE
THATCOMPLIEDWITHTHEAGGRAVATINGFEATURESFORWHICHLIFEIMPRISONMENTISPRE

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
SCRIBED7HENTHEREISNOREFERENCETOTHISLEGISLATIONINTHECHARGESHEET THEN
THE FACTS OF EACH CASE SHOULD BE EXAMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OMISSION
COULDBESAIDTORESULTINANUNFAIRTRIAL-4 3!#2##
4HEMINIMUMSENTENCESCOMPLETELYDOMINATECOURTJUDGMENTSREPORTEDABOUT
SENTENCING ANDMANYDISCUSSIONSOUTSIDETHESECOURTS!NDYET THEVASTMAJORITY
OFSENTENCESIN3OUTH!FRICAARESTILLIMPOSEDINTHEDISTRICTMAGISTRATESCOURTS
WHERETHEMINIMUMSENTENCESDONOTAPPLY4HESESENTENCESAREIMPOSEDWITHOUT
ANY REFERENCE TO THE MINIMUM SENTENCES LEGISLATION OR THE TERMS OF IMPRISON
MENTTHATITPRESCRIBES5NFORTUNATELY THEDOMINANCEOFTHEMINIMUMSENTENCES
HASALSORESULTEDINASCARCITYOFJUDGMENTSONOTHERSENTENCESANDTHEPROCESS
OFDETERMININGANAPPROPRIATESENTENCE WHICHMEANSTHEREHASBEENALMOSTNO
DEVELOPMENT IN THIS REGARD AND NO MODERNISATION OF SENTENCING OVER THE PAST
TWENTYYEARS
4(%02% 3%.4%.#%).6%34)'!4)/.
'ENERAL
!S HAS BEEN MENTIONED THE DISCRETION TO IMPOSE A SUITABLE SENTENCE LIES WITH
THESENTENCINGOFFICER(OWEVER THESENTENCINGOFFICERCANNOTDOSOWITHOUTSUF
FICIENT FACTUAL INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE THIS DECISION 4RADITION SEEMS TO
REQUIRETHE3TATEANDTHEACCUSEDTOSUPPLYTHISINFORMATION(OWEVER S
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPLACESTHECOURTINTHECENTREOFTHISPROCESSAND
EMPOWERS THE COURT BEFORE PASSING SENTENCE TO ALLOW EVIDENCE THAT WILL ASSIST
THECOURTINDETERMININGAPROPERSENTENCE4HETERM@EVIDENCEUSEDHEREISUSU
ALLYNOTINTERPRETEDINTHESTRICTSENSEOFTHEWORDNEITHERISTHELAWOFEVIDENCE
STRICTLYOBSERVEDCF:ONELE 3!! &
0REVIOUSCONVICTIONS
7HATNORMALLYHAPPENSINPRACTICEISTHAT AFTERCONVICTION THE3TATEWILLINDI
CATEWHETHERTHEACCUSEDHASANYPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTDEALSWITHTHISPROCEDUREINSSTO)FTHEREAREPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS
THEY ARE USUALLY PROVED SIMPLY BY HANDING IN THE ACCUSEDS FINGERPRINT RECORD
THESO CALLED3!0 WHICH ACCORDINGTOS ISPRIMAFACIEPROOFOFPREVIOUS
CONVICTIONS4HECOURTMUSTENQUIREFROMTHEACCUSEDWHETHERHEORSHEADMITS
THEPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS)NCASEOFDENIALWHICHRARELYHAPPENS THEPROSECU
TORMAYTENDEREVIDENCETOPROVETHEPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS4HECOURTWILLTHEN
DECIDETHEMATTERONTHEEVIDENCECF-CHUNU 3!.
3ECTION ! PROVIDES THAT CERTAIN PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS @FALL AWAY AFTER A
PERIODOFYEARSIFTHEOFFENDERHASNOTCOMMITTEDAFAIRLYSERIOUSCRIMEWITHIN
THATPERIOD4HECONVICTIONSTHATFALLAWAYARETHOSEFOR
ANY OFFENCE FOR WHICH THE PASSING OF SENTENCE WAS POSTPONED IN TERMS OF
S A OR FOR WHICH THE ACCUSED WAS MERELY CAUTIONED AND DISCHARGED
AND
LESSSERIOUSCRIMESFORWHICHMORETHANSIXMONTHSIMPRISONMENTWITHOUT
THEOPTIONOFAFINEMAYNOTBEIMPOSED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!CCORDINGTO:ONDI 3!#2! SUCHAPREVIOUSCONVICTIONLOSESITSVALID

ITYANDCANNOTBECONSIDEREDFORPURPOSESOFSENTENCINGATALL%VENWHENS!
ISNOTAPPLICABLE HOWEVER THEIMPORTANCEOFALLPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSDIMINISHES
WITHTIME
&URTHERPROVISIONSAFFECTINGTHEACCUSEDSRECORDOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSHAVE
BEENINTRODUCEDBYTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!MENDMENT!CTOF3ECTIONS
"TO%CONTAINEXTENSIVEPROVISIONSONTHEEXPUNGEMENTDELETIONORSCRAP
PING OFRECORDSOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS4HESEPROVISIONSARESODETAILEDTHATNO
SUMMARYCOULDBECOMPLETELYACCURATE(OWEVER INESSENCETHEYPROVIDEFORA
PERSON WITH PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS TO APPLY IN WRITING FOR THE EXPUNGEMENT OF
SOMEPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSFROMTHECRIMINALRECORD3OMEREQUIREMENTSAPPLY
A !PERIODOFYEARSMUSTHAVEELAPSEDAFTERTHEDATEOFCONVICTIONFORTHE
PARTICULAROFFENCE
B 4HEAPPLICATIONHASTOBEINWRITING INACCORDANCEWITHTHEFURTHERREQUIRE
MENTSSETINSS"TO$
C "ASED ON THE SEVERITY OF THE IMPOSED SENTENCE THE CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEENVERYSERIOUSSEEBELOWFORMOREDETAILINTHISCONNECTION
4HISCONCESSIONISAVAILABLEREGARDLESSOFTHECRIMECOMMITTEDWITHONEEXCEP
TIONTHATISMENTIONEDBELOW (OWEVER IFTHEOFFENCEISREALLYSERIOUSTHEIMPOSED
SENTENCESHOULDEXCLUDETHECASEFROMCOMPLYINGWITHTHEREQUIREMENTS4HISIS
THEPOSITIONASEXPUNGEMENTISONLYPOSSIBLEFORSENTENCESTHATWOULDNORMALLY
BECONSIDEREDALTERNATIVESTOIMPRISONMENT SUCHASTOTALLYSUSPENDEDSENTENC
ES CAUTIONANDDISCHARGE FINESWITHOUTALTERNATIVEIMPRISONMENT OFNOTMORE
THAN2 ANDCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION3ENTENCESOFIMPRISONMENT EVENAS
LITTLEASDAYSIMPRISONMENT DONOTQUALIFYFOREXPUNGEMENT
!UTOMATICEXPUNGEMENTISALSOPROVIDEDFORINTHECASEOFALONGLISTOFOFFENCES
RELATEDTOFORMERAPARTHEIDLEGISLATION OROFFENCESBASEDONRACEINOTHERLEGISLA
TION OROFFENCESTHATWOULDNOWBECONSIDEREDUNCONSTITUTIONALS#
&URTHERPROVISIONSONTHEEXPUNGEMENTOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSARECONTAINED
INSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
4
HEACCUSEDONSENTENCE
!FTER THE PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH THE ACCUSED IS GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITYTOSUPPLYEVIDENCEINMITIGATIONOFSENTENCE)NLESSSERIOUSCASES
MITIGATINGFEATURESAREFREQUENTLYDESCRIBEDBYTHEACCUSEDORTHELEGALREPRESEN
TATIVESIMPLYBYADDRESSINGTHECOURTFROMTHEBAR)THASONOCCASIONBEENHELD
THATTHEADDRESSONSENTENCESHOULDNOTINCLUDEFACTSFACTSSHOULDFIRSTBEPROVEN
BYEVIDENCEUNDEROATHCF'OUGH 3!.# ((OWEVER THISAP
PROACHISNOTCONSISTENTLYFOLLOWED7HATISCLEARISTHATS OBLIGESTHECOURT
TOAFFORDTHEACCUSEDANOPPORTUNITYTOADDRESSTHECOURTONSENTENCE
!FTERALLTHEEVIDENCEONBEHALFOFTHEACCUSEDHASBEENLED THE3TATEWILLNOR
MALLYALSOBEALLOWEDTHEOPPORTUNITYTOLEADEVIDENCEANDTOADDRESSTHECOURT
ONSENTENCE
4
HEDUTYTOSUPPLYINFORMATION
!SMENTIONEDABOVE TRADITIONSEEMSTOREQUIRETHE3TATEANDTHEACCUSEDTOSUP
PLYTHEINFORMATIONNECESSARYFORTHECOURTTODECIDEONASUITABLESENTENCE4HIS

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
TRADITIONISTAKENTOTHEEXTREMEINJUDGMENTSSUCHAS+HAMBULE 3!#2
7 AND.JIKAZA 3!#2# WHEREITISCONSIDEREDASERIOUSIRREGU
LARITYFORTHECOURTTOASKTHEACCUSEDWHETHERHEHASANYPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS
IFTHE3TATEDOESNOTPRODUCEALISTOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS)N3V.HLAPO
3!#2'3* THECOURTHELDTHATTHESEJUDGMENTSWEREINCORRECT BUTTHEPOSI
TIONREMAINSSOMEWHATFLEXIBLE
)TMAYBEACCEPTEDTHATANACCUSEDPERSONWHOISAWAREOFHISORHERRIGHTSWILL
NORMALLYTAKETHEOPPORTUNITYTOPROVIDETHECOURTWITHINFORMATIONINMITIGA
TIONOFSENTENCE(OWEVER THE3TATESHOULDNOTSTANDBYPASSIVELYASTHEACCUSED
GIVESAONE SIDEDPICTURETOTHECOURTCF3MITH 3!4 !CRIMINAL
TRIALDOESNOTHAVEACONVICTIONASITSULTIMATEAIM BUTRATHERASUITABLESANCTION
4HEPROSECUTORDOESNOTFULFILTHEROLEASREPRESENTATIVEOF@THEPEOPLEWHENTHE
ACCUSEDISCONVICTED BUTONLYONCEEVERYTHINGHASBEENDONETOENSURETHATTHE
ACCUSEDRECEIVESANAPPROPRIATESENTENCE
(OWEVER INTHEFINALANALYSISITISTHECOURTTHATHASTOIMPOSETHESENTENCE)T
HASTHEDISCRETIONADISCRETIONWHICHCANNOTBEEXERCISEDPROPERLYUNLESSALLTHE
INFORMATIONNECESSARYTOMAKESUCHANIMPORTANTDECISIONISATTHEDISPOSALOF
THECOURT)NCOMPARISONWITHTHEATTENTIONGIVENTODETERMININGTHEGUILTOFTHE
ACCUSED THESENTENCINGPROCESSISOFTENNEGLECTED WHICHISWHYDECISIONSREQUIR
INGTHECOURTNOTTOADOPTAPASSIVEROLEINTHISREGARDCF$LAMINI 3!#2
! .DLOVU 3!#23#! MUSTBEWELCOMED
!
"3%.#%/&*5$)#)!,/&&)#%2
#RIMINALPROCEEDINGSAREFREQUENTLYPOSTPONEDAFTERCONVICTION BEFORESENTENCE
IS PASSED 4HIS CAN HAPPEN BECAUSE THE 3TATE NEEDS MORE TIME TO OBTAIN A LIST
OFTHEACCUSEDSPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSORBECAUSEAPRE SENTENCEREPORTHASBEEN
REQUESTED3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATANYJUDICIALOFFICEROFTHESAMECOURTMAY
IFTHEJUDGEORMAGISTRATEWHOHASCONVICTEDTHEACCUSEDIS@NOTAVAILABLE PASS
SENTENCEAFTERCONSIDERATIONOFTHEEVIDENCE(OWEVER THEJUDICIALOFFICERMUST
BE@MATERIALLYABSENT OWINGTOREASONSSUCHASRECUSAL TRANSFER LEAVE DEATHOR
SERIOUSILLNESSCF,UKELE 3!4
-)4)'!4).'!.$!''2!6!4).'&!#4/23
7HEN CONSIDERING SENTENCE THE COURT MUST TAKE MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
FACTORSINTOCONSIDERATION!LARGENUMBEROFSUCHFACTORSHAVEALREADYBEENAC
CEPTEDBYOURCOURTSSEEEG(IEMSTRA3UID !FRIKAANSE3TRAFPROSES n
INCLUDING FACTORS SUCH AS PREMEDITATION ABUSE OF TRUST OR THE PRESENCE OF RE
MORSE WHETHERTHEOFFENDERISMARRIEDOREMPLOYED ETC/NLYTWOOFTHESEARE
BRIEFLYCONSIDEREDHERE
9
OUTHASAMITIGATINGFACTOR
!SAGENERALPRINCIPLE YOUNGOFFENDERSARESENTENCEDMORELENIENTLYTHANADULTS
$00 +WA:ULU .ATAL V 0 3!#2 3#! PARA ;= YOUTH HAS ALWAYS
BEEN A MITIGATING FACTOR 4HE REASON FOR THIS APPROACH IS THAT THEY CANNOT BE
EXPECTEDTOACTWITHTHESAMEMEASUREOFRESPONSIBILITYASADULTS THATTHEYLACK

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE AND INSIGHT AND ARE THEREFORE MORE PRONE TO COMMIT
THOUGHTLESS ACTS 4HESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE EMPHASISED IN #ENTRE FOR #HILD ,AW
V -INISTER OF *USTICE AND #ONSTITUTIONAL $EVELOPMENT 3!#2 ## AT
;=Ú;=
4HESHARPDISTINCTIONBETWEENCHILDRENANDADULTOFFENDERSISNOTOUTOFSENTIMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS BUTFORPRACTICALREASONSRELATINGTOCHILDRENSGREATERPHYSICALANDPSY
CHOLOGICALVULNERABILITY;#HILDRENARE=MORENEEDFULOFPROTECTION LESSRESOURCEFUL
LESSMATURE MOREVULNERABLETOINFLUENCEANDPRESSUREFROMOTHERSMORECAPABLEOF
REHABILITATION
!LTHOUGHTHISJUDGMENTSPECIFICALLYADDRESSEDTHEPOSITIONOFCHILDOFFENDERS A
CHILDDOESNOTSUDDENLYBECOMEANADULTWHENTHEAGEOFISREACHED ANDTHE
RELEVANTCONSIDERATIONSREMAINOFIMPORTANCEDEPENDINGONTHEINDIVIDUALCHAR
ACTERISTICSOFTHEOFFENDER
4HESPECIALCONSIDERATIONSSURROUNDINGTHESENTENCINGOFCHILDOFFENDERSARE
FURTHERDISCUSSEDINPARABELOW
0
REVIOUSCONVICTIONSASANAGGRAVATINGFACTOR
!PERSONWHOISCONVICTEDTIMEANDAGAINOFSIMILAROFFENCESWILLPROGRESSIVELY
BEPUNISHEDMORESEVERELY4HISISBECAUSETHEOFFENDER BYCONTINUINGTOCOM
MITOFFENCES DISPLAYSADISREGARDFORTHELAWANDBECAUSEITISBELIEVEDTHATTHE
HEAVIERAPENALTYIS THEMORELIKELYITISTODETERTHEOFFENDERFROMCOMMITTING
MORECRIME)NTHEPASTVERYHEAVYPENALTIESWERESOMETIMESIMPOSEDFORMINOR
OFFENCES BASEDSOLELYONTHENUMBEROFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSFORSIMILAROFFENCES
(OWEVER A NUMBER OF DECISIONS STRESSED THAT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PARTICULAR
CRIME SHOULD BE THE MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR AND THAT THE PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
SHOULDNOTBEOVER EMPHASISEDCF"ARNABAS 3!#2!
4(%5.#/.34)454)/.!,)49/&4(%$%!4(0%.!,49
'
ENERALREMARKS
/NEOFTHEEARLIESTDECISIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTDEALTWITHSENTENCING
-OREPARTICULARLY IN-AKWANYANE 3!#2## THECOURTFOUNDTHEDEATH
PENALTYTOBEUNCONSTITUTIONAL)TISIMPORTANTTOUNDERSTANDTHECOURTSREASON
INGFORTHISDECISION!PARTFROMDISCUSSINGTHEDEATHPENALTY THEJUDGMENTALSO
CONTAINSAWEALTHOFMATERIALONOTHERMATTERSRELATEDTOSENTENCING SUCHASTHE
INTERPRETATIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION THEUNDERSTANDINGOFRIGHTSSUCHASTHERIGHT
TODIGNITY ANDTHERIGHTNOTTOBESUBJECTEDTOCRUELORINHUMANTREATMENT
)NTHEDISCUSSIONTHATFOLLOWSPARTICULARATTENTIONISGIVENTOTHEMAINJUDG
MENTBY#HASKALSON0
)NTRODUCTION
)N ESSENCE THE DECISION REVOLVES AROUND THE INTERPRETATION OF S @EVERY PERSON
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE S @EVERY PERSON SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPECT
FORANDPROTECTIONOFHISORHERDIGNITY ANDS @EVERYPERSONSHALLHAVETHE
RIGHTTOEQUALITYBEFORETHELAWANDTOEQUALPROTECTIONOFTHELAW OFTHEINTERIM
#ONSTITUTIONTHECORRESPONDINGPROVISIONSINTHE#ONSTITUTIONARESS

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
AND 4HECOURTFOUNDTHATANYPUNISHMENTSHOULDMEETTHEREQUIREMENTSOF
THESEPROVISIONSAT;= 4HESEREQUIREMENTSSHOULD INTURN BEUSEDTOGIVEMEAN
INGTOS OFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION WHICHPROHIBITED@CRUEL INHUMANAND
DEGRADINGTREATMENTORPUNISHMENTS D ANDE OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
4HECRUCIALQUESTIONWASWHETHERTHEDEATHPENALTYWASACRUEL INHUMANANDDE
GRADINGPUNISHMENTWITHINTHEMEANINGOFTHISPROVISIONAT;=
4HEMAINARGUMENTSFORANDAGAINSTTHEDEATHPENALTYARESUMMARISEDASFOL
LOWSAT;=
4HE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED IN SUPPORT OF
THEIRCONTENTIONTHATTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTYFORMURDERISA@CRUEL
INHUMANORDEGRADINGPUNISHMENTWERETHATTHEDEATHSENTENCEISANAFFRONT
TOHUMANDIGNITY ISINCONSISTENTWITHTHEUNQUALIFIEDRIGHTTOLIFEENTRENCHED
INTHE#ONSTITUTION CANNOTBECORRECTEDINCASEOFERRORORENFORCEDINAMAN
NERTHATISNOTARBITRARY ANDTHATITNEGATESTHEESSENTIALCONTENTOFTHERIGHTTO
LIFEANDTHEOTHERRIGHTSTHATFLOWFROMIT4HE!TTORNEY 'ENERALARGUEDTHATTHE
DEATHPENALTYISRECOGNISEDASALEGITIMATEFORMOFPUNISHMENTINMANYPARTSOF
THEWORLD ITISADETERRENTTOVIOLENTCRIME ITMEETSSOCIETYSNEEDFORADEQUATE
RETRIBUTIONFORHEINOUSOFFENCES ANDITISREGARDEDBY3OUTH!FRICANSOCIETYASAN
ACCEPTABLEFORMOFPUNISHMENT(EASSERTEDTHATITIS THEREFORE NOTCRUEL INHU
MANORDEGRADINGWITHINTHEMEANINGOFS OFTHE;INTERIM=#ONSTITUTION
!RBITRARINESSINTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTY
3ECTION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT IT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REPEALED
BYTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF PROVIDEDFORTHEIMPOSITION
OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR EXTREMELY SERIOUS CRIMES "EFORE IT COULD BE IMPOSED
HOWEVER THESENTENCINGCOURTHADTOFINDDEATHTOBETHEONLYPROPERSENTENCE
FORTHEPARTICULARCRIME WITHDUEREGARDTOTHEPRESENCEORABSENCEOFMITIGATING
ANDORAGGRAVATINGFACTORSCF-ASINA 3!! 7HILETHOUSANDSOF
PEOPLEWERECHARGEDWITHMURDEREVERYYEAR LESSTHANPERCENTOFTHEMWERE
SENTENCEDTODEATH
-OSTACCUSEDPERSONSFACINGTHEDEATHPENALTYAREUNABLETOPAYFORANEFFEC
TIVEDEFENCE ANDTHEYAREMORELIKELYTOBESENTENCEDTODEATHTHANTHOSEWITH
THEMEANSTODOSO4HEINFERENCEISUNAVOIDABLE
)TCANNOTBEGAINSAIDTHATPOVERTY RACEANDCHANCEPLAYROLESINTHEOUTCOMEOFCAPITAL
CASESANDINTHEFINALDECISIONASTOWHOSHOULDLIVEANDWHOSHOULDDIEPARAS;= ;=
OF-AKWANYANE
!LL THE INCONSISTENCIES INHERENT IN ANY JUDICIAL SYSTEM SUCH AS GOOD AND BAD
PROSECUTORS SEVEREANDLENIENTJUDGES JUDGESWHOFAVOURTHEDEATHPENALTYAND
THOSEWHOFAVOURITSABOLITION ANDOTHERIMPERFECTIONS MEANTTHATERRORCOULD
NOT BE EXCLUDED AT ;= )N ORDINARY CRIMINAL CASES SUCH A SYSTEM HAS TO BE
ACCEPTEDASAMATTEROFNECESSITY BUTWITHTHEDEATHPENALTYTHEERRORISNOTRE
VERSIBLE WHICHREDUCESTHISACCEPTABILITY
4
HEDEATHPENALTYINFOREIGNLAW
4HECOURTIN-AKWANYANEALSOCONSIDEREDTHEEXTENTTOWHICHTHEDEATHPENALTY
WASSTILLINFORCEINTERNATIONALLY)TISCLEARTHATTHEDEATHPENALTYISNOTPROHIB

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ITEDBYPUBLICINTERNATIONALLAWAT;= BUTITHASBEENABOLISHEDFORMURDER
INALMOSTHALFTHECOUNTRIESOFTHEWORLD INCLUDINGCOUNTRIESSUCHAS.AMIBIA
-OZAMBIQUEAND!NGOLA)NMOSTOFTHECOUNTRIESWHEREITISRETAINED ITISHARDLY
EVERUSED)NTHE5NITED3TATESOF!MERICA THEDEATHPENALTYITSELFHASNOTBEEN
HELDTOBEUNCONSTITUTIONAL'REGGV'EORGIA53 )TISSPECIFICALLY
MENTIONEDINTHE&IFTH!MENDMENTTOTHE!MERICAN#ONSTITUTION EVENTHOUGH
THE%IGHTH!MENDMENTPROHIBITSCRUELANDUNUSUALPUNISHMENT(OWEVER IFTHE
DEATHPENALTYSTATUTEINAPARTICULARSTATEDIDNOTALLOWFORSUFFICIENTDISCRETIONIN
THEIMPOSITIONOFTHESENTENCE ORWHERETOOWIDEADISCRETIONWASALLOWED SUCH
STATUTEWOULDBESTRUCKDOWNBYTHE3UPREME#OURTAT;=
0UBLICOPINION
!S THE !TTORNEY 'ENERAL NOW THE $00 HAD ARGUED THAT THE MEANING OF THE
PHRASE@CRUEL INHUMANANDDEGRADINGSHOULDBEINTERPRETEDINACCORDANCEWITH
THEATTITUDESOF3OUTH!FRICANSOCIETY THECOURTHADTOCONSIDERTHEIMPORTANCE
OFPUBLICOPINIONINREACHINGITSDECISIONAT;=
0UBLICOPINIONMAYHAVESOMERELEVANCETOTHEENQUIRY BUTINITSELF ITISNO
SUBSTITUTEFORTHEDUTYVESTEDINTHE#OURTSTOINTERPRETTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDTO
UPHOLDITSPROVISIONSWITHOUTFEARORFAVOUR)FPUBLICOPINIONWERETOBEDECISIVE
THEREWOULDBENONEEDFORCONSTITUTIONALADJUDICATION4HEPROTECTIONOFRIGHTS
COULDTHENBELEFTTO0ARLIAMENT WHICHHASAMANDATEFROMTHEPUBLIC ANDIS
ANSWERABLETOTHEPUBLICFORTHEWAYITSMANDATEISEXERCISED BUTTHISWOULDBEA
RETURNTOPARLIAMENTARYSOVEREIGNTY ANDARETREATFROMTHENEWLEGALORDERESTAB
LISHEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTION
#RUEL INHUMANANDDEGRADINGPUNISHMENT

)N TERMS OF THE #ONSTITUTION THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF
IT IS FOUND EITHER TO BE CRUEL INHUMAN OR DEGRADING 5LTIMATELY THE COURT IN
-AKWANYANECONCLUDEDAT;=
4HECARRYINGOUTOFTHEDEATHSENTENCEDESTROYSLIFE WHICHISPROTECTEDWITHOUT
RESERVATIONUNDERSOFOUR#ONSTITUTION ITANNIHILATESHUMANDIGNITYWHICHIS
PROTECTEDUNDERS ELEMENTSOFARBITRARINESSAREPRESENTINITSENFORCEMENTAND
ITISIRREMEDIABLE
!SARESULTTHECOURTFOUNDTHEDEATHPENALTYTOBECRUEL INHUMANANDDEGRAD
INGPUNISHMENT
4
HELIMITATIONCLAUSE
4HENEXTQUESTIONTHECOURTHADTOANSWERWASWHETHERIMPOSINGDEATHASPUN
ISHMENT COULD DESPITE BEING CRUEL INHUMAN AND DEGRADING PUNISHMENT BE
JUSTIFIEDFORMURDER INTERMSOFSOFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION3UCHAFINDING
WOULDNOTBEREACHEDEASILYAT;=
2ESPECTFORLIFEANDDIGNITY WHICHAREATTHEHEARTOFS AREVALUESOFTHEHIGHEST
ORDER UNDER OUR #ONSTITUTION 4HE CARRYING OUT OF THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD DESTROY
THESEANDALLOTHERRIGHTSTHATTHECONVICTEDPERSONHAS ANDACLEARANDCONVINCINGCASE
MUSTBEMADEOUTTOJUSTIFYSUCHACTION

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
4HEMAINARGUMENTSINFAVOUROFJUSTIFICATIONWERETHATTHEDEATHPENALTYDETERS
BETTERTHANOTHERFORMSOFPUNISHMENT THATITENSURESTHEPROTECTIONOFPRISON
WARDERSANDINMATES ANDTHATITMEETSTHENEEDSFORRETRIBUTIONAT;=
7ITHRESPECTTODETERRENCETHECOURTOBSERVEDAT;=
4HE GREATEST DETERRENT TO CRIME IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT OFFENDERS WILL BE APPREHENDED
CONVICTED AND PUNISHED )T IS THAT WHICH IS PRESENTLY LACKING IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEMANDITISATTHISLEVELANDTHROUGHADDRESSINGTHECAUSESOFCRIMETHATTHE3TATE
MUSTSEEKTOCOMBATLAWLESSNESS
4HEREWASANDIS NOPROOFTHATTHEDEATHPENALTYWASAGREATERDETERRENTTOVIO
LENTCRIMETHANLIFEIMPRISONMENTAT;= ANDTHECOURTCOULDNOTFINDTHATTHE
DETERRENTEFFECTOFTHEDEATHPENALTYWASSUFFICIENTTOJUSTIFYTHEINFRINGEMENTOF
BASICRIGHTSINTHEFASHIONINWHICHITINFRINGEDTHOSERIGHTS
!SFARASPREVENTIONISCONCERNED THECOURTHELDTHATITCANBEACHIEVEDTHROUGH
MEANS OTHER THAN THE DEATH SENTENCE 4HERE WERE NOT ENOUGH PRISON MURDERS
TO JUSTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR THE FEW CASES IN WHICH IT WAS
IMPOSEDAT;=
,ASTLY RETRIBUTION INTHESENSEOFTHE@NATURALINDIGNATIONOFTHECOMMUNITY
CANALSOBEEXPRESSEDBYMEANSOTHERTHANTHEDEATHPENALTY SUCHASALONGTERM
OFIMPRISONMENTAT;=
#ONCLUSION
)NORDERTOREACHACONCLUSION ALLTHESEDIFFERENTCONSIDERATIONSHADTOBEBAL
ANCEDWITHONEANOTHERAT;=
)N THE BALANCING PROCESS DETERRENCE PREVENTION AND RETRIBUTION MUST BE WEIGHED
AGAINSTTHEALTERNATIVEPUNISHMENTSAVAILABLETOTHESTATE ANDTHEFACTORSWHICHTAKEN
TOGETHERMAKECAPITALPUNISHMENTCRUEL INHUMANANDDEGRADING THEDESTRUCTIONOF
LIFE THEANNIHILATIONOFDIGNITY THEELEMENTSOFARBITRARINESS INEQUALITYANDTHEPOS
SIBILITYOFERRORINTHEENFORCEMENTOFTHEPENALTY
)TISIMPORTANTTOREMEMBERTHATCRIMINALSDONOTFORFEITMOSTOFTHEIRRIGHTSIN
TERMS OF THE #ONSTITUTION 7HETHER THEY LOSE ANY OF THESE RIGHTS DEPENDS ON
WHETHERITISJUSTIFIABLEINTERMSOFSOFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTIONAT;= OR
CURRENTLY S
4HECOURTSMAINFINDINGSARESUMMEDUPINTHEFOLLOWINGTERMSAT;=
4HERIGHTSTOLIFEANDDIGNITYARETHEMOSTIMPORTANTOFALLHUMANRIGHTS ANDTHESOURCE
OF ALL OTHER PERSONAL RIGHTS IN #HAPTER 4HREE "Y COMMITTING OURSELVES TO A SOCIETY
FOUNDEDONTHERECOGNITIONOFHUMANRIGHTSWEAREREQUIREDTOVALUETHESETWORIGHTS
ABOVEALLOTHERS!NDTHISMUSTBEDEMONSTRATEDBYTHE3TATEINEVERYTHINGTHATITDOES
INCLUDINGTHEWAYITPUNISHESCRIMINALS4HISISNOTACHIEVEDBYOBJECTIFYINGMURDERERS
ANDPUTTINGTHEMTODEATHTOSERVEASANEXAMPLETOOTHERSINTHEEXPECTATIONTHATTHEY
MIGHTPOSSIBLYBEDETERREDTHEREBY
4HEDEATHPENALTYIS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4(%&/2-3/&05.)3(-%.44(!4-!9"%)-0/3%$
)NTRODUCTION
3ECTIONLISTSTHESENTENCESTHATMAYGENERALLYBEPASSED4HESEBASICALLYCON
SISTOFTHEFOLLOWING
IMPRISONMENTINVARIOUSFORMSANDFORVARIOUSTERMS
AFINEAND
CORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
#OURTS ARE ALSO PROVIDED WITH VARIOUS RELATED POWERS IN S WHICH PROVIDES
FOR
THESUSPENSIONOFASENTENCEONVARIOUSCONDITIONS
THECONDITIONALORUNCONDITIONALPOSTPONEMENTOFTHEIMPOSITIONOFASEN
TENCEAND
ACAUTIONANDDISCHARGE
%ACH OF THESE SENTENCES AND MEASURES IS DISCUSSED BELOW IN GREATER DETAIL )T
SHOULDBENOTEDTHATTHESENTENCESPROVIDEDFORINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTDO
NOTAPPLYTOCHILDOFFENDERSWHOHAVEBEENTRIEDANDCONVICTEDINACHILDJUSTICE
COURTINTERMSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF!DIFFERENTSETOFSENTENCESIS
PROVIDEDINTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTSEEPARABELOW
)MPRISONMENT
*HQHUDO
/NEOFTHEFIRSTDECISIONSACOURTMAKESWHENSENTENCINGTHEOFFENDERISWHETHER
TO REMOVE THE OFFENDER FROM SOCIETY OR TO PUNISH HIM OR HER WITHIN THE COM
MUNITY 4HE LATTER KINDS OF SENTENCES ARE OFTEN DESCRIBED AS @ALTERNATIVES TO
IMPRISONMENT ASSUCHSENTENCESAREFREQUENTLYSEENASSOMEKINDOFLENIENCY
4HE DECISION TO REMOVE THE OFFENDER FROM THE COMMUNITY REMAINS ONE OF THE
MOSTDIFFICULTSENTENCINGDECISIONSTOBEMADE4HEDECISIONTOIMPRISONAPERSON
RESULTSINTHEPARTICULARLYDRASTICOUTCOMEOFTAKINGAWAYAPERSONSLIBERTY AND
OURLAWPROVIDESDISAPPOINTINGLYLITTLEGUIDANCEINTHEMAKINGOFTHISDECISION!
CAREFULSEARCHTHROUGHTHELAWREPORTSWILLREVEALONLYTHATTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHE
PARTICULARCRIMEISAVERYIMPORTANT BUTALSOVERYINEXACTFACTOR!NYAGGRAVATING
FACTOR SUCHASAPREVIOUSCONVICTIONORTHEBRUTALITYOFTHECRIME MAYBEUSED
ASAREASONFORIMPOSINGIMPRISONMENT#ONVERSELY THEPRESENCEOFMITIGATING
FACTORS MAY DICTATE A DECISION NOT TO IMPRISON 'ENERALLY ONLY TWO MITIGATING
FACTORSCOULDBESEENASREGULARLYAFFECTINGTHISQUESTION&IRSTLY JUVENILESARENOT
READILYIMPRISONEDSEETHEDISCUSSIONINPARAABOVEAND7ILLEMSE 3!
! 3ECONDLY FIRSTOFFENDERSAREALSONOTREADILYIMPRISONED)TISGENERALLY
FELTTHATTHEYSHOULDBEGIVENANOTHEROPPORTUNITYTOSHOWTHATTHEYCANLIVEA
LIFEWITHOUTCRIMECF+ELLY 3!#2! J4HATDOESNOTMEANTHAT
AFIRSTOFFENDERWHOHASCOMMITTEDASERIOUSCRIMECANNOTBEIMPRISONEDANDIT
DOESINFACTOFTENHAPPENCF6ICTOR 3!!

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
7KHYDULRXVIRUPVRILPSULVRQPHQW
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFORSEVERAL@FORMSOFIMPRISONMENT
4HE @FORMS ARE REALLY DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT RATHER
THANCOMPLETELYSEPARATEKINDSOFPUNISHMENT7HETHERANYOFTHESEFORMSMAY
BEIMPOSEDINAPARTICULARINSTANCEDEPENDSONTHESTATUTORYPROVISIONSWHICH
REGULATE THE IMPOSITION THEREOF AND ON THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO
THE PARTICULAR CRIME 4HE VARIOUS FORMS ARE DISCUSSED BRIEFLY IN THE FOLLOWING
PARAGRAPHS
ԙ/RDINARYIMPRISONMENTFORATERMDETERMINEDBYTHECOURT
4HIS IS THE MOST COMMON FORM OF IMPRISONMENT !LL CRIMINAL COURTS HAVE THE
POWERTOIMPOSEATERMOFIMPRISONMENTFORMOSTCRIMES LIMITEDONLYBYTHEIR
GENERAL JURISDICTION ANDOR BY THE PENALTY CLAUSE FOR THE PARTICULAR CRIME )N
THE CASE OF COMMON LAW CRIMES ONLY THE GENERAL JURISDICTION APPLIESREGIONAL
COURTSARELIMITEDTOYEARSIMPRISONMENTANDDISTRICTMAGISTRATESCOURTSTO
YEARSSOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOF4HEMINIMUMSENTENCES
LEGISLATION IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE CURRENT DISCUSSION 3UBJECT TO THE
SHORTESTTERMOFIMPRISONMENTSEEBELOW (IGH#OURTSMAYIMPOSEANYTERMOF
IMPRISONMENT)NTHECASEOFSTATUTORYCRIMESTHEGENERALJURISDICTIONISALSOAP
PLICABLE BUTALWAYSSUBJECTTOTHEPENALTYCLAUSECONTAINEDINTHESTATUTE1UITE
ANUMBEROFTHESEPROVISIONSSPECIFICALLYEMPOWERLOWERCOURTSTOIMPOSETERMS
EXCEEDING THE GENERAL JURISDICTION FOR EXAMPLE S OF THE $RUGS AND $RUG
4RAFFICKING!CTOF ALLOWINGSENTENCESOFUPTOYEARSIMPRISONMENT
FORSOMEOFFENCES7HYDISTRICTCOURTSAREENTRUSTEDWITHSUCHHIGHPOWERSONLY
INTHECASEOFCERTAINOFFENCESISANYONESGUESSCF*EMINEZ 3!#2
7 B
3OMETIMES BUT NORMALLY ONLY IN THE CASE OF SERIOUS STATUTORY CRIMES THE
PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT REFERS TO IMPRISONMENT ONLY OR OTHERWISE REQUIRES THE
IMPOSITIONOFIMPRISONMENTEGSE OFTHE$RUGSAND$RUG4RAFFICKING!CT
OF FORDEALINGINILLEGALDRUGS )NTHESEINSTANCES IMPRISONMENTHASTOBE
IMPOSED ANDONLYTHETERMOFIMPRISONMENTISINTHEDISCRETIONOFTHECOURT
(OWEVER DUE TO EXCEPTIONS CREATED BY SS AND OF THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT ITISREALLYONLYAFINETHATMAYNOTBEIMPOSEDINSUCHCASES
)NTERMSOFSNOCOURTMAYIMPOSEASENTENCEOFLESSTHANFOURDAYSIMPRIS
ONMENT UNLESSTHESENTENCEISTHATTHEOFFENDERBEDETAINEDUNTILTHERISINGOF
THECOURT)TWASDECIDEDIN-SIMANGO 3!. THATACOURT@RISESAS
SOONASITHASDISPOSEDOFACASEANDTHEOFFENDERISTHEREFOREENTITLEDTOHISOR
HERRELEASEBEFORETHENEXTCASEISCALLED4OCALLTHIS@IMPRISONMENTISCLEARLYA
FICTION
7ITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK A COURT THAT HAS DECIDED TO IMPOSE IMPRISONMENT IS
EXPECTEDTODETERMINETHEMOSTAPPROPRIATETERMOFIMPRISONMENT BASEDONTHE
GENERALPRINCIPLESOFSENTENCING4HISIMPLIESTHATTHEMORESERIOUSTHEOFFENCE
ORTHEMOREDANGEROUSTHECRIMINAL THELONGERTHEPERIODOFIMPRISONMENTWILL
BE ANDVICEVERSACF(OLDER 3!! 4HETERMOFIMPRISONMENTMUST
ALWAYSBESTIPULATEDBYTHECOURT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)NTHEPASTLONGERTERMSTHANYEARSIMPRISONMENTWERERARELYIMPOSEDCF
- 3!#2! (OWEVER AFTERTHEABOLITIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTY
THIS POSITION CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AND SENTENCES OF UP TO YEARS ARE QUITE
READILY IMPOSED FOR VERY SERIOUS CRIME 3OME COURTS OVERDID IT HOWEVER BY
IMPOSINGSENTENCESTHATAREOBVIOUSLYLONGERTHANTHEOFFENDERCOULDREASONABLY
BE EXPECTED TO LIVE 4HIS PRACTICE APPEARS TO BE ONGOING PROMPTING THE COURT
IN "ULL #HAVULLA 3!#2 3#! AT ;= TO REPEAT ITS WARNING AGAINST
THEIMPOSITIONOFEXCESSIVELYLONGSENTENCESINORDERTOCIRCUMVENTTHERELEASE
OFPRISONERSONPAROLE!NOTHERREPETITIONOFTHISWARNINGWASREQUIREDIN.KOSI
3!#23#! AT;= WHERETHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALSTATED
4HUS UNDER THE LAW AS IT PRESENTLY STANDS WHEN WHAT ONE MAY CALL A -ETHUSELAH
SENTENCE IS IMPOSED ;A SENTENCE LONGER THAN THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THE PRISONER= THE
PRISONERWILLHAVENOCHANCEOFBEINGRELEASEDONTHEEXPIRYOFTHESENTENCEANDALSO
NOCHANCEOFBEINGRELEASEDAFTERSERVINGHALFTHESENTENCE3UCHASENTENCEWILLAMOUNT
TOCRUEL INHUMANANDDEGRADINGPUNISHMENTWHICHISPROSCRIBEDBYS E OFTHE
#ONSTITUTION
-OSTPRISONERSAREEVENTUALLYRELEASED BUTCOURTSARENOTSUPPOSEDTOTAKETHE
NORMAL PRISON RELEASE POLICY INTO ACCOUNT WHEN DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE
PRISONTERMCF3 3!! "ULL#HAVULLA 3!#23#! AT
;= 4HERELEASEREGIMEISDESCRIBEDIN#HAPTER6))OFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES
!CT OF -OST OF THE PROVISIONS AFFECTING RELEASE HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN
AMENDEDSINCE RESULTINGINALOTOFLITIGATIONABOUTTHEPRECISESTATEOFTHE
LAW ESPECIALLYWITHRESPECTTOWHENPRISONERSCANEXPECTPAROLETOBECONSIDERED
SEE6AN6URENV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2## INCONNEC
TIONWITHLIFEPRISONERS
0RISONERSWITHSENTENCESOFMORETHANTWOYEARSIMPRISONMENTMAYONLYBE
CONSIDEREDFORRELEASEONPAROLEAFTERHAVINGSERVEDHALFTHEIRSENTENCESPAROLEIS
POSSIBLEINCASEOFSHORTERSENTENCESAFTERAQUARTERHASBEENSERVED/NCEPLACED
UNDERPAROLE THEOFFENDERWILLSTILLBEUNDERVARIOUSCONDITIONSUNTILTHETOTAL
PERIODOFTHEORIGINALSENTENCEHASLAPSED
3ENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT MAY NORMALLY BE IMPOSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
OTHERFORMSOFPUNISHMENTSUCHASFINESANDCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION!TERMOF
IMPRISONMENTMAYALSONORMALLYBEPARTLYORFULLYSUSPENDEDINTERMSOFS
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTSEEPARABELOW
3ECTION " OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT WHICH CAME INTO OPERATION IN
EMPOWERSTHESENTENCINGCOURTSTODETERMINEA@NON PAROLEPERIOD4HIS
IS A PERIOD THAT THE COURT MAY FIX AS PART OF THE SENTENCE AND DURING WHICH
THE OFFENDER MAY NOT BE PLACED ON PAROLE BY THE $EPARTMENT OF #ORRECTIONAL
3ERVICES/NLYSENTENCESOFTWOYEARSIMPRISONMENTORLONGERPERCHARGE QUALIFY
FORTHISDETERMINATION ANDTHENON PAROLEPERIODISLIMITEDTOTWO THIRDSOFTHE
SENTENCE #OURTS MAY NOT DETERMINE NON PAROLE PERIODS AS A MATTER OF COURSE
ANDITSHOULDONLYBEDONEUNDEREXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESCF3TANDER
3!#23#! 7ILLIAMS 0APIER 3!#2# AT;=
ԙ)MPRISONMENTFORLIFE
,IFEIMPRISONMENTWASEXPRESSLYINSERTEDINTOSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTBYTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF ALTHOUGHITWASAVAILABLE

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
TOTHE(IGH#OURTSBEFORETHATASWELL!TPRESENT ITCANONLYBEIMPOSEDBYTHE
(IGH#OURTSOR ONLYIFPRESCRIBEDINTERMSOFTHEMINIMUMSENTENCESLEGISLATION
BYTHEREGIONALCOURTSCFABOVE
3INCETHEABOLITIONOFTHEDEATHPENALTY LIFEIMPRISONMENTISTHEMOSTSEVERE
ANDONEROUSSENTENCETHATOURCOURTSCANIMPOSE)TISCONSIDEREDAPPROPRIATEIN
THOSECASESWHERETHECRIMINALSHOULDBEREMOVEDFROMSOCIETYFORUPTOTHEREST
OFHISORHERNATURALLIFECF"ULL#HAVULLA 3!#23#! AT;=
,IFEIMPRISONMENTISANINDETERMINATESENTENCE BECAUSEWHENITISIMPOSED
ITISUNKNOWNFORHOWLONGTHEOFFENDERWILLBEIMPRISONED3OMEPOSSIBILITYFOR
RELEASEEXISTS NEVERTHELESS)NTERMSOFS OFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CT
OFTHE-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICESMAYRELEASETHEPRISONERONPAROLE
ONRECOMMENDATIONFROMTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICEAND0AROLE"OARD4HECURRENT
POSITIONISTHATSUCHAPRISONERMAYNOT HOWEVER BEPLACEDONPAROLEBEFOREHAV
INGSERVEDATLEASTYEARSINPRISON ORONREACHINGTHEAGEOFIFATLEAST
YEARSHAVEALREADYBEENSERVED S )TISTHEPOSSIBILITYOFPAROLETHATSAVES
SENTENCESOFLIFEIMPRISONMENTFROMBEINGUNCONSTITUTIONAL
ԙ$ECLARATIONASDANGEROUSCRIMINAL
3ECTION!PROVIDESFORTHEDECLARATIONOFAPERSONASADANGEROUSCRIMINAL
3UCHSENTENCESAREINDETERMINATE EXCEPTTHATTHECOURTHASTODETERMINEADATE
WHENTHEOFFENDERHASTOREAPPEARBEFORETHECOURTFORARE EVALUATIONOFTHESEN
TENCE/NLYREGIONALAND(IGH#OURTSMAYIMPOSESUCHASENTENCE4HEDURATION
OFTHEINITIALIMPRISONMENTOFTHEOFFENDERMAYNOTEXCEEDTHECOURTSGENERAL
JURISDICTIONS" B
4HESENTENCEMAYONLYBEIMPOSEDIFTHECOURT@ISSATISFIEDTHATTHESAIDPERSON
REPRESENTSADANGERTOTHEPHYSICALORMENTALWELL BEINGOFOTHERPERSONSANDTHAT
THECOMMUNITYSHOULDBEPROTECTEDAGAINSTHIMS!
)N4 3!#23#! THECOURTREFERREDTOANUMBEROFCONSIDERATIONS
FORTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHISSENTENCE
4HISPUNISHMENT;IS=IDEALLYSUITEDTOACASEWHERETHECRIMEITSELFISNOTSOSERIOUS
ASTOWARRANTASENTENCEOFLIFEIMPRISONMENT WHERETHECONVICTEDPERSONREPRESENTS
ADANGERTOTHEPHYSICALANDMENTALWELL BEINGOFOTHERPERSONSSUFFICIENTLYSERIOUSTO
WARRANTHISDETENTIONFORANINDEFINITEPERIODANDWHERETHEREISAPOSSIBILITYTHATHIS
CONDITIONMAYIMPROVETOSUCHANEXTENTTHATTHATWOULDNOLONGERBETHECASE
)NPRISONTHE#ASE-ANAGEMENT#OMMITTEEDEALINGWITHTHEDANGEROUSCRIMI
NALSCASEMUSTSUBMITAREPORTONHIMORHERTOTHE#ORRECTIONAL3UPERVISIONAND
0AROLE"OARDS B OFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOF4HISREPORT
SHOULDDEALWITH INTERALIA THECONDUCTOFTHEPRISONER HISORHERADAPTATION
TRAINING MENTAL STATE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELAPSE INTO CRIMES 4HE
"OARDTHENRECOMMENDSTOTHECOURTHOWTHEMATTERSHOULDBEDEALTWITH7HEN
THEPRISONERREAPPEARSINCOURT THECOURTHASTORECONSIDERTHEORIGINALSENTENCE
TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHE"OARDSREPORT BUTALSOANYOTHEREVIDENCEWHICHMAYBE
ADDUCEDATTHEHEARING-OETJIE 3!#24 4HECOURTTHENHASTODE
CIDEWHETHERTOORDERTHECONTINUEDINCARCERATION ORTHERELEASEOFTHEOFFENDER
4HE RELEASE OF THE PRISONER MAY BE CONDITIONAL AND THE SENTENCE MAY ALSO BE
CONVERTEDINTOCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONATTHISSTAGE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)N"ULL#HAVULLA 3!#23#! THECOURTFOUNDTHATTHISSENTENCEIS

NOTUNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCETHEREISNOTHINGINS!OR"COMPELLINGACOURT
TOACTINCONTRAVENTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HESENTENCINGCOURTCANENSURETHAT
THESENTENCEISIMPOSEDINCONFORMITYWITHTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
ԙ$ECLARATIONASAHABITUALCRIMINAL
7ITHINTHERATHERSPECIFICSTATUTORYFRAMEWORKOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT ASUPERIORORREGIONALCOURTMAYDECLAREANOFFENDERTOBEAHABITUALCRIMINAL
IFTHECOURTISSATISFIEDTHAT
THEPERSONHABITUALLYCOMMITSOFFENCES AND
THECOMMUNITYSHOULDBEPROTECTEDAGAINSTHIMORHER
"OTHREQUIREMENTSMUSTBEMET4HESECONDREQUIREMENTPREVENTSAPERSONWHO
REPEATEDLY COMMITS PETTY OFFENCES FROM BEING DECLARED A HABITUAL CRIMINAL CF
-AKOULA 3! 37! 4HE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FURTHERMORE REMOVES
THISFORMOFIMPRISONMENTFROMACOURTSDISCRETIONIF
THEOFFENDERISUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS ANDIF
THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE OFFENDER DESERVES IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIODEXCEEDINGYEARS
!LTHOUGHNOTASTATUTORYREQUIREMENT ITISARULEOFPRACTICENOTTODECLAREANAC
CUSEDTOBEAHABITUALCRIMINALUNLESSHEHASPREVIOUSLYBEENWARNEDTHATSUCHA
SENTENCEMIGHTBEIMPOSEDONAFURTHERCONVICTION-ACHE 3!4
$ESPITETHISRULE THECOURTSMAYIMPOSESUCHASENTENCEEVENWHERENOWARNING
HASBEENGIVEN(OWEVER ACOURTWILLBEPARTICULARLYCAREFULBEFOREIMPOSINGIT
INSUCHACASECF3HABALALA 3!.
!PERSONWHOHASBEENDECLAREDAHABITUALCRIMINALISKEPTINAPRISONFORAT
LEASTSEVENYEARSS C OF!CTOF(EMAYTHEREAFTERBECONSIDERED
FORPAROLEIFTHE#ORRECTIONAL3UPERVISIONAND0AROLE"OARDFINDSTHAT FORSOME
REASONSUCHASTHATTHEREISAREASONABLEPROBABILITYTHATTHEPRISONERWILLABSTAIN
FROMCOMMITTINGCRIMEINFUTURE ITISDESIRABLETHATTHEPRISONERBEPLACEDON
PAROLE 3UCH A PRISONER MAY NOT BE DETAINED FOR MORE THAN YEARSSEE ALSO
.IEMAND 3!#2##
ԙ0ERIODICALIMPRISONMENT
0ERIODICAL IMPRISONMENT IS A FORM OF IMPRISONMENT REQUIRING PRISONERS TO BE
IMPRISONED FOR SHORT PERIODS ONLY BETWEEN AND HOURS AT A TIME !FTER
EVERY PERIOD OF INCARCERATION THEY ARE RELEASED TO CONTINUE THEIR NORMAL EXIS
TENCE "ECAUSE THEY ARE USUALLY IMPRISONED OVER WEEKENDS IT HAS ALSO BECOME
KNOWNAS@WEEKENDIMPRISONMENT BUTTHEYCANBEIMPRISONEDATANYTIME ALSO
DURINGTHEWEEK4HISINTERMITTENTCHARACTERISANIMPORTANTASPECTOFPERIODICAL
IMPRISONMENTTHEPRISONERMAYNOTBEHELDFORLONGPERIODSATATIMEINORDER
TOCOMPLETETHETOTALSENTENCERAPIDLY
0ERIODICALIMPRISONMENTISPROVIDEDFORINS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT)TMAYBEIMPOSEDONCONVICTIONOFANYOFFENCEOTHERTHANANOFFENCEFOR
WHICHAMINIMUMPUNISHMENTISPRESCRIBED)TISALSOIMPOSED@INLIEUOFANY

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
OTHERPUNISHMENT WHICHMEANSTHATPERIODICALIMPRISONMENTCANNOTBECOM
BINED WITH ANOTHER SENTENCE3MITH 3!#2 / 5NLIKE ORDINARY
IMPRISONMENT PERIODICAL IMPRISONMENT IS IMPOSED FOR A PERIOD EXPRESSED IN
HOURSITSDURATIONMAYNOTEXCEEDHOURS BUTMAYALSONOTBELESSTHAN
HOURS
7HENPERIODICALIMPRISONMENTWASINTRODUCEDINOURLAWINBY!CT
OF ITWASHIGHLYPRAISEDASASEVEREFORMOFPUNISHMENTWHICHNEVERTHELESS
DOESNOTDISRUPTTHEFAMILYLIFEOFTHEPRISONER#OURTSWEREPROMPTEDTOIMPOSE
ITASOFTENASPOSSIBLECF"OTHA 3!4 )NPRACTICE ITISONLYIMPOSED
OCCASIONALLY0ERIODICALIMPRISONMENTREMAINSAPARTICULARLYGOODOPTIONFORTHE
OFFENCEOFFAILURETOPAYMAINTENANCE6ISSER 3!#23#!
3
ECTION I IMPRISONMENT
)FANOFFENDERHASBEENIMPRISONEDINTERMSOFS I OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT THE #OMMISSIONER OF #ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES IS EMPOWERED TO RELEASE THAT
PRISONER WHILESERVINGHISORHERSENTENCE ONCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONSEE
BELOW 4HESENTENCINGCOURTBASICALLYPROVIDESTHE#OMMISSIONERWITHTHISDIS
CRETIONBYMAKINGCLEARINSOMEWAYTHATTHEIMPRISONMENTISIMPOSEDINTERMS
OFTHISPROVISION4HECOURTMUSTBESATISFIEDTHATIMPRISONMENTFORAMAXIMUM
TERM OF FIVE YEARS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE OFFENDERS CRIME BEFORE IT CAN EXERCISE
THIS OPTION S ! A 4HIS LIMIT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF THE SERIOUSNESS
OFTHECRIMESFORWHICHTHELEGISLATURECONSIDEREDTHISSENTENCETOBESUITABLE
"LANK 3!#2! !SARESULT IFMORETHANFIVEYEARSIMPRISONMENTIS
REQUIRED TO SUITABLY PUNISH THE OFFENDER THIS OPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE2ANDELL
3!#2/ 4HEMAXIMUMTERMOFTHISFORMOFIMPRISONMENTISALSO
RESTRICTEDTOFIVEYEARSS! B )NTHEORYTHISDOESNOTMEAN HOWEVER THAT
MORETHANFIVEYEARSMAYNOTBEIMPOSEDIFTHEACCUSEDISCONVICTEDOFMORETHAN
ONECRIME'OUWS 3!#24
4HIS FORM OF IMPRISONMENT IS MOST APPROPRIATE IN A RATHER NARROW BAND OF
SERIOUSCRIMES WHERECORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONISNOTSUFFICIENTPUNISHMENTBUT
IMPRISONMENT OF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS IS NOT NEEDED 4HIS WAS CONFIRMED IN
3CHEEPERS 3!#23#! WHERETHESENTENCEWASCONSIDEREDAMITIGATED
FORMOFIMPRISONMENT)TISUSEFULWHENTHESENTENCERCONSIDERSIMPRISONMENTTO
BEESSENTIAL BUTTHENATUREOFTHEOFFENCEDOESNOTREQUIREALONGTERMOFIMPRIS
ONMENT 4HE SENTENCE WAS EXTENSIVELY COVERED IN THE NEWS MEDIA WHEN /SCAR
0ISTORIUSWASORIGINALLYSENTENCEDTOSUCHIMPRISONMENT
7HATHAPPENSAFTERSENTENCINGISTHATTHEPRISONERSHOULDBEEVALUATEDIMME
DIATELYATTHESTARTOFHISORHERPRISONTERM4HE#ORRECTIONAL3UPERVISIONAND
0AROLE"OARDHASTODECIDEONTHEADVISABILITYOFRELEASINGTHEPRISONERONCOR
RECTIONAL SUPERVISION 4HE PRISONER HAS TO SERVE AT LEAST ONE SIXTH OF THE TOTAL
SENTENCE BEFORE HE OR SHE CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR RELEASE S OF !CT OF
THISISSUBJECTTOVARIOUSOTHERPROVISIONSIFTHEPERSONISALSOSENTENCEDTO
OTHERFORMSOFIMPRISONMENT &ROMTHEMOMENTOFRELEASETHEOFFENDERISTREATED
LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON UNDER CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION 0REVIOUSLY IF THE PROBA
TIONERDIDNOTCOMPLYWITHTHECONDITIONSOFHISORHERCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
HEORSHECOULDBEARRESTEDANDIMPRISONEDTOCOMPLETETHERESTOFHISORHERPRISON
SENTENCES " OF !CT OF 4HE POSITION UNDER THE CURRENT #ORRECTIONAL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ERVICES!CTOFISNOTENTIRELYCLEAR SINCETHEABOVE MENTIONEDOPTION

IS NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT SECTION S OF THE CURRENT !CT )T
PROVIDESFORTHERECALCITRANTPROBATIONERTOBEINSTRUCTEDBYTHE#OMMISSIONERTO
APPEARBEFORETHECOURT ORTHE#ORRECTIONAL3UPERVISIONAND0AROLE"OARD ORFOR
THEPROBATIONERTOBEARRESTEDUNDERWARRANTANDTOBEBROUGHTBEFORETHECOURT
)XUWKHUSURYLVLRQVRQLPSULVRQPHQW
)FCERTAINREQUIREMENTSAREMET ACOURTMAYANTE DATEORBACKDATE ASENTENCE
OFIMPRISONMENT4HISISONLYPOSSIBLEWHENTHESENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTHAS
BEENSETASIDEONAPPEALORREVIEW4HEOTHERREQUIREMENTSARETHEOFFENDERMUST
HAVESERVEDAPARTOFTHEFIRSTSENTENCETHECOURTMUSTSPECIFYTHEDATETOWHICH
THE SENTENCE IS BACKDATED AND THIS DATE MAY NOT BE EARLIER THAN THE DATE ON
WHICHTHEFIRSTSENTENCEWASIMPOSEDS
HGXFWLRQRIVHQWHQFH
5
/NCEANOFFENDERHASBEENSENTENCEDBYACOURTANDTHEQUESTIONSOFREVIEWOR
APPEALHAVEBEENFINALISED THEMATTERISOUTOFTHEHANDSOFTHECOURTS4HECOURT
ISTHENCONSIDEREDFUNCTUSOFFICIO!NYMODIFICATIONOFTHESENTENCEISLIMITEDTO
ADMINISTRATIVEACTIONBYTHE$EPARTMENTOF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES INTERMSOFITS
POWERSASPRESCRIBEDBYTHE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOF6ARIOUSOFFICE
BEARERSMAYAUTHORISETHERELEASEOFPRISONERSWHOHAVESERVEDVARIOUSPORTIONS
OFTHEIRSENTENCES%XECUTIVEINTERFERENCEWITHPRISONSENTENCESHASBEENSEVERELY
CRITICISEDFORALONGTIMECF-ADIZELA 3!#2. BUTONEHASTOACCEPT
THAT WITHINREASONABLELIMITS ITISPARTOFTHEREALITYANDTHELAW WITHINWHICH
THESENTENCINGOFFICIALHASTOEXERCISEHISORHERDISCRETION
7KHYDOXHRILPSULVRQPHQW
#OURTSARECONSTANTLYURGEDTOIMPOSEIMPRISONMENTMOREREADILY ANDFORLONGER
PERIODS4HEIDEATHAT IFONEWEREJUSTTOLOCKAWAYENOUGHCRIMINALS THECRIME
PROBLEM WILL BE SOMETHING OF THE PAST IS VERY PREVALENT IN THE MEDIA AND IN
PRIVATECONVERSATIONS3ADLY THEOVERWHELMINGEVIDENCEEMERGINGFROMRESEARCH
IS THAT THE LENGTH OF IMPRISONMENT DOESNOTADDANYTHINGTOTHEFIGHTAGAINST
CRIME )NSTEAD AS NOTED IN -AKWANYANE 3!#2 ## AT ;= SEE
ABOVE THEFIGHTCANONLYBEWONWHENOFFENDERSEXPECTTOBECAUGHTANDSUC
CESSFULLYPROSECUTED
4HEFACTISTHATIMPRISONMENTISBYNOMEANSASSUCCESSFULINCURBINGCRIMEAS
ONEWOULDINSTINCTIVELYFEEL)TSMAINVALUEISTHATITENABLESTHECOURTTOREMOVE
APERSONCONSTITUTINGADANGERTOSOCIETYFROMTHECOMMUNITY(OWEVER THISIS
ALWAYSATEMPORARYMEASURE ASALMOSTALLPRISONERSHAVETOBERELEASEDATSOME
POINT)MPRISONMENTISMAINLYCHARACTERISEDBYITSDISADVANTAGES4HESEINCLUDE
THEFOLLOWING
)TISVERYEXPENSIVE0RISONSCOSTMILLIONSOFRANDSTOERECTANDMAINTAIN4HE
INMATESHAVETOBEPROVIDEDWITHANINTERNATIONALLYACCEPTABLESTANDARDOF
LIVING4HE0RISONS3ERVICEREQUIRESASUBSTANTIALBUDGET2BILLIONFORTHE
FINANCIALYEAR WHILETHENEXTOFKINOFTHEPRISONERSOFTENHAVE
TOBESUPPORTEDFINANCIALLYBYTHESTATEOROTHERWELFAREORGANISATIONS

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
-ANY OF THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM THE OFFENDER IS INCARCERATED ARE HARD
ENEDCRIMINALS4HEPROSPECTSOFREHABILITATIONINSUCHANENVIRONMENTARESLIM
!LTHOUGHPSYCHOLOGICALANDWELFARESERVICESAREAVAILABLETOPRISONERS THESEARE
LIMITEDANDTHEIRREHABILITATIVEVALUEISBASICALLYUNPROVEN4HISISTHEPOSITION
INPRISONSWITHAGOODPRISONERTOSERVICESRATIO BUT3OUTH!FRICANPRISONSARE
HOPELESSLYOVERCROWDED
4HEENTIREPRISONENVIRONMENTWITHITSDISCIPLINEANDSUBCULTURESISSINGU
LARLYUNHELPFULFORPREPARINGANYPRISONERTOLIVEINAFREESOCIETY
&INE
*HQHUDO
4HEFINEISTHESENTENCEMOSTCOMMONLYIMPOSEDIN3OUTH!FRICANCOURTS)TIS
ASIMPLEFORMOFPUNISHMENTANDVERYCOMMONLYUSEDFORLESSSERIOUSOFFENCES
)TCONSISTSOFORDERINGTHEOFFENDERTOPAYANAMOUNTOFMONEYTOTHE3TATEAS
PUNISHMENTFORHISORHERCRIME
:KHQDUHILQHVLPSRVHG"
!S IS THE CASE WITH IMPRISONMENT COURTS GENERALLY ENJOY A WIDE DISCRETION TO
IMPOSEFINESASPUNISHMENT)FASTATUTEDOESNOTMENTIONAFINEINITSPENALTY
CLAUSES ITMAYNOTBEIMPOSEDATALL-OSTPENALTYCLAUSES HOWEVER PROVIDEFOR
THEIMPOSITIONOFFINES
)FACOURTMAYIMPOSEAFINE THREEFACTORSAREGENERALLYDECISIVEFORTHEDECISION
TOIMPOSEAFINEORNOT&IRST THECRIMESHOULDNOTBESOSERIOUSTHATIMPRISON
MENTISCALLEDFOR ANDSECONDLY THEOFFENDERMUSTHAVESOMEFINANCIALMEANSOR
HAVEACCESSTHERETO WITHWHICHAFINECANBEPAIDCF&RANS40$7ITH
NOMEANSATHISORHERDISPOSAL AFINEWILLUSUALLYSIMPLYRESULTINTHEOFFEND
ERSIMPRISONMENT!THIRDFACTORCOMESINTOPLAYWHENCRIMESARECOMMITTEDFOR
FINANCIALGAIN)NSUCHCASESAFINEMAYBEIMPOSEDWHICHWOULDINDICATETOTHE
OFFENDERTHATCRIMEDOESNOTPAYCF6AN2OOYEN 3!#2!
7KHDPRXQWRIWKHILQH
4HEAMOUNTOFTHEFINEIMPOSEDIS DEPENDINGONANYRELEVANTSTATUTORYPROVI
SIONS NORMALLYLEFTTOTHEDISCRETIONOFTHECOURT4HEMAGISTRATESANDREGIONAL
COURTS ARE LIMITED IN THIS RESPECT BY THE SCOPE OF THEIR ORDINARY OR SPECIFICALLY
INCREASEDJURISDICTION4HEORDINARYJURISDICTIONCURRENTLYSTANDSAT2FOR
DISTRICTCOURTSAND2FORREGIONALCOURTSS B OF!CTOFREAD
WITH'.2OF*ANUARY
)NASSESSINGTHEQUANTUMAMOUNT OFTHEFINE THECOURTSHOULDNORMALLYBE
GUIDED BY THE ACCUSEDS MEANS )T GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHERE A COURT HAS
DECIDEDTOIMPOSEAFINEWITHTHEINTENTIONOFKEEPINGTHEACCUSEDOUTOFPRISON
ITWOULDSERVENOPURPOSETOIMPOSEAFINECOMPLETELYBEYONDHISORHERMEANS
CF.COBO 3!. /NTHEOTHERHAND ITHASFREQUENTLYBEENHELDTHAT
THEINDIGENCEOFTHEACCUSEDDOESNOTWARRANTSOMODERATEAFINETHATITDOESNOT
REFLECTTHEGRAVITYOFTHEOFFENCEINQUESTIONCF"HEMBE 3!#24
4HISAPPROACH ALTHOUGHWIDELYAPPLIED MAYINFUTUREHAVETOBERECONSIDERED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEFINEPUNISHESEVERYMANDIFFERENTLYACCORDINGTOHISORHERFINANCIALABILITY
4HESAMEFINEWILLPUNISHTHEPOORMUCHMOREHEAVILYTHANTHEMIDDLECLASS
WHOINTURNWILLBEMORESEVERELYAFFECTEDTHANTHERICH4HEQUESTIONIS THERE
FOREFROMTHEPOINTOFVIEWOFWHICHOFTHESECLASSESOFPEOPLEMUSTTHEFINESEEM
TOREFLECTTHEGRAVITYOFTHEOFFENCE4HEANSWERSHOULDBESIMPLYTHATTHECOURT
MUSTDETERMINEHOWHEAVILYTHEFINESHOULDPUNISHTHEOFFENDER ANDTHENDETER
MINETHEAMOUNTTHATWILLPUNISHTHATPARTICULAROFFENDERASHEAVILYASHEORSHE
DESERVES4HISPRINCIPLEHASLONGBEENACCEPTEDBYCOUNTRIESEMPLOYINGTHEDAY
FINESYSTEMSUCHAS'ERMANY 4HEONEEXCEPTIONISCRIMESCOMMITTEDFORILLEGAL
GAIN INWHICHCASETHEREALFINANCIALABILITYOFTHEACCUSEDISUSUALLYUNKNOWN
ANDTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHECRIMESUBSTANTIAL WHICHSHOULDTHENBEREFLECTEDBY
THEAMOUNTOFTHEFINE.TAKATSANE 3!#2.#
)N"ERSIN 3!2 THECOURTHELDTHATTHEAMOUNTOFTHEFINEMAYBE
SLIGHTLYINCREASEDTOMAKEPROVISIONFORAWEALTHYOFFENDER.ODIRECTRECENTAND
LOCALAUTHORITYISAVAILABLEONTHISPOINT BUTITMAYBEACCEPTEDTHATTHELEVELOF
THEFINEMAYBESETAPPRECIABLYHIGHERFORSUCHANOFFENDER WHOWOULDOTHERWISE
GOALMOSTSCOT FREE
4HEAPPROPRIATECOURSEOFACTIONIFTHEOFFENDERSIMPLYDOESNOTHAVETHEMEANS
TOPAYAFINEISANOTHERVEXEDQUESTION6ARIOUSDECISIONSHAVEMADEVARIOUSSUG
GESTIONS WHICHRANGEFROMTHEVIEWTHATITISANANOMALYTHATHASTOBEACCEPTED
CF ,EKGOALE 3! " TO THE VIEW THAT ANOTHER FORM OF PUNISHMENT
SHOULDTHENBEIMPOSEDCF.COBO 3!. 4HELATTERMETHODHASNOT
FOUNDGENERALACCEPTANCE!LSO INTHESEMINALJUDGMENTONTHETOPIC 6AN2OOYEN
3!#2! & THECOURTDECIDEDTHATITCANNOTBESTATEDCATEGORI
CALLYTHATAFINEWHICHISABOVETHEFINANCIALRESOURCESOFTHEOFFENDERMAYNEVER
BEIMPOSED7ITHTHEADDITIONOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONTOTHELISTOFAVAILABLE
SENTENCESTHISPROBLEMSHOULDBEPARTLYRELIEVED SIMPLYBECAUSEADDITIONALFORMS
OFPUNISHMENTAREAVAILABLE
'HWHUPLQLQJWKHPHDQVRIWKHRIIHQGHU
4HE COURT HAS TO MAKE PURPOSEFUL INQUIRIES TO DETERMINE THE MEANS OF THE AC
CUSEDCF3ITHOLE 3!! )FNECESSARY ITWILLREQUIRETHEACCUSEDTOSELL
ORPLEDGEHISORHERASSETSINORDERTOOBTAINTHENECESSARYFUNDSFORTHEFINE$E
"EER 3! / 4HE MEANS OF THE OFFENDER CONSISTS OF CASH SAVINGS
MONTHLYINCOMEANDOTHERPOSSESSIONS BUTINCOMEANDAVAILABLECASHAREOFTEN
REGARDEDASTHEMAINCRITERIA
)NTHEPASTITWASFREQUENTLYHELDTHAT BECAUSEITISTHEACCUSEDWHOISTOBE
PUNISHED ONLYTHEACCUSEDSABILITYTOPAYAFINEMUSTBECONSIDEREDANDNOTTHAT
OFHISORHERFAMILYANDFRIENDS2ECENTLY HOWEVER THEREISATENDENCYTOALLOW
FORASSISTANCETOBETAKENINTOCONSIDERATIONCF.XUMALO 3!#2/
'"HEMBE 3!#24 !
5HFRYHULQJWKHILQH
)FTHEACCUSEDCANPAYTHEFINEIMMEDIATELY THERECOVERYOFTHEFINEDOESNOT OF
COURSE PRESENTANYPROBLEM6ARIOUSMEASURESARE HOWEVER EMPLOYEDTORECOVER
THEFINEONCEITHASBEENIMPOSED

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
ԙ)MPRISONMENTINDEFAULTOFPAYMENT
!LTHOUGHITISNOTREQUIRED ALMOSTALLFINESAREIMPOSEDWITHANALTERNATIVEPERIOD
OFIMPRISONMENTALREADYADDEDTOTHESENTENCE4HISHASBECOMEGENERALLYKNOWN
ASALTERNATIVEIMPRISONMENTANDITSIMPOSITIONISAUTHORISEDBYS WHICHAP
PLIES EVEN IF THE PENALTY CLAUSE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION IMPRISONMENT 4HE
TOTALPERIODOFIMPRISONMENTIMPOSEDBYANYCOURT HOWEVER MAYNEVEREXCEEDTHE
LIMITSOFTHATCOURTSJURISDICTION)FTHECOURT FOREXAMPLE IMPOSESAPERIODOFDIRECT
IMPRISONMENTWHETHERSUSPENDEDORNOT INADDITIONTOAFINE ASWELLASALTERNATIVE
IMPRISONMENT THETOTALPERIODOFIMPRISONMENTMAYNOTEXCEEDTHEMAXIMUMPE
RIODTHATMAYBEIMPOSEDBYTHECOURTCF-OYAGE 3!!
4HERATIOBETWEENTHEFINEANDALTERNATIVEIMPRISONMENTSHOULDALWAYSBE@REA
SONABLECF4SATSINYANA 3!4 ALTHOUGHTHEEXACTMEANINGOFTHIS
REASONABLENESSISFARFROMCLEAR
!SWILLBEEXPLAINEDINPARABELOW ACOURTMAYORDERTHATTWOORMORETERMS
OFIMPRISONMENTSHOULDRUNCONCURRENTLY!LLSENTENCESOFFINESMUST HOWEVER
BECUMULATIVE)N3ITEBE!$ ITWASHELDTHATSINCEFINESCANNOTBEORDERED
TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TWO SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
SUCHFINESCANALSONOTBEORDEREDTORUNCONCURRENTLY BUTITHASSINCEBEENHELD
THATITISCOMPETENTTOORDERTWOORMORETERMSOFALTERNATIVEIMPRISONMENTTO
RUNTOGETHER,ALSING 3!#2. -NGADI 3!#24
7HATNORMALLYHAPPENSINPRACTICEISTHAT IFTHEOFFENDERCANNOTPAYHISORHER
FINEIMMEDIATELY HEORSHEISDETAINEDTOUNDERGOTHEALTERNATIVEIMPRISONMENT
UNLESSPAYMENTOFTHEFINEISDEFERRED
ԙ$EFERMENTOFPAYMENTOFTHEFINE
4HECOURTMAY INTERMSOFS DEFERPAYMENTOFTHEFINE ORORDERITSPAY
MENTININSTALMENTS BUTNOTFORLONGERTHANFIVEYEARSAFTERTHEIMPOSITIONOFTHE
SENTENCE)NCASESSUCHAS-OLALA 3!4 AND-ALULEKE 3!#2
4 COURTSWEREURGEDTOUSETHISDISCRETIONTOACCOMMODATEPEOPLEWITHOUT
THEFUNDSTOPAYTHEFINEIMMEDIATELY)NTHISWAYSUCHPEOPLEAREAFFORDEDTHE
OPPORTUNITYTOSTAYOUTOFPRISON
ԙ&URTHERRELIEFAFTERTHESTARTOFTHEPRISONTERM
7HEN AN OFFENDER HAS STARTED SERVING THE ALTERNATIVE IMPRISONMENT THE COURT
MAYATANYSTAGEBEFORETHETERMINATIONOFTHEIMPRISONMENTORDERTHERELEASEOF
THEPERSONCONVICTEDONCONDITIONTHATHEORSHEPAYTHERESTOFTHEFINEASDETER
MINEDBYTHECOURTS A
)NTERMSOFS THE#OMMISSIONERMAYRELEASEAPRISONERUNDERGOINGALTER
NATIVE IMPRISONMENT ON CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION AT ANY TIME UNLESS THE COURT
SPECIFICALLY WITHDRAWS THIS POWER AND UNLESS THE ALTERNATIVE IMPRISONMENT
EXCEEDSFIVEYEARS!LTERNATIVELY THE#OMMISSIONERMAYREFERTHEPRISONERBACK
TOTHECOURTFORRECONSIDERATIONOFTHESENTENCE
ԙ/THERMETHODSOFRECOVERY
3ECTIONS ANDPROVIDEFURTHERMETHODSTHROUGHWHICHFINESMAY
BERECOVERED INCLUDINGATTACHMENTANDSALEOFMOVEABLEANDEVENIMMOVABLE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PROPERTY DEDUCTIONSFROMSALARY ETC4HESEMEASURESAREHARDLYEVERUTILISEDSEE

$U4OITETALn$TOn
7RZKRPGRHVWKHILQHJR"
%XCEPT IN CASES WHERE STATUTORY AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR SUCH AN ORDER A COURT IS
NOT ENTITLED TO DIRECT THAT ANY PORTION OF THE FINE SHOULD GO TO THE COMPLAIN
ANTINTHECASEORTOANINFORMERORANYBODYELSE4HEFINEMUSTGOTOTHE3TATE
#OMPENSATIONTOTHEVICTIMISDISCUSSEDBELOWINPARA
HQHUDO
*
)N BYWAYOF!CTOF THELEGISLATUREINTRODUCEDANEWFORMOFSEN
TENCEINTOOURLAWOFSENTENCING NAMELYCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION4HENAMEIS
RATHERDESCRIPTIVEOFWHATITENTAILS NAMELYTHESUPERVISIONOFTHEOFFENDERWITH
THEVIEWOFCORRECTINGTHEWRONGDOERANDTHEWRONGDOING4HEENTHUSIASMWITH
WHICHITHASBEENRECEIVEDBYSOMEJUDGESISCLEARFROMTHEFOLLOWINGDICTUMIN
/MAR 3!#2#
;#ORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONIS=ANEXCELLENTACCEPTABLEALTERNATIVE HAVING
REGARDTOTHEPRESENT DAYEMPHASISONTHEREHABILITATIONANDREFORMATIONOF
OFFENDERS TODIRECTIMPRISONMENT
7KHQDWXUHRIFRUUHFWLRQDOVXSHUYLVLRQ
#ORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION IS DESCRIBED RATHER BLANDLY IN S OF THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTASA@COMMUNITY BASEDFORMOFPUNISHMENT4HISMEANSTHATITIS
PUNISHMENIS EXECUTED WITHIN THE COMMUNIY WHERE THE OFFENDER WOULD NOR
MALLYWORKANDLIVE4HETERM@CORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONISACOLLECTIVETERMFOR
DESCRIBINGTHEVARIOUSCONDITIONSWHICHMAYBEINCLUDEDINSUCHPUNISHMENT
SEE 2 3!#2 ! ( #ORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION IS ALSO DEFINED IN
THE#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOFASA@FORMOFCOMMUNITYCORRECTIONS
CONTEMPLATEDIN#HAPTER6)OFTHE!CT
4HE STANDARD MEASURES OF CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION WOULD NORMALLY INCLUDE
HOUSEARREST MONITORINGANDCOMMUNITYSERVICE4HESETHREEMEASURESFORMTHE
MAINPENALCOMPONENTSOFTHEPUNISHMENTANDSHOULD ACCORDINGTO/MAR
3!#2# NORMALLYFORMPARTOFTHESENTENCE UNLESSTHEREAREEXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCESFORNOTINCLUDINGANYOFTHEM6ARIOUSOTHERCONDITIONSAIMEDAT
THEEDUCATIONANDREHABILITATIONOFTHEOFFENDERANDATCORRECTINGTHEWRONGDO
ING SUCHASCOMPENSATIONOFTHEVICTIM SUPERVISIONBYAPROBATIONOFFICERAND
THEPRESENTATIONOFVARIOUSLIFESKILLCOURSES MAYALSOFORMPARTOFTHESENTENCE
SOF!CTOF4HECONTENTOFTHEMAINPENALMEASURESREQUIRESSOME
ILLUMINATION
(OUSEARRESTCANBEEQUATEDTOCONFINEMENTATHOMEITREQUIRESOFTHEPRO
BATIONERTOSTAYATHOME%XCEPTIONSWOULDNORMALLYBEMADETOALLOWTHE
PROBATIONERATLEASTTOGOTOWORK TODOSOMESHOPPINGANDTOATTENDRELI
GIOUSGATHERINGS

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
#OMMUNITY SERVICE IS SERVICE RENDERED IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY
WITHOUTRECEIVINGANYREMUNERATION)TMAYCONSISTOFTHECLEANINGOFPARKS
ORPAVEMENTS ORWORKINGINAHOSPITALORANYPUBLICINSTITUTION&ORTHEPUR
POSESOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION HOURSCOMMUNITYSERVICEWOULDTYPI
CALLYBEREQUIREDEVERYMONTH
-ONITORING SIMPLY ENTAILS THAT SOME STATE OFFICIAL WILL CHECK WHETHER THE
PROBATIONERACTUALLYCOMPLIESWITHTHECONDITIONOFTHESENTENCE!NYSTEP
WHICHISMAINLYAIMEDATTHISENDWOULDAMOUNTTOMONITORING
3ECTION G THE #ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES !CT IS IMPORTANT IN THAT IT CONTAINS
THE FIRST DIRECT LEGISLATIVE CONNECTION BETWEEN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRACTICES AND
SENTENCING)TREFERSSPECIFICALLYTO@MEDIATIONBETWEENVICTIMANDOFFENDERAND
@FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCING -EDIATION BRINGS TOGETHER THE VICTIM AND THE OF
FENDERFORADIALOGUE INAPROCESSTHATISFACILITATEDBYANEUTRALPERSON4HERETHE
PARTIESWILLTALKABOUTHOWTHEINCIDHASAFFECTEDTHEMANDCOMETOANAGREEMENT
ABOUTHOWTORESTORETHEHARMCAUSEDBYTHECRIME WHICHWILLUSUALLYBEREDUCED
TO A WRITTEN PLAN3KELTON 4HE )NFLUENCE OF THE 4HEORY AND 0RACTICE OF 2ESTORATIVE
*USTICEIN3OUTH!FRICA
!FAMILYGROUPCONFERENCEHASBEENDEFINEDASA@GATHERINGOFPEOPLECONVENED
BYAPROBATIONOFFICERORSOCIALWORKERASCONDITIONOFACOMMUNITYPENALTYIN
ORDER TO OBTAIN A RESTORATIVE RESPONSE TO THE OFFENDER AND THE OFFENCE3OUTH
!FRICAN,AW#OMMISSION2EPORT3ENTENCING!NEWSENTENCINGFRAMEWORK CL
7KHYDULRXVIRUPVRIFRUUHFWLRQDOVXSHUYLVLRQ
!SENTENCINGCOURTHASVARIOUSOPTIONSINIMPOSINGCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
)TCANBEIMPOSEDASASENTENCEBYITSELF JUSTASAFINEORIMPRISONMENTCAN
BEIMPOSEDS H OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT4HISMAYNOTBEDONE
WITHOUTAREPORTBYAPROBATIONORCORRECTIONALOFFICERANDITMAYNOTEXCEED
THREEYEARSS! 4HISWOULDBETHESTANDARDFORMOFCORRECTIONALSU
PERVISION
)TCANBEIMPOSEDASACONDITIONTOASUSPENDEDSENTENCEORTOPOSTPONEMENT
OFSENTENCINGSEEBELOWPARA 4HISOPTIONWOULDNORMALLYONLYBEUSED
IFTHECOURTFINDSTHATAPARTICULARNEEDFORTHEINDIVIDUALDETERRENCEOFTHE
ACCUSEDEXISTS4ERBLANCHE 3!#*!LLTHEOTHERREQUIREMENTSOF
POSTPONEDORSUSPENDEDSENTENCESALSOAPPLYHERE INCLUDINGTHEFACTTHATTHE
PERIODOFPOSTPONEMENTORSUSPENSIONISLIMITEDINDURATIONTOFIVEYEARS
)MPRISONMENT MAY BE LINKED TO CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION IN THE SENSE DIS
CUSSEDINPARAABOVE
7HEN THE #OMMISSIONER OF #ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES IS OF THE OPINION THAT A
PRISONERISASUITABLECANDIDATEFORCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONCF,EEB
3!#24 HEORSHEMAYAPPLYTOTHECOURTWHICHINITIALLYIMPOSEDTHE
IMPRISONMENT TORECONSIDERTHATSENTENCEAND AMONGSTOTHERSENTENCES TO
CONSIDERIMPOSINGCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONINLIEUOFTHEREMAININGTERMOF
IMPRISONMENTS!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
KHSHQDOYDOXHRIFRUUHFWLRQDOVXSHUYLVLRQ
7
/NEOFTHEMANYIMPORTANTPOINTSRAISEDIN2ABOVEBY+RIEGLER!*!ISTHATCORREC
TIONALSUPERVISIONISNOTA@SOFTOPTION"ECAUSEOFITSVARIOUSCOMPONENTS WHICH
INCLUDE RESTRAINTS ON THE FREEDOM OF THE OFFENDER IT HAS A HIGH PENAL CONTENT
4HISHASTHEEFFECTTHATPUNISHMENTFORSERIOUSCRIMESNEEDNOTBECONFINEDTO
IMPRISONMENTANYMORECFALSO+OTZE 3!#2/ )TSPENALEFFECTCAN
BELESSENEDBYREDUCINGTHESTRICTNESSOFTHECONDITIONS ANDTHEOPPOSITEMAYBE
ACHIEVEDBYINCREASINGTHISSTRICTNESS FORINSTANCEBYINCREASINGTHEDURATIONOF
COMMUNITYSERVICEWHICHSHOULDBEPERFORMEDANDBYREDUCINGTHETIMEWHICH
THEPROBATIONERISALLOWEDOUTSIDEHISORHERHOUSEEVERYWEEK
"ECAUSEOFITSHIGHPENALCONTENT CORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONWILLNORMALLYNOT
BEIMPOSEDIFAFINEORSUSPENDEDSENTENCEOROTHERLIGHTERFORMOFSENTENCEIS
SUFFICIENTPUNISHMENTFORTHECRIME&ORTHESAMEREASONITISNOTSURPRISINGTHAT
ITHASALREADYBEENIMPOSEDFORCRIMESWHICHARENORMALLYREGARDEDASVERYSERI
OUS SUCHASMURDER0OTGIETER 3!#2! ,ARSEN 3!#2!
SEXUALMOLESTINGOFCHILDREN2ABOVE MAJORTHEFT3IBUYI 3!#2!
ANDDRUNKENDRIVING#ROUKAMP 3!#24
!WORDOFWARNINGWAS HOWEVER SOUNDEDIN)NGRAM 3!#2! &
!SCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONUNDERS H CANONLYBEIMPOSEDFORAPERIODNOT
EXCEEDINGTHREEYEARS ITISNOTASENTENCETHATREADILYLENDSITSELFTOTHEVERYSERIOUSCAT
EGORYOFCRIMESWHICHWOULDNORMALLYCALLFORHIGHERSENTENCES ANDSHOULDTHEREFORE
NOTBETOOLIGHTLYIMPOSEDINSUCHCASES
4HIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A DISTINCT MOVE AWAY FROM CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION AND
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALOFTENREFUSEDTOIMPOSEITEVENFORCRIMESWHICH
WOULD IN THE PAST NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE TOO SERIOUS )T WAS REGULARLY
EMPHASISEDTHATCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONSHOULDBEIMPOSEDWITHCARE SOTHATITS
@COINAGEISNOTDEBASEDCF-ARITZ 3!#2! #.OWANDTHENA
JUDGMENTISREPORTEDINDICATINGTHATTHEPENDULUMMIGHTBESWINGINGBACKSLOW
LYAGAIN ESPECIALLYINVIEWOFTHECURRENTSEVEREOVERCROWDINGOFTHEPRISONSCF
$OUGHERTY 3!#27 6UMA 3!#27 4HECOURTIN-
#ENTREFOR#HILD,AWAS!MICUS#URIAE 3!#2## TOOKAPARTICULARLY
POSITIVEVIEWOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
)DFWRUVLQIOXHQFLQJWKHLPSRVLWLRQRIFRUUHFWLRQDOVXSHUYLVLRQ
#ORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION MAY BE IMPOSED FOR ANY OFFENCE INCLUDING ANY STAT
UTORY OFFENCE APART FROM THE OFFENCES MENTIONED IN THE MINIMUM SENTENCES
LEGISLATIONS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT6AN$YK 3!#2
3#! 4HEPREVIOUSPOSITION ASDETERMINEDIN3TRYDOM 3!#27
THATCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONCANNOTBEIMPOSEDIFTHEPENALTYCLAUSEOFASTATU
TORYOFFENCEPROVIDESFORIMPRISONMENTONLY NOLONGERAPPLIES
/NCEITHASBEENESTABLISHEDTHATTHEPARTICULARCRIMEISNOTTOOSERIOUSTOBE
PUNISHEDBYCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONSEEABOVEPARA ITISNOTSOMUCH
THENATUREOFTHECRIMEASTHEKINDOFPERSONWHOHASCOMMITTEDITWHICHWILL
DETERMINEWHETHERCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONSHOULDBEIMPOSEDSEE+RUGELAND
4ERBLANCHE0RAKTIESE6ONNISOPLEGGING )N/MAR 3!#2# IT

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
WASFOUNDTHATTHEKINDOFOFFENDERFORWHOMCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONMAYBE
SUITABLEMAY
VARYFROMTHEFIRSTOFFENDERWITHNOINBORNCRIMINALTENDENCIESWHOHASSTRAYEDINTO
CRIMINALACTIVITIES TOTHEOFFENDERWITHCRIMINALLEANINGSWHOMAYHAVEOFFENDEDON
MORETHANONEOCCASIONBUTBYREASONOFHISEMPLOYMENT DOMESTICANDOTHERCIRCUM
STANCESISLIKELYTOBEASUITABLECANDIDATEFORCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
+RIEGLER!*!DECIDEDIN2 3!#2! HTHATTHELEGISLATUREDISTIN

GUISHESBETWEENTWOKINDSOFOFFENDERS NAMELYTHOSEWHOSHOULDBEREMOVED
FROMTHECOMMUNITYTHROUGHIMPRISONMENT ANDTHOSEWHODESERVEPUNISHMENT
BUT NEED NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE COMMUNITY4HISISANIMPORTANTCONSIDER
ATIONWHENCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONISCONSIDERED
!NOTHERFACTORWHICHHASBEENSTRESSEDBYOURCOURTSISTHEREHABILITATIVEVALUE
OF CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION 7HEREAS IT UNDOUBTEDLY HAS A GREATER POTENTIAL FOR
ACHIEVING THE REHABILITATION OF THE OFFENDER THAN FOR EXAMPLE IMPRISONMENT
HAS ONES EXPECTATIONS IN THIS REGARD SHOULD NOT BE TOO HIGH CF 4ERBLANCHE !
'UIDETO3ENTENCINGIN3OUTH!FRICA n/THERWISEONEMIGHTWELLFIND
THATWHENFORMERPROBATIONERSBEGINTOREAPPEARINTHECOURTSWITHSENTENCESOF
CORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONONTHEIRLISTOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS SENTENCINGCOURTS
WILLSTOPIMPOSINGTHISSENTENCE CONVINCEDTHATCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION@DOES
NOTWORK
7HEN A COURT HAS DECIDED TO IMPOSE CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION IT MUST DETER
MINETHECOMPOSITIONOFTHESENTENCE4HECONDITIONSOFTHESENTENCEMAYNOT
BE LEFT TOTHE DISCRETION OF THE $EPARTMENTOF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES4HECOURT
SHOULDCONSEQUENTLYPRESCRIBEWHICHOFTHECONDITIONSTHATMAYBEINCLUDEDIN
ASENTENCEOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONSEEPARAABOVE SHOULDAPPLYINA
SPECIFICCASE.DABA 3!#2!
#ORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONMAYALSOBEIMPOSEDINCONJUNCTIONWITHANYOTHER
FORMOFPUNISHMENT
7KHH[HFXWLRQRIFRUUHFWLRQDOVXSHUYLVLRQ
#ORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION IS EXECUTED BY THE PERSONNEL OF THE $EPARTMENT OF
#ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF #HAPTER 6) OF THE
#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES!CTOF
3ECTION! OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFORTHESITUA
TIONWHERETHEPROBATIONERPROVESNOTTOBEASUITABLECANDIDATEFORCORRECTIONAL
SUPERVISION )N SUCH A CASE THE #OMMISSIONER OR SOMEONE DELEGATED BY THE
#OMMISSIONER3EBIYA 3!#2/ ORAPROBATIONOFFICERSHOULDPRO
VIDE THE COURT WITH A MOTIVATED RECOMMENDATION WHY THE PROBATIONER IS NOT
SUITABLE TO BE SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION )F THE COURT FINDS THE PROBA
TIONERTOBEUNFIT ITMAYIMPOSEANYOTHERPROPERSENTENCE LIMITEDONLYTOITS
JURISDICTIONALLIMITS
#OMMITTALTOATREATMENTCENTRE
)NTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTANOFFENDERMAYBECOMMITTEDTO
ATREATMENTCENTREINADDITIONTOORINSTEADOFANYOTHERSENTENCE4HETREATMENT
CENTRESAREESTABLISHEDANDGOVERNEDINTERMSOFTHE0REVENTIONOFAND4REATMENT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
FOR 3UBSTANCE !BUSE !CT OF WHICH CAME INTO OPERATION ON -ARCH
3ECTIONOFTHIS!CTCONTAINSAPROVISIONSIMILARTOSOFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE !CT AND IT PROVIDES THAT THE ACCUSED HAS TO BE SOMEONE REFERRED TO
INS 4HISWOULDBEAPERSONWHO FOREXAMPLE ISDEPENDENTONALCOHOLIN
CONSEQUENCEWHEREOFHISORHEROWNWELFAREORTHEWELFAREOFHISORHERFAMILYIS
HARMED3ECTION C EXPRESSLYINCLUDESAPERSONWHOCOMMITSCRIMEINORDER
TOSUPPORTHISORHERDRUGDEPENDENCY)NINVESTIGATINGWHETHERTHEACCUSEDIS
SUCHAPERSON THECOURTMUSTOBTAINAPROBATIONOFFICERSREPORT$ETENTIONIN
ATREATMENTCENTREISFORANINDEFINITEPERIOD BUTIFTHEOFFENDERISNOTRELEASED
WITHINMONTHSTHE3UPERINTENDENTOFTHECENTREISREQUIREDTOREPORTTHEMAT
TERTOTHE$IRECTOR 'ENERALOF3OCIAL$EVELOPMENT
)TSHOULDBENOTEDTHATSREFERSTOTHE0REVENTIONAND4REATMENTOF$RUG
$EPENDENCY !CT OF WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS (OWEVER AS EXPLAINED IN
4ERBLANCHE ! 'UIDE TO 3ENTENCING IN 3OUTH !FRICA n THIS DOES NOT
AFFECTTHEEXISTENCEORNATUREOFTHISSENTENCE
*UVENILEOFFENDERS
,QWURGXFWLRQ
4HE3!,AW#OMMISSIONCOMPLETEDITSINVESTIGATIONINTOACOMPLETELYSEPARATE
JUVENILEJUSTICESYSTEMIN)TS2EPORT*UVENILE*USTICECONTAINSRECOMMENDA
TIONSINTERMSOFWHICHALLCHILDOFFENDERSPERSONSUNDERTHEAGEOFWHENTHEY
COMMITTHEOFFENCE WILLHAVETOBEDEALTWITH4HESERECOMMENDATIONSHAVETO
ALARGEEXTENTBEENACCEPTEDANDCONTAINEDINTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF
INTHISPARTREFERREDTOAS@THE!CT WHICHCAMEINTOOPERATIONON!PRIL
HQHUDOVHQWHQFLQJSULQFLSOHV
*
%VENUNDERTHECOMMONLAW ITWASACCEPTEDTHATYOUNGOFFENDERSSHOULDNOTBE
PUNISHEDASHARSHLYASADULTOFFENDERSCF-OHLOBANE 3!!
4ODAY ESPECIALLYINTHECASEOFCHILDRENIEPEOPLEUNDERYEARSOLD THISHAS
BECOMEACONSTITUTIONALISSUE#HILDRENAREAFFORDEDVARIOUSRIGHTSINSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTION)NPARTICULAR THEYSHOULDNOTBEDETAINEDEXCEPT@ASAMEASUREOF
LASTRESORT ANDTHENFORTHESHORTESTPOSSIBLETIME4HECHILDSBESTINTERESTSARE
ALWAYSOFPARAMOUNTIMPORTANCECF INGENERAL .KOSI 3!#27
6HQWHQFHVLQWURGXFHGE\WKH$FW
ԙ)NTRODUCTION
$IVERSIONFROMTHECRIMINALPROCESSISACENTRALFEATUREOFTHENEWSYSTEM4HIS
MEANS THAT THE CHILD OFFENDER IS NOT PROSECUTED IN THE CRIMINAL COURT BUT IS
SUBJECTEDTOANYNUMBEROFCONDITIONSOFDIVERSION4HESECONDITIONSAREAIMED
ATEMPHASISINGRESTORATIVEJUSTICEANDOTHERCOMMUNITY BASEDMEASURES)FTHESE
CONDITIONSARESUCCESSFULLYCOMPLIEDWITH THEMATTERISCONSIDEREDFINALISED4HE
CHILDOFFENDERWILLALSONOTHAVEACRIMINALRECORD
3ENTENCINGTAKESPLACEONLYWHENTHEPROSECUTIONDETERMINESTHATACRIMINAL
TRIAL IS REQUIRED FOR SOME APPROPRIATE REASON THESE REASONS ARE NOT OF CURRENT
IMPORTANCE 4HETRIALANDSENTENCINGTAKEPLACEINACHILDJUSTICECOURT

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
4HE!CTCONTAINSEXTENSIVEPROVISIONSONTHESENTENCINGOFCHILDREN)TINCLUDES
BOTHGENERALPRINCIPLESANDSPECIFICPROVISIONSONSPECIFICSENTENCES&OREXAMPLE
THEREISAWEALTHOFDETAILONTHECRIMESFORWHICHIMPRISONMENTANDRESIDENCE
IN A CHILD CARE CENTRE MAY BE IMPOSED 4HE SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT FINES
ANDCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION ASWELLASMEASURESSUCHASSUSPENSIONOFSENTENCE
ANDTHEPOSTPONEMENTOFSENTENCING ARERETAINEDFORCHILDOFFENDERS(OWEVER
SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND PRINCIPLES ARE SET FOR JUST ABOUT EVERY KIND OF SENTENCE
3EVERALNEWPOSSIBILITIESARECREATEDANDTHEYAREOFTENPROVIDEDFORUNDERSOME
COLLECTIVETERM SUCHASCOMMUNITY BASEDSENTENCES RESTORATIVEJUSTICESENTENCES
ANDCOMPULSORYRESIDENCEINACARECENTRE3PACEDOESNOTPERMITOFADISCUSSION
OFALLTHEDETAILS
ԙ'ENERALPRINCIPLES
3ECTIONREQUIRESACHILDJUSTICECOURTTOIMPOSESENTENCEINACCORDANCEWITH
#HAPTEROFTHE!CT)NADDITION SCONTAINSPRINCIPLESTHATHAVETOBECOM
PLIEDWITHINTHEPROCESSOFESTABLISHINGANAPPROPRIATESENTENCE&OREXAMPLE
THEOBJECTIVESOFTHE!CTMUSTBEKEPTINMIND3ENTENCINGOFCHILDOFFENDERSHAS
THEFOLLOWINGOBJECTIVES
A ENCOURAGINGTHECHILDTOUNDERSTANDTHEIMPLICATIONSOFTHECRIMEANDTOAC
CEPTRESPONSIBILITYFORTHEHARM
B FINDINGABALANCE WITHINTHEFACTSOFTHESPECIFICCASE BETWEENTHEINTERESTS
OFTHECHILDANDSOCIETYANDTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHECRIME
C PROMOTINGTHEREINTEGRATIONOFTHECHILDINTOTHEFAMILYANDCOMMUNITYAND
ENSURING THAT THE CHILD RECEIVES THE REQUIRED GUIDANCE AND SUPERVISION TO
THISEND
D AVOIDINGIMPRISONMENTASFARASPOSSIBLE
ԙ)MPRISONMENT
3ECTION CONTAINS SEVERAL UNIQUE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO CHILD OFFENDERS &OR
EXAMPLE IMPRISONMENTCANNOTBEIMPOSEDONANOFFENDERUNDERTHEAGEOF
YEARSATTHETIMEOFSENTENCINGS A INSOMEINSTANCESACHILDMAYONLY
BEIMPRISONEDIFHEORSHEHASACRIMINALRECORDANDTHEREARESUBSTANTIALAND
COMPELLINGCIRCUMSTANCESREQUIRINGTHEIMPOSITIONOFIMPRISONMENTS !
CHILDMAYALSONOTBESENTENCEDTOMORETHANYEARSIMPRISONMENTS
)N ADDITION TO THE LIMITATIONS IN S S CONTAINS A NUMBER OF GUIDE
LINESTHATHAVETOBEFOLLOWEDINDETERMININGWHETHERIMPRISONMENTSHOULDBE
IMPOSED&OREXAMPLE THECOURTHASTOATTENDVERYSPECIFICALLYTOTHESERIOUSNESS
OFTHECRIME THEPROTECTIONOFSOCIETY ANDTHEIMPACTOFTHECRIMEONTHEVIC
TIM&ORTHEFIRSTTIMEIN3OUTH!FRICANLEGISLATION THESERIOUSNESSOFTHECRIME
ISDIRECTLYLINKEDTOTHEHARMCAUSEDORRISKEDBYTHEOFFENCE ANDTHEOFFENDERS
BLAMEWORTHINESSFORSUCHHARMTHISISINLINEWITHTHE,AW#OMMISSIONSREC
OMMENDATIONSONSENTENCINGINGENERALCFPARAABOVE
3ECTION CONTAINSANINTERESTINGNEWPROVISIONALLOWINGFORIMPRISONMENT
TOFOLLOWCOMPULSORYRESIDENCEINACARECENTRE"EFORESUCHACHILDMAYBETRANS
FERREDTOAPRISON THEHEADOFTHECARECENTREHASTOREPORTTOTHECOURTONTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CHILDSPROGRESSDURINGRESIDENCEINTHECENTRE4HECOURTMAYTHENRECONSIDERTHE
ORIGINALSENTENCE
ԙ#OMPULSORYRESIDENCEINACARECENTRE
!MONGOTHERTHINGS SPROVIDESTHATSUCHRESIDENCEISLIMITEDINDURATIONTOFIVE
YEARS ORTOTHEDATEWHENTHECHILDOFFENDERREACHESTHEAGEOFYEARS4HECENTRE
INVOLVEDISA@CHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTREASDEFINEDINTHE#HILDRENS!CTOF
4HECOURTMUSTSPECIFYTHECENTREINWHICHTHECHILDISTORESIDE INACCORDANCEWITH
THERECOMMENDATIONSINTHEPROBATIONOFFICERSREPORT)TCANBEASSUMEDTHATTHESE
CENTRESWILLLARGELYREPLACETHEDISCREDITEDREFORMATORIESOFTHEPAST
!DDITIONALCONSIDERATIONSTHATHAVETOBETAKENINTOACCOUNTINIMPOSINGTHIS
SENTENCEARESETOUTINS 4HESEINCLUDETHATIFTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHEOFFENCE
SHOULDINDICATETHATTHECHILDHASATENDENCYTOWARDSHARMFULCONDUCT ITHASTO
BE ESTABLISHED WHETHER THE OFFENCE CAUSED SUCH HARM THAT A RESIDENTIAL SENTENCE
ISAPPROPRIATEANDTHATTHECHILDHASANEEDFORTHEKINDOFSERVICESOFFEREDATTHE
CENTRE
ԙ#ORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
)NTERMSOFSANYCHILDMAYBESENTENCEDTOCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
ԙ&INES
3ECTION AUTHORISESACHILDJUSTICECOURTTOIMPOSEAFINE BUTITEMPHASISES
THATTHISSHOULDONLYTAKEPLACEFOLLOWINGAPROPERINVESTIGATIONINTOTHEMEANSOF
THEOFFENDER PARENTORGUARDIANTOPAYTHEFINE4HECOURTSHOULDENSURETHATTHE
CHILDISNOTIMPRISONEDSIMPLYFORBEINGUNABLETOAFFORDTHEFINE3UBSECTION
PROVIDESFORANUMBEROFALTERNATIVESTOTHEFINE SUCHASPAYMENTOFANAMOUNT
OFMONEYASAFORMOFSYMBOLICRESTITUTION ORDELIVERINGASERVICEINSTEADOFA
FINE4HESEALTERNATIVESAREAIMEDATACHIEVINGTHEGENERALPRINCIPLETHATTHECHILD
OFFENDERSHOULDASSUMERESPONSIBILITYFORTHECOMMITTEDCRIME
ԙ2ESTORATIVEJUSTICE
!S MENTIONED ABOVE THE !CT EMPHASISES DIVERSION OF CHILD OFFENDERS )N THIS
PROCESSTHEPRINCIPLESOFRESTORATIVEJUSTICEAREOFPARTICULARIMPORTANCE3PECIFIC
PROVISIONISMADEINSFORMEASURESRELATEDTORESTORATIVEJUSTICETOBEIMPOSED
ASSENTENCES3PECIFICREFERENCEISMADETOFAMILYGROUPCONFERENCESANDVICTIM
OFFENDERMEDIATION INWHICHCASETHEPROCESSESPRESCRIBEDFORDIVERSIONHAVETO
BEFOLLOWED!NYPROCEDURETHATWOULDFITINWITHTHEDEFINITIONOF@RESTORATIVE
JUSTICECOULDALSOBEIMPOSEDASASENTENCEBYTHECOURT
ԙ#OMMUNITY BASEDSENTENCE
!CCORDINGTOSACOMMUNITY BASEDSENTENCEISASENTENCEWHICHALLOWSACHILD
TOREMAININTHECOMMUNITY!NYOFTHEDIVERSIONOPTIONSPROVIDEDFORINSOF
THE!CT ANDANYCOMBINATIONTHEREOF COULDBEINCLUDEDWITHSUCHASENTENCE
INCLUDING CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION ! PROBATION OFFICER SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO
OVERSEECOMPLIANCEWITHSUCHASENTENCES A

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
ԙ3USPENSIONOFSENTENCEANDPOSTPONEMENTOFSENTENCING
)NTERMSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTBASICALLYAPPLYINTHECASEOFCHILDOFFENDERS!FEWCONDITIONSTHAT
ARENOTAVAILABLEINTHECASEOFADULTOFFENDERSAREALSOPROVIDEDFOR
#AUTIONANDDISCHARGE
3UBJECTTOTHESAMEEXCEPTIONSASAREDISCUSSEDBELOWINPARA ACOURTMAY
DISCHARGEANYOFFENDERWITHAMERECAUTIONS C OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT4HISISTHELIGHTESTSENTENCEWHICHTHELAWPERMITSCF-AGIDSON 3!
4 !LTHOUGHTHEDISCHARGEHASTHEEFFECTOFANACQUITTAL THECONVICTIONIS
STILLRECORDEDANDCOUNTSASAPREVIOUSCONVICTION
3530%.$%$!.$0/340/.%$3%.4%.#%3
'ENERAL
3ENTENCES ARE FREQUENTLY SUSPENDED WHICH MEANS THEY ARE IMPOSED IN FULL BUT
SUBJECTTOCERTAINCONDITIONS NOTEXECUTED!SENTENCETHATISWHOLLYSUSPENDED
ISNOTEXECUTEDUNLESSTHECONDITIONSFORITSSUSPENSIONHAVEBEENBROKENBYTHE
OFFENDER3ENTENCESCANALSOBEPARTLYSUSPENDED)NSUCHCASESTHEUNSUSPENDED
PARTISEXECUTED BUTTHESUSPENDEDPARTNOT UNLESSTHECONDITIONSAREBREACHED
#OURTS ARE GENERALLY ALSO EMPOWERED TO POSTPONE THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
4HIS MAY BE DONE CONDITIONALLY OR WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS )N SUCH A CASE THE
OFFENDERISRELEASEDWITHOUTASENTENCE BUTMAYBEORDEREDTOAPPEARBEFORETHE
COURTATSOMELATERDATE
4HEWHOLESTATUTORYFRAMEWORKFORTHESEFORMSOFPUNISHMENTISCONTAINEDIN
SOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT WHICHISCRITICISEDBY(IEMSTRAFORTHE
MASSOFWORDSTHEREADERHASTOWADETHROUGHBEFOREGETTINGTOTHEMAINPURPOSE
OFTHEPARTICULARPROVISION
%XCLUSIONARYPROVISIONS
!NYCOURTMAY ACCORDINGTOS POSTPONESENTENCINGORSUSPENDANYSENTENCE
FORANYOFFENCEEXCEPTANOFFENCEFORWHICHAMINIMUMPENALTYISPRESCRIBEDSEE
WITHRESPECTTOMINIMUMSENTENCES PARAABOVE )NTHESECASESTHESENTENCES
MAYONLYBEPARTLYSUSPENDEDS
0
OSTPONEMENTOFPASSINGOFSENTENCE
4HECOURTMAYPOSTPONETHEPASSINGOFSENTENCEFORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGFIVE
YEARS AND RELEASE THE OFFENDER UNCONDITIONALLY OR ON ONE OR MORE CONDITIONS
WHICHAREDISCUSSEDINPARABELOW 4HEOFFENDERMAYTHENBEORDEREDTO
APPEARBEFORETHECOURTIFCALLEDUPONBEFORETHEEXPIRYOFTHERELEVANTPERIOD)F
THEOFFENDERISNOTCALLEDTOAPPEARBEFORETHECOURT ORIFTHECOURTFINDSTHATTHE
CONDITIONSHAVEBEENMET NOSENTENCEISIMPOSEDANDFORRECORDPURPOSESTHE
RESULTOFTHETRIALISACAUTION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3
USPENSIONOFSENTENCE
!LL IMPOSED SENTENCES MAY BE SUSPENDED ALTHOUGH IT IS MOSTLY DONE WITH IM
PRISONMENTANDFINES4HESUSPENSIONOFMOSTOTHERFORMSOFSENTENCEWILLRARELY
MAKEMUCHSENSE
3USPENDEDSENTENCESHAVETWOMAINFUNCTIONS
TOSERVEASALTERNATIVETOIMPRISONMENTINSITUATIONSWHERETHEOFFENDERCAN
NOTAFFORDAFINEANDWHEREOTHERFORMSOFPUNISHMENTAREIMPROPER MAINLY
BECAUSETHEOFFENCEWASNOTPARTICULARLYSERIOUSAND
TOSERVEASINDIVIDUALDETERRENTTOTHEOFFENDERASITHANGSLIKEASWORDOVER
HISORHERHEADCF!LLART 3!4
4HEMAXIMUMTERMFORWHICHASENTENCEMAYBESUSPENDEDISFIVEYEARS)NTHE
&REE 3TATE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE REQUIRED BEFORE THE MAXIMUM OF FIVE
YEARSISEMPLOYEDCF.ABOTE 3!/ BUTTHISISNOTREQUIREDINTHE
OTHERDIVISIONSCF#OBOTHI 3!. 6AN2ENSBURG 3!4
4HE&REE3TATEPOINTOFVIEWGIVESTHEIMPRESSIONTHATITISUNREASONABLETOEXPECT
OFPEOPLENOTTOCOMMITCRIME AVIEWTHATCANNOTBESUPPORTED
7HEREPARTOFASENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTHASBEENSUSPENDED THEPERIODOF
SUSPENSIONRUNSFROMTHEDATEONWHICHTHEPERSONISRELEASEDFROMPRISONAFTER
SERVING THE UNSUSPENDED PORTION AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF IMPOSITION OF THE
SENTENCE%XPARTE-INISTEROF*USTICE)NRE$UZE!$4HERESULTISTHATTHE
PRISONERISNOTUNDERTHREATOFTHESUSPENDEDPORTIONOFTHESENTENCE ASITUATION
WHICHHASONOCCASIONBEENCRITICISED-BOMBO 3!$
! SUSPENDED SENTENCE IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO ITS CONDITIONS OF SUSPENSION
7ITHOUTCONDITIONSITWOULDNOTBEALEGALLYENFORCEABLEFORMOFSENTENCING
4HECONDITIONS
7HEN CONSIDERING THE CONDITIONS OF SUSPENSION IT IS USEFUL TO DISTINGUISH BE
TWEEN NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE CONDITIONS EVEN THOUGH OUR COURTS DO NOT USE THIS
DISTINCTION BUT SEE (IEMSTRA .EGATIVE CONDITIONS ARE THE MOST COMMON
CONDITIONSANDREQUIREOFTHEOFFENDERNOTTOREPEATTHECRIMESSPECIFIED0OSITIVE
CONDITIONSREQUIREPOSITIVEACTIONBYTHEOFFENDERINORDERTOFULFILTHECONDITIONS
OFSUSPENSION7HENPOSITIVECONDITIONSAREIMPOSED THEYAREUSUALLYCOMBINED
WITHANEGATIVECONDITION
!NYCONDITIONOFSUSPENSIONHASTOCONFORMTOTHREEBASICREQUIREMENTS
)TMUSTBERELATEDTOTHECOMMITTEDOFFENCE4HISRELATIONSHIPMUSTBECLEARCF
4SHAKI 3! / 4HIS REQUIREMENT IS AIMED MAINLY AT NEGATIVE
CONDITIONS SOTHATASENTENCEFORASSAULTIS FOREXAMPLE ONLYSUSPENDEDON
CONDITIONTHATSIMILAROFFENCESARENOTREPEATED)TMAYNOTALWAYSBEPOS
SIBLETOLINKAPOSITIVECONDITIONTOTHEKINDOFOFFENCE ASWOULDBETHECASE
IFCOMMUNITYSERVICEWEREIMPOSEDFORATHEFT
)T MUST BE STATED CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY SO THAT THE OFFENDER WILL KNOW
EXACTLYWHATISEXPECTEDOFHIMORHERCF8HABA 3!4 )TIS
UNDOUBTEDLYMORECLEARTOSPECIFYTHECRIMESWHICHANACCUSEDSHOULDNOT
REPEATRATHERTHANTOUSEPHRASESSUCHAS@CRIMESOFWHICHFORCEISANELEMENT

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
OR@CRIMESOFWHICHDISHONESTYISANELEMENTCF-JWARE 3!#2
. AND'OEIEMAN 3!#2.#
4HECONDITIONSMUSTBEREASONABLECF'AIKA 3!# 4HEYSHOULD
NOTBEWORDEDINSUCHAWAYTHATAPETTYOFFENCEMAYTRIGGERASEVERESUS
PENDEDSENTENCE)NSEVERALREPORTEDCASESTHEACCUSEDWASCONVICTEDOFDEAL
INGINDAGGAANDSENTENCEDTOAPARTLY SUSPENDEDTERMOFIMPRISONMENTON
CONDITIONTHATINTERALIA THEACCUSEDWASNOTFOUNDGUILTYOFTHEPOSSESSION
OFDAGGA/NECANHARDLYARGUETHATTHESETWOOFFENCESARENOTSUFFICIENTLY
RELATED BUTPOSSESSIONOFAMINUTEAMOUNTOFDAGGAWOULDNORMALLYBREACH
THECONDITIONSUPONWHICHTHEUSUALLY SEVERESENTENCEFORDEALINGINDAGGA
WASSUSPENDED&ORTHISREASONITHASBECOMECUSTOMARYTOINCLUDEANEXTRA
CONDITION FOR THE LATTER OFFENCE SUCH AS @FOR WHICH IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT
THEOPTIONOFAFINE OFMORETHANFOURMONTHSISIMPOSEDCF!DAMS
3!# (EROLD 3!#27
%XAMPLESOFPOSITIVECONDITIONSINCLUDECOMPENSATION COMMUNITYSERVICE COR
RECTIONALSUPERVISION SUBMISSIONTOINSTRUCTIONORTREATMENT THEATTENDANCEOF
COURSESORTREATMENTATSPECIFIEDCENTRES ETC
#OMMUNITYSERVICECONSISTSOFANYSERVICERENDEREDWITHOUTREMUNERATIONWHICH
ISTOTHEBENEFITOFTHECOMMUNITYS A I CC )TISINACTUALFACTADIFFERENT
FORMOFPUNISHMENTWHICHISIMPOSEDUNDERTHEGUISEOFACONDITIONOFSUSPEN
SION)TISAFORMOFPUNISHMENTWITHMANYADVANTAGESCF-OGORA 3!#2
4 CnF ITISNOTRESTRICTEDTOLESSSERIOUSOFFENCES BUTCANBEIMPOSEDFORSERI
OUSOFFENCESWHEREAPPROPRIATECF6AN6UUREN 3!#2! (OWEVER
COMMUNITYSERVICEISNOTNORMALLYAPPROPRIATEFORRECIDIVISTSOROFFENDERSWHO
ARE SUFFERING FROM SOME FORM OF PERSONALITY DISTURBANCE!BRAHAMS
3!#2#
#OMPENSATIONMAYALSOBEBROUGHTABOUTBYSUSPENDINGANIMPOSEDSENTENCE
ON CONDITION THAT THE VICTIM IS COMPENSATED 4HIS APPROACH WAS PROMOTED IN
#HARLIE 3!! AND%DWARD 3!.#
"
REACHINGTHECONDITIONS
%LABORATEPROVISIONHASBEENMADEFORTHEPROCEDURETOBEFOLLOWEDIFANYCONDI
TION IS BREACHED 7HEN A COURT HAS TO CONSIDER WHETHER A SUSPENDED SENTENCE
SHOULD BE PUT INTO OPERATION THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE IS APPLIED AND THE
OFFENDERMUSTBEGIVENTHEOPPORTUNITYTOLEADEVIDENCEANDTOMAKEREPRESENTA
TIONSCF:ONDI 3!. )FITISFOUNDTHATTHEOFFENDERDIDNOTCOMPLY
WITHHISORHERCONDITIONS THECOURTMAYPUTTHESUSPENDEDSENTENCEINTOOPERA
TION OR MAY SUSPEND IT FURTHER ON APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS 4HISDECISIONISNOT
SUBJECTTOAPPEAL BUTASITAMOUNTSTOANEXERCISEOFADISCRETION STOMUSTBEDONE
INAJUDICIALMANNER ANDISSUBJECTTOREVIEW#ALLAGHANV+LACKERS./
3!%
3
%.4%.#%3&/2-/2%4(!./.%#2)-%
/FFENDERS ARE OFTEN DURING THE SAME TRIAL CONVICTED OF MORE THAN ONE CRIME
ANDTHEQUESTIONISWHETHERTHISFACTSHOULDINFLUENCESENTENCINGATALL4HETRIAL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
COURTRETAINSITSFULLSENTENCINGJURISDICTIONFOREVERYSEPARATECRIMETHEACCUSED
HASBEENCONVICTEDOF&OREXAMPLE ANOFFENDERWHOHASBEENCONVICTEDOFTHEFT
ASSAULTANDARSONMAYBESENTENCEDTOAMAXIMUMOFTHREEYEARSIMPRISONMENT
ONEVERYCOUNTBYADISTRICTCOURT)NSUCHCASES HOWEVER ITEASILYHAPPENSTHAT
DESPITE THE INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES BEING SUITABLE THE TOTAL PUNISHMENT BECOMES
UNDULYSEVERE4HECOURTTHENHASTOREDUCEWHATISCALLEDTHECUMULATIVEEFFECTOF
THEVARIOUSSENTENCESINSOMEWAY
4HEPREFERREDMETHODISTOORDERTHEWHOLEORPARTOFTHESENTENCESTORUNCON
CURRENTLYOR@ATTHESAMETIME )NTERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTALLSENTENCESOFIMPRISONMENTAREEXECUTEDINTHEORDERINWHICHTHEYWERE
IMPOSEDANDTHENEXTSENTENCECOMMENCESAFTERTHECOMPLETIONOFTHEPREVIOUS
ONE UNLESSTHECOURTORDERSTHATTHEYARETORUNCONCURRENTLY/NLYSENTENCESOF
IMPRISONMENT-NGADI 3!#24 ORCORRECTIONALSUPERVISIONS
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT MAYBEORDEREDTORUNCONCURRENTLY
4HEREARETWOFURTHERMETHODSOFRESTRICTINGTHECUMULATIVEEFFECTOFMULTIPLE
SENTENCES&IRST EVERYSENTENCEMAYBEREDUCEDSOTHATTHETOTALSENTENCEISNOT
EXCESSIVE!VARIATIONTOTHISMETHODISTOSUSPENDAPORTIONORPORTIONSOFTHE
VARIOUS SENTENCESCF #OALES 3!#2 ! !N OBJECTION AGAINST THESE
APPROACHESISTHATTHESENTENCESFORTHEINDIVIDUALCRIMESMAYSEEMINADEQUATE
WHENVIEWEDINISOLATION3ECONDLY SOMEORALLOFTHECOUNTSCANBETAKENTOGETHER
FORPURPOSESOFSENTENCING4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTDOESNOTSPECIFICALLYPRO
VIDEFORTHISMETHOD BUTITISPARTOFOURPRACTICEANDISOFTENUSEDSEE(IEMSTRA
4HE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THIS METHOD IS THAT DIFFICULTIES MAY DEVELOP ON
REVIEWORAPPEALIFSOMEOFTHECONVICTIONSARESETASIDE ORSOMEMISDIRECTION
TOOKPLACEDURINGSENTENCINGCF9OUNG 3!! +EULDER 3!#2
! )TISALSONOTDESIRABLETOTAKECONVICTIONSINRESPECTOFDIVERGENTCOUNTS
TOGETHERFORTHEPURPOSEOFSENTENCECF3 3!! !COURTWHICHTAKES
DIFFERENTCOUNTSTOGETHERMUSTALSOENSURETHATTHEEVENTUALSENTENCEISACOM
PETENTONEFOREVERYCRIMETHATTHEOFFENDERHASBEENCONVICTEDOFCF(AYMAN
3!.#
#
/-0%.3!4)/.!.$2%34)454)/.
#OMPENSATION
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFORCOMPENSATIONTOTHEVICTIMSOF
CRIMEINVARIOUSWAYS/NEOFTHESEPROCEDURESISCONTAINEDINS)TPROVIDES
THATANYCONVICTEDPERSONWHOHASCAUSEDDAMAGETOORLOSSOFPROPERTYOFAN
OTHERPERSONTHROUGHHISORHERCRIMEMAY INCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES BEORDERED
TOCOMPENSATETHEVICTIM3UCHANORDERTHENHASTHEEFFECTOFACIVILJUDGMENT
&ORTHISPURPOSETHECOURTSHOULDSHEDITSCRIMINALAPPROACHANDFUNCTIONCOM
PLETELYASACIVILCOURT4HEAMOUNTOFCOMPENSATIONWHICHMAYBEORDEREDIN
THE (IGH #OURT IS UNLIMITED BUT IN THE CASE OF THE REGIONAL AND MAGISTRATES
COURTSITISPRESENTLYLIMITEDTOAMOUNTSOF2AND2RESPECTIVELY
4HESEAMOUNTSAREDETERMINEDBYTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEBYWAYOFNOTICESINTHE
'OVERNMENT'AZETTE
!COURTMAYACTINTERMSOFSONLYWHENREQUESTEDTODOSOBYTHEINJURED
PARTY CF $HLAMINI 3! . ' OR THE PROSECUTOR ACTING ON THE

#(!04%2r4(%3%.4%.#%
INSTRUCTIONSOFTHEINJUREDPERSONTHEREMUSTBEPROOFOFTHISAUTHORISATIONCF
6ANMALI 3! . 7HAT FOLLOWS THEREAFTER IS A SEPARATE ENQUIRY INTO
THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES WHICH IS CIVIL IN NATURE 4HE COURT SHOULD EXPLAIN TO
THEPARTIESINCLUDINGTHEVICTIMCF-AKHAE 3!/ WHATISTAKING
PLACEANDMUSTAFFORDTHEMTHEOPPORTUNITYTOLEADEVIDENCEANDTOPRESENTARGU
MENT4HEUSUALCALCULATIONOFTHEAMOUNTOFDAMAGESAPPLIESASINCIVILCLAIMS
%VIDENCE ALREADY LED AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL IS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIONCF
-AELANE 3!4
4HE COMPENSATIONORDERMAYBEGIVENONLYINRESPECTOFDIRECTLOSS OR DAM
AGECF-OKWAKA 3!/ )N$U0LESSIS 3!. THECOURT
INTIMATEDTHATMOTORCOLLISIONCASESWOULDBEINAPPROPRIATEFORANAWARDINTERMS
OFSWHERETHISWOULDNECESSITATEALENGTHYENQUIRYINTOCONTRIBUTORYNEG
LIGENCE !N ORDER TO PAY COMPENSATION IS ALSO CLEARLY INAPPROPRIATE WHERE THE
ACCUSED IS SENT TO PRISON FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME ANDHE OR SHE HAS NO
ASSETS"ALOYI 3!4
! PERSON IN WHOSE FAVOUR AN AWARD HAS BEEN MADE MAY WITHIN DAYS
RENOUNCETHEAWARDAND WHEREAPPLICABLE MAKEAREPAYMENT)FSUCHRENUNCIA
TIONISNOTDONE THEACCUSEDMAYNOTLATERBEHELDLIABLEINCIVILPROCEEDINGSIN
RESPECTOFTHEINJURYFORWHICHTHEAWARDWASMADES
3INCEANORDERFORCOMPENSATIONINTERMSOFSHASTHEEFFECTOFACIVILJUDG
MENT ASENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTINDEFAULTOFPAYMENTCANNOTBEIMPOSEDIN
THEALTERNATIVECF-SIZA 3!4
2
ESTITUTION
3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATTHECOURTMAYORDER ATTHEREQUESTOFABONAFIDEBUYER
THATHEORSHETHEBUYER BECOMPENSATEDOUTOFMONEYTAKENFROMTHECONVICTED
THIEFWHENTHELATTERWASARRESTED PROVIDEDOFCOURSETHATTHEBUYERRETURNSTHE
GOODSTOTHEOWNERTHEREOF

0HASE&OUR0OST 6ERDICT
AND0OST 3ENTENCE2EMEDIES

#(!04%2
2EVIEW
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
).42/$5#4)/.
4HERIGHTTOREVIEWANDREVIEWINGENERAL
2EVIEWACONSTITUTIONALRIGHT
7HENWILLREVIEWPROCEEDINGSBEMOREAPPROPRIATE
THANAPPEALPROCEEDINGS
#ATEGORIESOFREVIEWPROCEDURES
*UDICIALREVIEWINTERMSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
4HEORIGIN NATUREANDEXTENTOFJUDICIALREVIEW
,IMITATIONOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDTHEAPPROACH
THERETO
/RFXVVWDQGLANDREMEDIESINCONSTITUTIONALMATTERS
4HEMEANINGOFACONSTITUTIONALMATTERAND
RELATEDISSUES
7HOHASORFXVVWDQGL WHATRELIEFISSOUGHT
ANDWHEN
!CCESSTOCOMPETENTCOURTSRELATINGTOCONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS
4(%$)&&%2%.#%"%47%%.!00%!,!.$2%6)%702/#%$52%3
2%6)%7).4%2-3/&4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4
!UTOMATICREVIEW
'ENERAL
$ISTRICTCOURTSmSENTENCESSUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEW
! UTOMATICREVIEWAPPLICABLEINRESPECTOF
CHILDRENINTERMSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF

7HENAUTOMATICREVIEWISNOTAPPLICABLE
0ROCEDUREONREVIEW
,OSTORINCOMPLETERECORD
!UTOMATICREVIEWANDTHERIGHTTOAPPEAL


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
%XTRAORDINARYREVIEW

2EVIEWOFPROCEEDINGSBEFORESENTENCE
3ETDOWNOFCASEFORARGUMENT
2%6)%7).4%2-3/&4(%350%2)/2#/5243!#4
2EVIEWATTHEINSTANCEOFTHEACCUSED
'ENERAL
'ROUNDSFORREVIEW
0ROCEDURE
2EVIEWATTHEINSTANCEOFTHEPROSECUTION
&5.#4)/.3!.$0/7%23/&!#/524/&2%6)%7
'ENERAL
0OWERSOFTHE(IGH#OURTINTERMSOFS
4HE(IGH#OURTmSINHERENTREVIEWJURISDICTION
0OWERSOFJUDICIALREVIEWANDEXCLUSIONOFEVIDENCE
'ENERAL
%XCLUSIONOFUNCONSTITUTIONALLYOBTAINEDEVIDENCE
%8%#54)/./&4(%3%.4%.#%0%.$).'2%6)%7
2%42)!,7(%2%#/.6)#4)/.)33%4!3)$%
$%#,!2!4/29/2$%2
3ECTIONr!PPLICATIONOFRIGHTS
4HE"ILLOF2IGHTSAPPLIESTOALLLAW ANDBINDSTHELEGISLATURE THEEXECUTIVE THEJUDI
CIARYANDALLORGANSOFSTATE
!PROVISIONOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSBINDSANATURALORAJURISTICPERSONIF ANDTOTHEEX
TENTTHAT ITISAPPLICABLE TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHENATUREOFTHERIGHTANDTHENATURE
OFANYDUTYIMPOSEDBYTHERIGHT
7HENAPPLYINGAPROVISIONOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSTOANATURALORJURISTICPERSONINTERMS
OFSUBSECTION ACOURTr
D INORDERTOGIVEEFFECTTOARIGHTINTHE"ILL MUSTAPPLY ORIFNECESSARYDEVELOP
THECOMMONLAWTOTHEEXTENTTHATLEGISLATIONDOESNOTGIVEEFFECTTOTHATRIGHT
AND
E MAYDEVELOPRULESOFTHECOMMONLAWTOLIMITTHERIGHT PROVIDEDTHATTHELIMI
TATIONISINACCORDANCEWITHSECTION
!JURISTICPERSONISENTITLEDTOTHERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSTOTHEEXTENTREQUIREDBY
THENATUREOFTHERIGHTSANDTHENATUREOFTHATJURISTICPERSON
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
3ECTIONr%QUALITY
OFTHELAW
3EEAND BELOW
c
c
EXCLUDEDIFTHEADMISSIONOFTHATEVIDENCEWOULDRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISE
BEDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
3EEAND BELOW
3EE BELOW
!NYONELISTEDINTHISSECTIONHASTHERIGHTTOAPPROACHACOMPETENTCOURT ALLEGINGTHAT
ARIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSHASBEENINFRINGEDORTHREATENED ANDTHECOURTMAYGRANT
APPROPRIATERELIEF INCLUDINGADECLARATIONOFRIGHTS4HEPERSONSWHOMAYAPPROACHA
COURTAREr
D ANYONEACTINGINTHEIROWNINTEREST
E ANYONEACTINGONBEHALFOFANOTHERPERSONWHOCANNOTACTINTHEIROWNNAME
F ANYONEACTINGASAMEMBEROF ORINTHEINTERESTOF AGROUPORCLASSOFPERSONS
G ANYONEACTINGINTHEPUBLICINTERESTAND
H ANASSOCIATIONACTINGINTHEINTERESTOFITSMEMBERS
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0OWERSOFCOURTSINCONSTITUTIONALMATTERS
7HENDECIDINGACONSTITUTIONALMATTERWITHINITSPOWER ACOURTr
D MUSTDECLARETHATANYLAWORCONDUCTTHATISINCONSISTENTWITHTHE#ONSTITUTION
ISINVALIDTOTHEEXTENTOFITSINCONSISTENCYAND
E MAYMAKEANYORDERTHATISJUSTANDEQUITABLE INCLUDINGr
I ANORDERLIMITINGTHERETROSPECTIVEEFFECTOFTHEDECLARATIONOFINVALIDITY
AND

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
D 4
HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAORACOURTOFSIMI
LARSTATUSMAYMAKEANORDERCONCERNINGTHECONSTITUTIONALVALIDITYOFAN!CT
OF0ARLIAMENT APROVINCIAL!CTORANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT BUTANORDEROF
CONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYHASNOFORCEUNLESSITISCONFIRMEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURT
E !COURTWHICHMAKESANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYMAYGRANTATEMPORARY
INTERDICTOROTHERTEMPORARYRELIEFTOAPARTY ORMAYADJOURNTHEPROCEEDINGS
PENDING A DECISION OF THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT ON THE VALIDITY OF THAT !CT OR
CONDUCT
F .ATIONALLEGISLATIONMUSTPROVIDEFORTHEREFERRALOFANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONAL
INVALIDITYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
G !NY PERSON OR ORGAN OF STATE WITH A SUFFICIENT INTEREST MAY APPEAL OR APPLY
DIRECTLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTOCONFIRMORVARYANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONAL
INVALIDITYBYACOURTINTERMSOFTHISSUBSECTION
3EEAND BELOW
3ECTIONr)NHERENTPOWER
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT 3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALANDTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA
EACHHASTHEINHERENTPOWERTOPROTECTANDREGULATETHEIROWNPROCESS ANDTODEVELOP
THECOMMONLAW TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
3ECTIONr!UTOMATICREVIEWINCERTAINCASES
4HEPROVISIONSOF#HAPTEROFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTDEALINGWITHTHEREVIEW
OFCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSINTHELOWERCOURTSAPPLYINRESPECTOFALLCHILDRENCONVICTED
INTERMSOFTHIS!CT0ROVIDEDTHATIFACHILDHASBEENSENTENCEDTOANYFORMOFIMPRIS
ONMENTORANYSENTENCEOFCOMPULSORYRESIDENCEINACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE
PROVIDINGAPROGRAMMEPROVIDEDFORINSECTION M OFTHE#HILDRENmS!CT THE
SENTENCEISSUBJECTTOREVIEWINTERMSOFSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
BYAJUDGEOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVINGJURISDICTION IRRESPECTIVEOFr
D THEDURATIONOFTHESENTENCE
E THEPERIODTHEJUDICIALOFFICERWHOSENTENCEDTHECHILDINQUESTIONHASHELDTHE
SUBSTANTIVERANKOFMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATE
F WHETHERTHECHILDINQUESTIONWASREPRESENTEDBYALEGALREPRESENTATIVEOR
G WHETHER THE CHILD IN QUESTION APPEARED BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT OR A REGIONAL
COURTSITTINGASACHILDJUSTICECOURT
4HEPROVISIONSOFSUBSECTION DONOTAPPLYIFANAPPEALHASBEENNOTEDINTERMS
OFSECTION
3EEAND BELOW
3ECTIONr2ELEASEONBAILPENDINGREVIEWORAPPEAL
7HENEVERTHERELEASEOFACHILDONBAILISCONSIDERED PENDINGr
D THEREVIEWOFASENTENCEASPROVIDEDFORINSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTOR
E THE APPEAL AGAINST A SENTENCE AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTIONS AND OF THE
#RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION OF THIS !CT DEALING WITH THE
RELEASEOFCHILDRENONBAIL APPLY

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
).42/$5#4)/.
4HERIGHTTOREVIEWANDREVIEWINGENERAL
5HYLHZDFRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKW
3ECTION H OF THE REPEALED INTERIM #ONSTITUTION OF THE 2EPUBLIC OF 3OUTH
!FRICA !CT OF ENTRENCHED EVERY ACCUSED PERSONS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
WHICHINCLUDEDTHERIGHTTOHAVERECOURSE BYWAYOFAPPEALORREVIEW TOAHIGHER
COURTTHANTHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE3ECTION O OFTHEFINAL#ONSTITUTION
OFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA THE@#ONSTITUTION CONFIRMSTHISRIGHT)T
GUARANTEES ASACOMPONENTOFEVERYACCUSEDPERSONSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL THERIGHT
OFREVIEWORAPPEALBYACOURTOFHIGHERINSTANCE4HEOMISSIONFROMS O OF
THE#ONSTITUTIONOFTHEWORDS@TOHAVERECOURSE WHICHHADAPPEAREDINS H
OFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION BROUGHTNODRAMATICCHANGES)TDID HOWEVER CLARIFY
THAT IT IS NOT THE RIGHT OF RECOURSE THAT MUST BE GUARANTEED AND PROTECTED BUT
RATHERTHERIGHTTOAREAPPRAISALOFTHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSBYMEANSOFREVIEWOR
APPEAL3HINGAV4HE3TATE3OCIETYOF!DVOCATES0IETERMARITZBURG"AR )NTERVENINGAS
!MICUS#URIAE/#ONNELL 3!#2##
)N .TULI 3!#2 ## THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT IN STRIKING DOWN
THEPROVISIONWHICHREQUIREDPRISONERSTOOBTAINAJUDGESCERTIFICATEBEFORETHEY
COULDBEBROUGHTTOCOURTTOARGUEAREVIEWORANAPPEALINCOURT HELDTHATTHE
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTOFHAVINGTHEOPPORTUNITYTOHAVERECOURSEBYWAYOFANAP
PEALORREVIEWENVISAGES ASAMINIMUM @THEOPPORTUNITYFORANADEQUATEREAPPRAISAL
OFEVERYCASEANDANINFORMEDDECISIONONITAT;= 4HECOURTFOUNDTHATTHEINHER
ENTDANGERTHATWORTHYAPPEALSANDREVIEWSWERESTIFLEDBYTHISPROCESS ANDNEVER
ATTRACTEDTHEJUDICIALATTENTIONTHEYDESERVED EXPOSEDTHEPROCESSOFHAVINGTO
OBTAINACERTIFICATEASOFFENDINGAGAINSTTHERIGHTTOEQUALPROTECTIONANDBENEFIT
OFTHELAW3EEALSO-INISTEROF*USTICEV.TULI 3!##
!TFIRSTBLUSH ITDIDNOTSEEMASTHOUGHTHEPROVISIONSOFTHEINTERIMANDTHE
FINAL#ONSTITUTIONSHAVEADDEDTOOREXTENDEDTHEAMBITOFTHERIGHTSWHICHAC
CUSED ENJOYED UNDER THE PREVIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL DISPENSATION WHEN
THOSERIGHTSWERENOTENTRENCHEDINA"ILLOF2IGHTS)TIS HOWEVER SUBMITTEDTHAT
THEENTRENCHMENTOFTHERIGHTTOREVIEWORAPPEALTOACOURTOFHIGHERINSTANCE
HAS STRENGTHENED THE POWER OF THE COURTS TO ENFORCE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS DUE
PROCESSOFLAWANDOTHERINTERRELATEDRIGHTSSEE@0ROCEDURAL2IGHTSIN6AN7YKET
ALEDS 2IGHTSAND#ONSTITUTIONALISM4HE.EW3OUTH!FRICAN,EGAL/RDER
)N.TULI 3!## THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTPER$IDCOTT*HELDTHATTHE
CONCEPTOFFAIRNESSISNOLONGERRESTRICTEDBYTHERULESSETBYLEGALSTANDARDSWHICH
WERE APPLICABLE BEFORE THE #ONSTITUTION CAME INTO FORCE 0REVIOUSLY FAIRNESS TO
THEACCUSEDMEANTTHATTHEACCUSEDWAS@xNOTENTITLEDTOATRIALWHICHISFAIRWHEN
TESTEDAGAINSTABSTRACTNOTIONSOFFAIRNESSANDJUSTICEPER.ICHOLAS!*!IN2UDMAN
-THWANA 3!! AT 4HEMAINENQUIRYHADBEENWHETHERAFAILURE
OFJUSTICEHADRESULTED4HISHADBEENRESOLVEDBYAPPLYINGTWOALTERNATIVETESTS
NAMELY
s WHETHERACOURTWOULDINEVITABLYHAVECONVICTED HADTHEREBEENNOIRREGU
LARITY ANDIFSO THENTHEREWASNOFAILUREOFJUSTICEVITIATINGTHETRIALOR
s WHETHERTHEIRREGULARITYWASSUCHAGROSSDEPARTUREFROMESTABLISHEDRULESOF
PROCEDURETHATITCOULDNOTBESAIDTHATTHEACCUSEDHADBEENPROPERLYTRIED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
)NSUCHACASEAFAILUREOFJUSTICERESULTEDPERSESEE-TYUDA "#,2
% AND#HAPTER PARA
3ECTION OF THE INTERIM #ONSTITUTION AND S OF THE FINAL #ONSTITUTION
CLARIFIEDANDENLARGEDTHISRESTRICTEDUNDERSTANDINGOFTHECONCEPTOFFAIRNESSAND
BROADENED THE ENQUIRY FAIRNESS NO LONGER ENTAILS ENQUIRING WHETHER THERE WAS
AFAILUREOFJUSTICEINTHATSENSE BUTWHETHERTHETRIALWASFAIR4HERESULTISTHAT
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS MUST NOT ONLY BE CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH PREVI
OUSSTANDARDSORREQUIREMENTS BUTMUSTALSOCONFORMTOTHESEBROADNOTIONSOF
SUBSTANTIVEFAIRNESSANDJUSTICE7HENCONSTRUINGLEGISLATIONTHENEWAPPROACH
REQUIREDBYS OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONHASBEENDESCRIBEDAS@AMANDATORYCON
STITUTIONALCANONOFSTATUTORYINTERPRETATIONSEE"AKGATLA "A +GAFELA#OMMUNAL
0ROPERTY !SSOCIATION V "AKGATLA "A +GAFELA 4RIBAL !UTHORITY 3! ## AT
;= 4HEEMPHASISISNOWONWHETHERTHEREWASAFAIRTRIAL BUTTHETRIALMUSTALSO
BECONDUCTEDACCORDINGTOACCEPTABLESTANDARDS)N:UMA 3!## AT
*n!THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHELDTHATTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALCONFERREDBY
THE#ONSTITUTION@xEMBRACESACONCEPTOFSUBSTANTIVEFAIRNESSWHICHISNOTTOBE
EQUATEDWITHWHATMIGHTHAVEPASSEDMUSTERINOURCRIMINALCOURTSBEFORETHE
#ONSTITUTIONCAMEINTOFORCE0URSUANTTOTHISACOURTMAYSETASIDEPROCEEDINGS
WHERETHECOURTDIDNOTINFORMTHEACCUSEDATTHEENDOFTHETRIALTHATHEORSHE
HADARIGHTTOAPPEALORREVIEW+UMKANI 3!#27##
:KHQZLOOUHYLHZSURFHHGLQJVEHPRUHDSSURSULDWHWKDQDSSHDOSURFHHGLQJV"
!N ACCUSED PERSON WHO IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE OUTCOME OF HIS OR HER CRIMINAL
TRIALONFACTORLAWINALOWERCOURTIE ADISTRICTORREGIONALCOURT MAYBRINGTHE
MATTER BEFORE A DIVISION OF THE (IGH #OURT HAVING JURISDICTION EITHER BY WAY
OFANAPPEALORAREVIEW)NGENERAL ANACCUSEDSEEKINGREDRESSFROMADECISION
ORORDERMADEBYACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE INCHALLENGINGTHECORRECTNESSOFHIS
CONVICTION ANDOR SENTENCE SHOULD APPEAL AGAINST SUCH CONVICTION ANDOR SEN
TENCE (OWEVER WHERE AN IRREGULARITY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSEDPERSONISINVOLVED SUCHAPERSONSHOULDSEEKRELIEFBYWAYOFREVIEW)N
-WAMBAZI 3!#2 .M THE COURT EXPLAINED WHEN A SPECIFIC PROCE
DURE APPEALORREVIEW WOULDBEAPPOSITE
&
DWHJRULHVRIUHYLHZSURFHGXUHV
4HERE ARE VARIOUS TYPES OF REVIEW PROCEDURE BUT THREE DISTINCT CATEGORIES WERE
POINTEDOUTIN*OHANNESBURG#ONSOLIDATED)NVESTMENT#OMPANYV*OHANNESBURG4OWN
#OUNCIL434HEFIRSTCATEGORYDEALSWITHORDINARYREVIEWSOFSTATUTORY
ORIGIN OTHER THAN THOSE UNDER THE #ONSTITUTION BY MEANS OF WHICH THE PRO
CEEDINGS OF A LOWER COURT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE A DIVISION OF THE (IGH #OURT AS A
COURT OF A HIGHER INSTANCE FOR AN EXAMINATION OF IRREGULARITIES OR ILLEGALITIES IN
THEPROCEEDINGSINTHECOURTAQUO4HESEARETHEKINDOFIRREGULARITIESCONTEM
PLATEDBYSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOFANDVARIOUSPROVISIONSSEE
BELOW OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOF)NTERMSOFS A nB OFTHE
3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT ADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVINGREVIEWANDAPPEALJURIS
DICTIONMAYEXERCISEPOWERSOFREVIEWWITHREGARDTOLOWERCOURTPROCEEDINGSIN
RESPECTOFSPECIFIEDIRREGULARITIESTHATHAPPENEDBEFOREORDURINGSUCHPROCEED

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
INGS3ECTION OFTHE!CTREGULATESTHEGROUNDSONWHICHAREVIEWPROCEDURE
MAYBEINSTITUTEDAGAINSTINFERIORCOURTSDECISIONS4HESEARE
ABSENCEOFJURISDICTIONOFTHECOURT
INTERESTINTHECAUSE BIAS MALICEORCORRUPTIONONTHEPARTOFTHEPRESIDING
JUDICIALOFFICER
GROSSIRREGULARITYINTHEPROCEEDINGSANDOR
THE ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE OR INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE OR THE REJECTION OF
ADMISSIBLEORCOMPETENTEVIDENCE
4HECOURTHEARINGAREVIEWUNDERTHISSECTIONISCONFINEDTOTHERELEVANTPROVI
SIONSOFTHE!CTANDMAYNOTGOBEYONDTHIS4HEPROCEDUREUNDERTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS!CT CONTRARYTOTHATPROVIDEDFORBYTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT ISSTRICT
LY FORMAL AND ALSO EXPENSIVE TO EXERCISE !N IRREGULARITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF
A LOWER COURT THAT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE
BROUGHTUNDERREVIEWSUPPORTEDBYANAFFIDAVITSETTINGOUTTHEGROUNDS FACTSAND
CIRCUMSTANCESONWHICHTHEAPPLICANTRELIES
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPROVIDESFORVARIOUSPROCEDURESBYWHICHTHE(IGH
#OURTMAYREVIEWCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSINLOWERCOURTS ANDESTABLISHESBYWHOM
SUCHAREVIEWPROCEDUREMAYBEINSTITUTED4HEFOLLOWINGREVIEWPROCEDURESARE
PROVIDEDFORUNDERTHIS!CT
AUTOMATICREVIEWINTERMSOFS
EXTRAORDINARYREVIEWINTERMSOFS
REVIEWOFPROCEEDINGSBEFORESENTENCINGINTERMSOFS!
SETTINGDOWNOFACASEFORARGUMENTINTERMSOFS
4HESECONDCATEGORYOFJUDICIALREVIEWISOFCOMMON LAWORIGINANDINCLUDESTHE
(IGH #OURTS COMMON LAW INHERENT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW WHICH POWER IS AC
KNOWLEDGEDINSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION3EE(IRAV"OOYSEN 3!! ON
COMMON LAW REVIEW POWERS 4HESE COURTS ARE ENDOWED WITH AN INHERENT JURIS
DICTIONTOREVIEWTHEPROCEEDINGSOFLOWERCOURTS ADMINISTRATIVEAUTHORITIESOR
TRIBUNALSANDTOSETASIDEORTOCORRECTERRORSINTHEPROCEEDINGSIFITAPPEARSTOBE
INTHEINTERESTOFJUSTICE ORTOTESTTHEVALIDITYOFPROCEEDINGSOFSUCHINSTITUTIONS
INORDERTOPREVENTINJUSTICESORMISCARRIAGESOFJUSTICE)N+IRSCH 3!#2
7## THECOURTEXERCISEDITSINHERENTJURISDICTIONBYVIRTUEOFSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONINTHERECUSALOFTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERWHOSEFRIENDSHIPWITHASTATE
WITNESSCAMETOLIGHTAFTEREVIDENCEHADBEENLED4HECOURTSETASIDETHEPROCEED
INGS(OWEVER THECOURTSINHERENTPOWERMUSTBEEXERCISEDSPARINGLYANDMAY
NOTBEUSEDTOCORRECTMISTAKESMADEBYANYONEOFTHEPARTIES ANDCERTAINLYNOT
INORDERTORECTIFYAFAILUREOFTHEPROSECUTIONTOLEADIMPORTANTEVIDENCE.TSWAYI
3!#2# 3EE3IWELA 3!4 ANDSEEALSOTHEDISCUSSION
IN#HAPTERBELOW
4HE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL HAS NO COMMON LAW JURISDICTION TO ORDINARILY
REVIEWTHEPROCEEDINGSOFANY(IGH#OURT4HISMEANSTHAT UNLESSANAGGRIEVED
PARTYBRINGSAMATTERBEFORETHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALBYWAYOFAPPEAL THAT
COURTHASNOJURISDICTION)NCRIMINALCASESTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASNO
POWERTOREVIEWANYPROCEEDINGSOF(IGH#OURTSWHICHARENOTBROUGHTBEFOREIT
BYWAYOFANAPPEALORANAPPEALBYVIRTUEOFASPECIALENTRYOFANIRREGULARITYOR

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ILLEGALITYINTHEPROCEDURE ORANAPPEALBYMEANSOFTHERESERVATIONOFAQUESTION
OFLAW
4HETHIRDCATEGORYOFCONSTITUTIONALJUDICIALREVIEWHASBEENREFERREDTOASTHAT
CATEGORYWHICHCOMPRISESREVIEWSPROVIDEDFORBYOTHERLEGISLATION4HEJURISDICTION
TOREVIEWCONFERREDUPONACOURTORAJUDGETHEREOFTHROUGHSUCHLEGISLATIONISA
POWEROFREVIEWWHICH ACCORDINGTOTHEVIEWEXPRESSEDBY)NNES#*IN*OHANNESBURG
#ONSOLIDATED)NVESTMENT#OMPANYV*OHANNESBURG4OWN#OUNCIL43AT
IS@FARWIDERTHANTHEPOWERSWHICHITPOSSESSESUNDEREITHEROFTHEREVIEWPROCE
DURES;IETHECATEGORIESABOVE=TOWHICH)HAVEALLUDED#ONSEQUENTLY THENOTION
OFJUDICIALREVIEWINTHISCATEGORYISWIDEENOUGHTOEMBRACEREVIEWSPERTAINING
TOCONSTITUTIONALINFRINGEMENTS/BVIOUSLY WITHREGARDTOTHETHIRDCATEGORY THE
GROUNDSFORSUCHAREVIEWWILLDIFFERFROMTHEOTHERS7ITHTHECOMMENCEMENTOF
THEINTERIM#ONSTITUTIONON!PRILANDTHEFINAL#ONSTITUTIONOFON
&EBRUARY APOWEROFJUDICIALREVIEWWASCONFERREDUPONTHESUPERIORCOURTS
WHICHPOWERFITSUNDERTHEUMBRELLAOFTHISTHIRDCATEGORYMENTIONEDBY)NNES
#* ALTHOUGHTHATCOURTPRESUMABLYDIDNOTHAVECONSTITUTIONALLEGISLATIONORCON
STITUTIONALJUDICIALREVIEWINMIND)N-AGANOV$ISTRICT-AGISTRATE *OHANNESBURG
3!#27 6AN"LERK!*HELDTHATJUDICIALREVIEWBYA(IGH#OURT
OFADECISIONOFALOWERCOURTWHICHISALLEGEDTOBEANINFRINGEMENTOFAFUNDA
MENTALHUMANRIGHTISOFAWIDE RANGINGNATUREANDOFTHETYPEWHERETHECOURT
COULDENTERUPONANDDECIDETHEMATTERDENOVO
*UDICIALREVIEWINTERMSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
7KHRULJLQQDWXUHDQGH[WHQWRIMXGLFLDOUHYLHZ
4HECONCEPTOFJUDICIALREVIEWWITHINACONSTITUTIONALLEGALSYSTEMWASFIRSTIN
TRODUCEDBY*UDGE*OHN-ARSHALLINTHEWELL KNOWN!MERICANCASEOF-ARBURYV
-ADISON53#RANCH WHERETHELEARNEDJUDGEESTABLISHEDTHEJUDI
CIALPOWERTOSETASIDEASTATUTEORPROVISIONTHEREOFASUNCONSTITUTIONAL7ITHTHE
INTRODUCTIONOFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION 3OUTH!FRICAWASSETONADEMOCRATIC
CONSTITUTIONALCOURSEWHICHHASBEENCONFIRMEDBYTHEFINAL#ONSTITUTION
)NTHESAMEMANNERASTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION THEFINAL#ONSTITUTIONRANKSTHE
#ONSTITUTIONANDTHERULEOFLAWASTHESUPREMEAUTHORITYANDLAWOFTHECOUNTRY
ANDALLOTHERLAWSANDCONDUCTARESUBJECTTOTHE#ONSTITUTION!NYLAWWHETHER
A STATUTE OF 0ARLIAMENT OR A RULE OF THE COMMON OR CUSTOMARY LAW OR CONDUCT
INCONSISTENTWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONWILLBEINVALIDTOTHEEXTENT
OFTHEINCONSISTENCYSS AND OFTHE#ONSTITUTION 4HE#ONSTITUTION
BINDSALLPERSONS ASWELLASLEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVEANDJUDICIALORGANSOFTHESTATE
ON ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT S AND READ WITH S OF THE #ONSTITUTION
4HEINTERIM#ONSTITUTIONDIDNOTAPPLYHORIZONTALLYINTERPARTES)TAPPEARSFROM
READINGSANDS THATHORIZONTALAPPLICATIONISNOWPROVIDEDFOR/NTHEVERTI
CALANDHORIZONTALAPPLICATIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTION SEE$U0LESSISV$E+LERK
3!## AND7OOLMANAND$AVIS@4HE,AST,AUGH$U0LESSISV$E+LERK
CLASSICAL LIBERATION CREOLE LIBERALISM AND THE APPLICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
UNDERTHEINTERIMANDTHEFINAL#ONSTITUTIONS3!*(2 "YDECLARINGTHE
#ONSTITUTION THE SUPREME LAW OF THE COUNTRY WE DEPARTED DECISIVELY FROM THE
7ESTMINSTERTRADITIONBASEDONTHESOVEREIGNTYOF0ARLIAMENT

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
4HE#ONSTITUTIONIS@SOVEREIGN4HESUPREMACYOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONIMPLIES IN
BROADTERMS THATWHENANYNORMORRULEOFSTATUTEORCOMMONLAWISINCONFLICT
WITHTHE#ONSTITUTION THATLAWORRULECEASESTOBEVALIDLAWANDLACKSBINDING
FORCE(OWEVER SUCHLAWDOESNOTLAPSEAUTOMATICALLYBUTWILLCONTINUETOEXIST
UNTILSUCHTIMEASITISDECLAREDUNCONSTITUTIONALBYACOURTWITHCONSTITUTIONAL
JURISDICTIONCONSTITUTIONALJUDICIALREVIEW POWERSSEEITEMOFTHETRANSITIONAL
ARRANGEMENTSIN3CHEDULETOTHE#ONSTITUTION
!STHECORNERSTONEOFDEMOCRACYIN3OUTH!FRICA THE#ONSTITUTIONGUARANTEES
THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS ENTRENCHED IN THE "ILL OF 2IGHTS IN #HAPTER
THEREOF AND REQUIRES THE STATE TO RESPECT PROTECT PROMOTE AND FULFIL THE RIGHTS
ASSETOUTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS ALTHOUGHTHESERIGHTSMAYBELIMITEDSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTION
#ONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERIM #ONSTITUTION WHICH DENIED CON
STITUTIONALJURISDICTIONTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALFORMERLYTHE!PPELLATE
$IVISION THEFINAL#ONSTITUTIONACKNOWLEDGESTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAS
ASEPARATECONSTITUTIONALENTITY EMPOWEREDWITHJURISDICTIONTODECIDETHECON
STITUTIONALVALIDITYOFANYCONDUCTORANYLAWTOTHEEXTENTOFTHEINCONSISTENCY
OFTHELAWORCONDUCT4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
AND THE (IGH #OURT OF 3OUTH !FRICA ARE NOW CHARGED WITH ENSURING THAT THE
DEMOCRATICIDEALSANDTHEVALUESOFTHENEWCONSTITUTIONALORDERIN3OUTH!FRICA
ARE ENFORCED AND THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS SET OUT IN #HAPTER OF
THE #ONSTITUTION ARE PROTECTED BY THE EXERCISE OF THEIR JUDICIAL REVIEW POWERS
4HEPOWEROFJUDICIALREVIEWHASBEENSAIDTOBEANECESSARYPARTOFADEMOCRATIC
SYSTEMINORDERTOPROTECTINDIVIDUALRIGHTSAGAINSTPOWERSTHATMAYIGNORE UNDER
MINE HARM ORINFRINGE BASICGUARANTEES3EE$$AVIS -#HASKALSON *DE7AAL
@$EMOCRACY AND #ONSTITUTIONALISM THE 2OLE OF #ONSTITUTIONAL )NTERPRETATION
IN6AN7YKETALEDS 2IGHTSAND#ONSTITUTIONALISM4HE.EW3OUTH!FRICAN,EGAL
/RDER ETSEQFORADISCUSSION )N(ANSENV4HE2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE #APE
4OWN 3!#2# ITWASHELDTHATSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONHADBROAD
ENEDTHEINHERENTJURISDICTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT THE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEALANDTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA WHICHPROMOTESTHEINTERESTSOFJUS
TICEWITHINTHECONTEXTOFTHEVALUESOFTHE#ONSTITUTION4HESECOURTSALSOHAVE
THEPOWERTOREVIEWACTIONSBYTHEGOVERNMENTANDTHECONDUCTOFPERSONS AND
TOREVIEWTHECONSTITUTIONALVALIDITYOFLEGISLATIONBY0ARLIAMENT APOWERDENIED
ALLCOURTSDURINGTHEPREVIOUSDISPENSATION WHICHWASBASEDONTHESOVEREIGNTY
OF0ARLIAMENT(OWEVER IFADECISIONOFUNCONSTITUTIONALITYRELATESTOAN!CTOF
0ARLIAMENT OR A PROVINCIAL !CT THE ORDER OF CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY MADE BY
ANYCOMPETENTCOURTMUSTBECONFIRMEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTS A
OFTHE#ONSTITUTION .OTETHATLOWERCOURTSAREEXCLUDEDFROMRULINGONTHECON
STITUTIONALITYOFANYLEGISLATIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
*UDICIALREVIEWMIGHTBEDEFINEDASTHEAUTHORITYOFACOURTWITHJURISDICTION
TOEXAMINEEXECUTIVECONDUCTORALEGISLATIVE!CTANDTOINVALIDATETHATCONDUCT
OR!CTIFITISCONTRARYTOCONSTITUTIONALPRINCIPLES)N!FFORDABLE-EDICINES4RUSTV
-INISTEROF(EALTH 3!## AT;=APPLIEDIN.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONSV&REEDOMUNDERTHE,AW 3!#23#! AT;= THECOURT
HELD THAT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHERE JUDICIAL REVIEW FINDS NO APPLICATION
AND THAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF LEGALITY 4HE DOCTRINE OF LEGALITY THE ESSENCE OF THE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
RULEOFLAW INCLUDESREVIEWONGROUNDSOFIRRATIONALITYANDONTHEBASISTHATTHE
DECISION MAKERDIDNOTACTINACCORDANCEWITHTHEEMPOWERINGSTATUTE
4HE EXERCISE OF PUBLIC POWER MUST THEREFORE COMPLY WITH THE #ONSTITUTION WHICH IS
THESUPREMELAW ANDTHEDOCTRINEOFLEGALITY WHICHISPARTOFTHATLAW4HEDOCTRINE
OFLEGALITY WHICHISANINCIDENTOFTHERULEOFLAW ISONEOFTHECONSTITUTIONALCONTROLS
THROUGHWHICHTHEEXERCISEOFPUBLICPOWERISREGULATEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTION
0UBLIC POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED ARBITRARILY AND THE EXERCISING OF SUCH POWER
MUSTBERATIONALLYRELATEDTOTHEPURPOSEFORWHICHTHEPOWERWASGIVEN4HISIS
THERATIONALITYTESTSEE!FFORDABLE-EDICINES4RUSTV-INISTEROF(EALTH 3!
## AT;=AND-ASETLHAV0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA 3!
## 3EEALSO#HAPTER
,IMITATIONOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDTHEAPPROACHTHERETO
.O RIGHT WHETHER ENTRENCHED OR NOT IS ABSOLUTE 4HE RIGHTS OF OTHERS AND THE
NEEDSOFSOCIETYMAYRESTRICTTHESERIGHTS3ECTION OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONEXPLIC
ITLYRECOGNISESTHISBYPROVIDINGTHATTHERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSARESUBJECTTO
THELIMITATIONSCONTAINEDORREFERREDTOINSORELSEWHEREINTHE#ONSTITUTION
)TISTHETASKOFTHECOURTSTOESTABLISHTHEMEANING CONTENTANDEXTENTOFTHESAID
RIGHTSWITHINTHEAMBITOFTHELIMITATIONCLAUSE
3ECTION PRESCRIBESTHECRITERIADETERMININGANYLIMITATIONOFFUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS7HENANINFRINGEMENT DENIALORBREACHOF ORTHREATTO ANENTRENCHED
RIGHT OR FREEDOM IS ALLEGED A TWO STAGE APPROACH IN DETERMINING ITS CONSTITU
TIONALVALIDITYHASTOBEFOLLOWED4HEFIRSTSTAGEOFTHEINQUIRYISTODETERMINE
WHETHERTHERIGHTORFREEDOMHASBEENINFRINGEDORVIOLATED4HISWILLLEADTOAN
INVESTIGATIONINTOTHENATUREANDSCOPEOFTHEPARTICULARRIGHT BEARINGINMIND
THATTHECOURTWILLHAVETO@PROMOTETHEVALUESTHATUNDERLIEANOPENANDDEMO
CRATICSOCIETYBASEDONHUMANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOM ASISREQUIREDBY
S OFTHE#ONSTITUTION)FTHEANSWERTOTHEFIRSTQUESTIONISINTHEAFFIRMATIVE
THENTHESECONDSTAGEISTODECIDETOWHATEXTENTSUCHINFRINGEMENTORVIOLATIONIS
REASONABLEANDJUSTIFIEDINTERMSOFTHELIMITATIONPROVISIONSINS4HEONUSTO
PROVETHELIMITATION ONABALANCEOFPROBABILITIES RESTSONTHEPARTYALLEGINGTHAT
THEAPPLICANTSRIGHTISLIMITED4HISISTHEAPPROACHADOPTEDIN1OZELENIV-INISTER
OF,AWAND/RDER 3!#2% ANDAPPROVEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
IN -AKWANYANE 3! ## :UMA 3!#2 ## -BATHA
0RINSLOO 3!##
4HE JUSTIFICATION FOR A LIMITATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT MUST BE ESTABLISHED
BY THE PARTY RELYING THEREON AND IT IS NOT FOR THE PARTY CHALLENGING IT TO SHOW
THATITWASUNJUSTIFIABLESEE:UMA 3!#2## 4HEPARTYALLEGINGA
LIMITATIONOFTHERIGHTINQUESTIONWILLARGUETHATTHECONTESTEDCONDUCTORLAW
ISNEVERTHELESSACCEPTABLEBECAUSEITCANBEJUSTIFIEDASLAWOFGENERALAPPLICATION
ANDTHATTHEBASISOFTHELIMITATIONISREASONABLEANDJUSTIFIABLE4HEFINALDETER
MINATIONWILLTHENHINGEONTHELIMITATIONCLAUSEANDNOTONTHEPROVISIONWHICH
ENTRENCHEDTHERIGHT3ECTION PROVIDESTHEMECHANISMSANDGUIDELINES FOR
THECOURTSHAVINGJURISDICTION TODECIDETHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFASPECIFICISSUE
3ECTIONHAS TO BE APPLIED IN ALL INSTANCESCONCERNINGTHEINFRINGEMENTOFA
FUNDAMENTALRIGHTORFREEDOM.OTETHATSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION DEALINGWITH

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
ARRESTED DETAINED AND ACCUSED PERSONS SETS OUT IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL LIMITA
TIONGROUNDS3OMEOFTHERIGHTSITCREATESARENOTABSOLUTEBUTCONDITIONAL FOR
EXAMPLE THEPROVISIONOFLEGALREPRESENTATIONATSTATEEXPENSE@IFSUBSTANTIALIN
JUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULTS C AND G RELEASEFROMDETENTION@IFTHE
INTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMITS F ANDTHEEXCLUSIONOFIMPROPERLYOBTAINED
EVIDENCE@IFITWOULDRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIRS
)FARIGHTWHICHISENTRENCHEDINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSISLIMITED ITMAYONLYBE
LIMITEDBYLAWOFGENERALAPPLICATION PROVIDEDTHAT
SUCHLIMITATIONISREASONABLE AND
SUCHLIMITATIONISJUSTIFIABLEINANOPENANDDEMOCRATICSOCIETYBASEDONHU
MANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOM AND
ALLRELEVANTFACTORSARETAKENINTOCONSIDERATION INCLUDING
4HEABOVEISNOTANEXHAUSTIVELIST BUTTHECRITERIAARETHEKEYFACTORSTHATHAVETO
BECONSIDEREDINANOVERALLASSESSMENTASTOWHETHERORNOTTHECONTESTEDLIMITA
TIONISREASONABLEANDJUSTIFIABLE-ANAMELA 3!#2## )NADDITION
THEFACTORSMENTIONEDINS A nE MUSTBECONSIDEREDINANYAPPRAISALOFTHE
REASONABLENESSANDJUSTIFIABILITYOFTHELIMITATION3EEALSO#HAPTER
,OCUSSTANDIDQGUHPHGLHVLQFRQVWLWXWLRQDOPDWWHUV
4HEMEANINGOFACONSTITUTIONALMATTERANDRELATEDISSUES
!CONSTITUTIONALMATTERINCLUDESANYISSUEINVOLVINGTHEINTERPRETATION PROTECTION
ORENFORCEMENTOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONS )SSUESCONNECTEDWITHDECISIONSON
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS CAN BE DECIDED BY THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT !PPLICATIONS
FORLEAVETOAPPEALTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTHATTURNONISSUESWHICHARECON
CERNEDWITHACONSTITUTIONALMATTERWILLRECEIVETHEATTENTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTIFTHECOURTISSATISFIEDTHATITISINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE"ASSON
3!#2## !CONSTITUTIONALISSUEISNOTRAISEDWHERETHEAPPLICANTISDISSATIS
FIEDWITHTHETRIALCOURTSFACTUALFINDINGS-ARAIS 3!#2## UNLESS
THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT REGARDS THE MATTER AS A POINT OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC
IMPORTANCES B II OFTHE#ONSTITUTION )N&RIEDMAN 3!#2
7 THE COURT STATED THAT A COURT RETAINS THE DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN A
CONSTITUTIONALCHALLENGEBEFORETHEACCUSEDPLEADS3UCHDISCRETIONISONLYTOBE
EXERCISEDINEXCEPTIONALCASES AFTERTAKINGCERTAINFACTORSINTOCONSIDERATION4HE
FACTORSTOBETAKENINTOACCOUNTARE THEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSOFTHECONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE THEPOSSIBLELENGTHOFDELAYOFTHETRIALAND THEPOSSIBLEPREJUDICE
TOTHEACCUSED IFTHECONSTITUTIONALCHALLENGEISNOTDECIDEDIMMEDIATELY
7HOHASORFXVVWDQGL WHATRELIEFISSOUGHTANDWHEN

3ECTION OF THE #ONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT WHEN AN INFRINGEMENT OF OR A
THREATTOANYRIGHTENTRENCHEDINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSISALLEGED ANYPERSONMEN

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TIONEDBELOWWILLBEENTITLEDTOAPPLYTOACOMPETENTCOURTFORAPPROPRIATERELIEF
WHICHMAYINCLUDEADECLARATIONOFRIGHTS3EEPARABELOWFORADISCUSSIONOF
ADECLARATIONOFRIGHTS 4HERELIEFAVAILABLETOANAPPLICANTINCLUDESANORDEROF
CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY OF A LAW THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH ORDER FOR A PERIOD TO
ALLOWFORTHERECTIFICATIONOFTHECONSTITUTIONALDEFECTINALAWTHEADJOURNMENT
OFCONSTITUTIONALPROCEEDINGSPENDINGADECISIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTHE
EXCLUSIONOFUNCONSTITUTIONALLYOBTAINEDEVIDENCEATEMPORARYINTERDICTOROTHER
TEMPORARYRELIEF)N&ERREIRAV,EVIN./ 3!7 THECOURTHELDTHAT
ANAPPLICATIONFORTEMPORARYRELIEFWILLONLYBEGRANTEDIFTHEAPPLICANTCANSHOW
THATTHEISSUEOFTHEVALIDITYOFTHE!CTISURGENTANDSERIOUS 7HENTHEREISAN
INFRINGEMENTOFORTHREATTOACONSTITUTIONALLYENTRENCHEDRIGHT THEAPPROPRIATE
RELIEFMUSTBEFOUNDINOURCOMMONLAWANDTHESTATUTESONACASE BY CASEBASIS
4HECOURTMAYDEVELOPTHECOMMONLAWTOTHEEXTENTTHATLEGISLATIONDOESNOT
GIVEEFFECTTOAFUNDAMENTALRIGHTAND IFNECESSARY DEVELOPRULESOFTHECOMMON
LAWTOLIMITTHERIGHT PROVIDEDTHATTHELIMITATIONISINACCORDANCEWITHSSEE
SS AND OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
A )N TERMS OF S OF THE #ONSTITUTION COMPETENT COURTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS ARE
THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTASACOURTOFAFINALINSTANCE
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAINCLUDINGALLITSDIVISIONS
4HESECOURTSMAYBEAPPROACHEDFORRELIEFBYANYOFTHEPERSONSMENTIONED
INBELOWWHENAN INFRINGEMENT OF OR THREAT TO ANY RIGHT ENTRENCHED IN
#HAPTERISALLEGED NAMELY
APERSONACTINGINHISORHEROWNINTEREST
ANASSOCIATIONACTINGINTHEINTERESTSOFITSMEMBERS
APERSONACTINGONBEHALFOFANOTHERPERSONWHOISNOTINAPOSITIONTO
SEEKSUCHRELIEFINHISORHEROWNNAME
APERSONACTINGASAMEMBEROF ORINTHEINTERESTOF AGROUPORCLASSOF
PERSONS
APERSONACTINGINTHEPUBLICINTEREST3EE#HAPTERPARA
B !NYPERSONORORGANOFSTATEWITHASUFFICIENTINTERESTMAYAPPLYBYMOTION
PROCEDUREORAPPEALDIRECTLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTOCONFIRMORVARY
ANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENTORAPROVINCIAL
!CTMADEBYACOMPETENTCOURTS D OFTHE#ONSTITUTION *URISTICPER
SONSAREENTITLEDTOTHERIGHTSCONTAINEDINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSPERSONISENTITLED
TOSEEKRELIEFINTERMSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONCFS OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
)N-AGANOV$ISTRICT-AGISTRATE *OHANNESBURG 3!#27 THECOURT
CONSIDEREDTHEQUESTIONWHETHERAPPLICATIONOFS A OFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITU
TION S OF THE FINAL #ONSTITUTION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RECOGNISED GROUNDS
OF REVIEW ENUMERATED IN S OF THE 3UPERIOR #OURTS !CT THEN S OF !CT
OF NOWREPEALED SEEABOVE ANDWHETHERSUCHGROUNDSAREOFAWIDE RANG
INGNATURE4HECOURTHELDTHATS A DIDNOTDETERMINETHENATUREOF ORTHE
GROUNDSFOR RELIEF BUTTHECIRCUMSTANCESWHENSUCHRELIEFMAYBESOUGHT NAME
LY WHEN A PERSONS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE DISREGARDED OR INFRINGED )F S
WERE TO BE LIMITED TO THOSE SITUATIONS PERTINENT TO THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED IN

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
S IT WOULD SERIOUSLY HAMPER THE COURTS JUDICIAL POWERS TO REVIEW PROCEED
INGS IN LOWER COURTS #ONSEQUENTLY THE PROVISIONS OF S ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO
THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN S BUT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WIDELY IN ORDER TO
ALLOWRELIEFWHENEVERTHEREISANINFRINGEMENTOFAPERSONSFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS
3TANDING PROVISIONS ARE BROADLY AND EXPANSIVELY FRAMED AS AN INDICATION OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BUT DO NOT ALLOW ABSTRACT
NON SPECIFICCHALLENGESONTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFLEGISLATION3AVOYV.ATIONAL
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2## AT;=AND;=
$FFHVVWRFRPSHWHQWFRXUWVUHODWLQJWRFRQVWLWXWLRQDOPDWWHUV
!CCESSTOCOURTSCOMPETENTTOHEARCONSTITUTIONALMATTERSMAYBEGAINEDINTHE
FOLLOWINGWAYS
A 4OTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
I BYMEANSOFANAPPEALFROMACOURTOFASTATUSHIGHERTHANALOWERCOURT
SAND D OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
II BYMEANSOFAREFERRALBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTORBYTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALS B ANDC OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDS A OF
THE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT OR
III BYMEANSOFDIRECTACCESSONAPPLICATIONORONAPPEALFROMANYPERSON
ORGANWITHSUFFICIENTINTERESTTODOSOS A ANDB OFTHE#ONSTITU
TIONANDS B OF!CTOF
B 4OTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYONLYBEAPPROACHEDBYMEANSOFANAP
PEAL UNLESSANISSUEWASSPECIFICALLYREFERREDTOTHISCOURTBYLEGISLATION
C 4OTHE(IGH#OURT
!CCESSTOTHE(IGH#OURTFORTHEPURPOSESOFDECIDINGACONSTITUTIONALISSUE
ISOBTAINEDBYMEANSOFREVIEWPOWERSORONAPPEALORONANAPPLICATIONFOR
RELIEFSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
,EAVETOAPPEALISGENERALLYAPREREQUISITEBEFOREANAPPEALMAYBEHEARD/NTHE
STANDINGOFLOWERCOURTSWITHREGARDTOCONSTITUTIONALISSUES SEE#HAPTERPARA

4
(%$)&&%2%.#%"%47%%.!00%!,!.$2%6)%702/#%$52%3
!LTHOUGHTHEREISADIFFERENCEBETWEENAPPEALANDREVIEWPROCEDURES BOTHARE
INHERENTLYAIMEDATSETTINGASIDEACONVICTIONORASENTENCE#ORRECTPROCEDURE
SHOULD HOWEVER BEUSED!SMENTIONEDABOVE ANAPPEALISTHECORRECTWAYTO
CHALLENGEACONVICTIONORSENTENCEORBOTH!NAPPEALISCONCERNEDWITHTHESUB
STANTIVECORRECTNESSOFTHEDECISIONBASEDONTHEFACTSORMERITSOFTHECASEONTHE
RECORDANDTHELAWRELEVANTTOSUCHFACTS3HOULDAPARTYFEELAGGRIEVEDABOUTAN
IRREGULARITYINVOLVEDINARRIVINGATTHECONVICTION THEBESTPROCEDUREISTOSEEK
REDRESSBYWAYOFREVIEW!REVIEWISCONCERNEDWITHTHEVALIDITYOFTHEPROCEED
INGS!CCORDINGTO%LLISV-ORGAN%LLISV$ESSAI43AT ANIRREGULARITY
INTHEPROCEEDINGS
DOES NOT MEAN AN INCORRECT JUDGMENT IT REFERS NOT TO THE RESULT BUT TO THE
METHODSOFATRIAL SUCHAS FOREXAMPLE SOMEHIGH HANDEDORMISTAKENACTION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
WHICH HAS PREVENTED THE AGGRIEVED PARTY FROM HAVING HIS CASE FULLY AND FAIRLY
DETERMINED
.OT ONLY IRREGULARITIES THAT ARISE FROM HIGH HANDEDNESS BUT ALSO A BONA FIDE
MISTAKE DENYING THE ACCUSED A FAIR TRIAL WILL AMOUNT TO AN IRREGULARITY IN THE
PROCEEDINGS)FAPARTYWISHESTOATTACKTHEPROCEEDINGSONONEORMOREGROUNDS
OFREVIEWANDALSOTHECORRECTNESSOFTHEMAGISTRATESFINDINGSONTHEFACTSORTHE
LAWORBOTHHEORSHEMAYAPPEALANDAPPLYFORREVIEW%LLISABOVE *UDICIAL
REVIEWRELATINGTOCONSTITUTIONALISSUESISBROUGHTBYMEANSOFANAPPEALORREVIEW
DEPENDINGONTHEFORUMLOWERCOURTORDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT INWHICHTHE
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER HAS ARISEN 4HE PURPOSE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WILL OBVIOUSLY
CAUSETHEAPPROACHTOANDGROUNDSOFTHEREVIEWTOBEDIFFERENTFROMTHOSEAP
PLYINGTOAPPEAL
4HEDIFFERENCESBETWEENAPPEALANDREVIEWPROCEDUREWHENCONSTITUTIONALIS
SUESARENOTEXCLUSIVELYINVOLVEDAREBASICALLYTHEFOLLOWING
!NAPPEALMAYBEBROUGHTAGAINSTTHEFINDINGSOFALOWERCOURTONANYPOINT
OFLAWANDORFACT!REVIEWINTERMSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT ONTHEOTHER
HAND CANBEBROUGHTONLYONTHEGROUNDOFSPECIFICPROCEDURALIRREGULARITIES
SEEBELOW UNDER@'ROUNDSFORREVIEW
)NANAPPEALTHEPARTIESARECONFINEDTOWHATAPPEARSONTHERECORD BUTINA
REVIEWITISPERMISSIBLETOPROVEANYOFTHEGROUNDSFORREVIEWINCLUDINGAL
LEGEDIRREGULARITIESTHATDONOTAPPEARONTHEFACEOFTHERECORD BYAFFIDAVIT
SOASTOSHOWTHATTHEJUDGEHADANINTERESTINTHECAUSEORTHATHEORSHE
ACTEDMALICIOUSLYORCORRUPTLY)N-WAMBAZI 3!#2.M AT!
THECOURTILLUSTRATEDTHEDIFFERENCEASFOLLOWS
)TMUSTBESTRESSEDTHATINANAPPEALANAPPELLANTISCONFINEDTOTHEFOURCORNERS
OF THE RECORD BUT IN REVIEW PROCEEDINGS THE AGGRIEVED PARTY TRAVERSES MATTERS
NOT APPEARING ON THE RECORD 3EE ALSO 3CHWARTZ V 'OLDSCHMID 40$
#ONSEQUENTLY IFTHEREISAPATENTOMISSIONFROMTHERECORD ASFORINSTANCETHE
MAGISTRATESFAILURETOINFORMANACCUSEDOFHISRIGHTTOREPRESENTATION ANDTHE
ACCUSEDCOMESBYWAYOFAPPEAL SUCHFAILURETOINFORMHIMDOESNOTMEANTHE
(IGH#OURTWILLINTERFEREUNLESSITALSOAPPEARSFROMTHERECORDTHATTHEAPPEL
LANTDIDNOTKNOWOFHISRIGHT/NTHEOTHERHAND IFTHEACCUSEDCAMEBYWAYOF
REVIEWHECOULDFILLTHISGAPINHISAFFIDAVIT
&URTHERMORE AREVIEWISNOTGENERALLYPERMISSIBLEONAFINDINGOFFACTUNLESS
THATFINDINGISSOUNREASONABLETHATITCONSTITUTESANIRREGULARITY7HILEANY
QUESTIONOFLAWORFACT ORANYGROSSIRREGULARITYAPPEARINGONTHEFACEORTHE
RECORD MAY BE RAISED BY MEANS OF AN APPEAL THE ACCUSED WHO BRINGS THE
MATTERBEFORETHECOURTBYWAYOFREVIEWISCONFINEDTOTHESPECIFICGROUNDS
FORREVIEW/NREVIEWHEORSHEWILLNOTBEALLOWEDTOARGUETHATTHEPRESID
INGOFFICERWENTWRONGONAPOINTOFLAW UNLESSTHEERRORAFFECTEDONEOFTHE
GROUNDSFORREVIEWEG WHERETHEMAGISTRATEINCORRECTLYDECIDESTHATTHELAW
CONFERRED JURISDICTION UPON HIM OR HER WHICH HE OR SHE ACTUALLY DOES NOT
HAVE 4HEAPPLICANTMAYNOTARGUEONREVIEWTHATTHEMAGISTRATESDECISION
IS WRONG ON THE FACTSALTHOUGH A TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY
THEMAGISTRATESFINDINGISSUCHAGROSSIRREGULARITYASTOAFFORDAGROUNDFOR
REVIEWSEE(LATSWAYO 3!/

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
7HILE AN APPEAL MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME THERE IS NO SUCH
LIMIT IN THE CASE OF A REVIEW (OWEVER A COURT OF REVIEW WILL NOT CONDONE
THE BRINGING OF THE MATTER UNDER REVIEW AFTER AN UNREASONABLE PERIOD HAS
ELAPSEDSINCECONVICTION)NTHECASEOFALONGDELAY THECOURTWILLEXERCISEITS
DISCRETIONTOHEARTHEREVIEWONLYIFASATISFACTORYEXPLANATIONFORTHEDELAY
ISGIVEN:WANEV-AGISTRATE -APHUMULO 3!. .OTEHOWEVER
THATANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISNOT
TIME BOUNDBUTMAYINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESBEALLOWEDS F OF
THE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
!PPEALISTANTAMOUNTTOARETRIALONTHERECORD WHILEINTHECASEOFAREVIEW
FACTSCANBEBROUGHTTOTHENOTICEOFTHECOURTBYMEANSOFANAFFIDAVITINOR
DERTOPROVETHEIRREGULARITY ANDTHEENQUIRYISTHENWHETHERTHEPROCEEDINGS
HAVEBEENINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICEANDORWHETHERTHEACCUSEDHASBEEN
PREJUDICEDBYTHEIRREGULARITIESINTHEPROCEEDINGSHOWEVER SEEABOVEPARA
AND#HAPTERPARA
!COURTHASNOINHERENTAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONANDITSPOWERSONAPPEALARE
STATUTORILYLIMITED)TISTHEREFORENOTPOSSIBLETOINVOKETHECOURTSAPPELLATE
POWERSBYANYMEANSOTHERTHANTHOSESETOUTINTHERELEVANTSTATUTORYPROVI
SIONS/NLYTHESUPERIORCOURTSENJOYINHERENTCONSTITUTIONALREVIEWJURISDIC
TIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION 4HECOURTSINHERENTREVIEWJURISDICTIONIS
OVERRIDINGANDMAYBEINVOKEDIRRESPECTIVEOFTHERELIEFPROCEDUREINSTITUTED
7HENCONSIDERINGANAPPEALORASTATUTORYREVIEW THESUPERIORCOURTSMAY
RESORTTOTHEIRINHERENTREVIEWJURISDICTIONINORDERTOPROMOTETHEINTERESTS
OFJUSTICE
!NAPPEALISLODGEDBYWAYOFANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL WHEREASA
REVIEWISSOUGHTBYWAYOFANOTICEOFMOTIONWHEREBYTHERESPONDENTSARE
CALLED UPON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DECISION OR PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE
REVIEWEDANDCORRECTEDORSETASIDE
2
%6)%7).4%2-3/&4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4
!UTOMATICREVIEW
*HQHUDO
4HE LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT CERTAIN SENTENCES OF MAGISTRATES
COURTSMUSTBEREVIEWEDBYA@PROVINCIALOR@LOCALDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTIN
THEORDINARYCOURSEOFEVENTS WITHOUTTHEACCUSEDREQUESTINGIT2EVIEWOFSEN
TENCESASAMATTEROFCOURSEISKNOWNINPRACTICEAS@AUTOMATICREVIEWTHETERM
THATISFAVOUREDHERE!UTOMATICREVIEWISOF3OUTH!FRICANORIGINANDISAPRAISE
WORTHYDEVELOPMENTBECAUSEITENSURESTHATTHE(IGH#OURTCONSTANTLYCONTROLS
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN MAGISTRATES COURTS SEE 3!,* ET SEQ
4HEPROCESSOFAUTOMATICREVIEWISBASEDONTWOFUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLESJUDICIAL
EXPERIENCEANDTHEEXTENTOFTHESENTENCE4HEPREMISEISTHATTHELESSJUDICIALEX
PERIENCETHEPRESIDINGOFFICERHAS THEMORERESTRICTEDHISORHERPROFICIENCYAND
SKILLWILLBE ANDTHEGREATERTHEDANGEROFINCORRECTCONDUCTANDSENTENCES)N
DISTRICTCOURTS EXPERIENCEINSENTENCINGABOVEACERTAINLIMITISRESTRICTEDBYTHE
LIMITEDEXTENTOFCASESADJUDICATEDINSUCHCOURTS-OKUBUNG,ESIBO 3!
/ #ONSEQUENTLY NOPROVISIONISMADEINTHE!CTFORTHEAUTOMATICREVIEW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
OFSENTENCESIMPOSEDBYTHE(IGH#OURT OROFDECISIONSANDSENTENCESIMPOSED
BYREGIONALCOURTS!SENTENCEOFAFINEORIMPRISONMENTIMPOSEDBYAREGIONAL
COURTINTERMSOFS OF!CTOFFORCONTEMPTOFCOURTISANEXCEPTION
TOTHEABOVERULESEES OFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOFANDCF
.XANE 3!/
!LTHOUGH THE AUTOMATIC REVIEW PROCEDURE IS TERMED @REVIEW THE REVIEWING
JUDGEISNOTLIMITEDTOTHEINVESTIGATIONOFIRREGULARITIESBUTMAYPAYATTENTION
TO ALL ASPECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL (OWEVER IN AN AUTOMATIC REVIEW THE
JUDGEISCONFINEDTOTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS!COURTONREVIEWHASONLYTO
CERTIFYTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSWEREINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICE ANDNOTNECESSAR
ILYINACCORDANCEWITHLAW(ENCEACOURTONAUTOMATICREVIEWCOULDCONFIRMAN
INCOMPETENTSENTENCE WHERETHECIRCUMSTANCESOFTHECASEDIDNOTWARRANTTHE
SETTINGASIDETHEREOFASACOURTONREVIEWHASONLYTOCERTIFYTHATTHEPROCEEDINGS
WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUSTICE AND NOT NECESSARILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
#EDARS 3!#2'.0 )NTHISCASETHECOURTFOLLOWED(ARMER43
AT WHERE)NNES#*HELDTHATACOURTONREVIEWONLYHASTOCERTIFYTHATTHE
PROCEEDINGSAREINACCORDANCEWITHREALANDSUBSTANTIALJUSTICE NOTNECESSARILY
INACCORDANCEWITHSTRICTLAWEVENTHOUGHARULEOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREMAYNOT
HAVEBEENOBSERVED!UTOMATICREVIEWPROCEEDINGSDONOTBARTHEACCUSEDFROM
APPEALINGTHECOURTSDECISIONORORDERBEFOREORAFTERTHECOURTHASCERTIFIEDTHE
PROCEEDINGS
'
LVWULFWFRXUWVpVHQWHQFHVVXEMHFWWRDXWRPDWLFUHYLHZ
)NGENERAL BUTSUBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSS ANDOFTHE#HILD*USTICE
!CTOF WHICHPROVIDEFORLEGALREPRESENTATIONFORCHILDOFFENDERSANDSEN
TENCESOFDETENTION ASENTENCEISNOTSUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEWIFTHEACCUSED
WASASSISTEDBYALEGALADVISERS 7HERETHEACCUSEDWASASSISTEDDURING
THE TRIAL BUT NOT AT THE TIME OF SENTENCE EITHER BECAUSE THE LEGAL ADVISER HAD
WITHDRAWN ORBECAUSETHEACCUSEDHADWITHDRAWNTHELEGAL ADVISERSMANDATE
THEPROCEEDINGSARENEVERTHELESSSUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEW-BOYANY
3!4 )TISSUBMITTEDTHATWHERETHEREISDOUBTORWHERETHELEGALADVISERAT
ANYSTAGEDURINGTHETRIALISABSENTFORSUCHAPERIODTHATHISORHERABSENCECOULD
HAVEMADEADIFFERENCETOTHEOUTCOMEOFTHETRIAL AUTOMATICREVIEWWOULDBE
THEPROPERCOURSE
4HEPRESCRIBEDLIMITSOFAUTOMATICREVIEWARENOTLINKEDTOTHEDISTRICTCOURTS
ORDINARYPOWERSOFREVIEW BUTEXCEEDINGTHECOURTSORDINARYJURISDICTIONWOULD
CONSTITUTEAGROUNDFORAUTOMATICASWELLASOTHERFORMSOFREVIEW
4HEFOLLOWINGSENTENCESIMPOSEDONOFFENDERSARESUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEW
3ENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT INCLUDING DETENTION IN A CHILD AND YOUTH CARE
CENTREPROVIDINGARESIDENTIALPROGRAMMEOUTSIDEPRISONORINAFAMILYEN
VIRONMENTASCONTEMPLATEDANDPROVIDEDFORINS J OFTHE#HILDRENS
!CTOF FORAPERIODEXCEEDINGTHREEMONTHSIFIMPOSEDBYAJUDICIAL
OFFICERWHOHASNOTHELDTHESUBSTANTIVERANKOFAMAGISTRATEORHIGHERFOR
SEVENYEARS ORFORAPERIODEXCEEDINGSIXMONTHS IFIMPOSEDBYAJUDICIALOF
FICERWHOHASHELDTHESUBSTANTIVERANKOFAMAGISTRATEORHIGHERFORSEVEN
YEARSORLONGER ARESUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEWS A I 4HETERM@HAS

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
HELDTHESUBSTANTIVERANKINTHESECTIONISWIDEENOUGHTOINCLUDEAMAG
ISTRATESPREVIOUSTERMOFOFFICE"OTHA 3!4 )N(ESKWA
3!#2# THEDESIRABILITYOFTHEPRACTICEPROPOUNDEDBY"OTHAABOVE
WASQUESTIONEDANDTHECOURTSUGGESTEDANAMENDMENTOFS PROVIDING
THATTHESEVEN YEARPERIODSHOULDHAVEBEENSERVEDDURINGTHEIMMEDIATELY
PRECEDINGYEARS (OWEVER THEJUDICIALOFFICERSHOULDACTUALLYHAVESERVED
ASMAGISTRATEFORTHEREQUIREDPERIODANDTHEFACTTHATHEHASBEENREGARDEDAS
AMAGISTRATEFORTHEREQUIREDPERIODISIRRELEVANTFORTHEPURPOSESOFS A
I (ESKWAABOVE !MAGISTRATEWHOHASPRESIDEDINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
INWHICHAPLEAWASRECORDEDINTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
SHALLNOTWITHSTANDINGHISORHERVACATIONOFTHEOFFICEOFMAGISTRATEDISPOSE
OFANYPART HEARDPROCEEDINGSANDFORSUCHPURPOSEHEORSHESHALLCONTINUE
TOHOLDSUCHOFFICEINRESPECTOFANYPERIODDURINGWHICHHEORSHEISENGAGED
IN DISPOSING OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE -INISTER AND THE
#HIEF*USTICES A ANDE OFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CTOF)T
FOLLOWSTHATINSUCHCIRCUMSTANCES HEORSHECONTINUESTOHOLDTHESUBSTAN
TIVERANKOFMAGISTRATE REGARDLESSOFHISORHERRESIGNATIONFROMTHEPOSTOF
MAGISTRATE
$IRECTIMPRISONMENTANDANYSUSPENDEDIMPRISONMENT IFIMPOSED MUST
BEADDEDUPTODETERMINETHEREVIEWABILITYOFTHESENTENCE)NTHESAMEMAN
NERASUSPENDEDPERIODOFIMPRISONMENTISSUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEWIFIT
EXCEEDSTHEPRESCRIBEDPERIOD,IKEWISE IFASUSPENDEDSENTENCEOFIMPRIS
ONMENTDOESNOTEXCEEDTHEPRESCRIBEDLIMIT THESENTENCEISNOTSUBJECTTO
AUTOMATICREVIEW- 3!#24
! SENTENCE OF A FINE THAT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE -INISTER
FROMTIMETOTIMEBYNOTICEINTHE'OVERNMENT'AZETTEFORTHERESPECTIVEJUDI
CIALOFFICERSREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION A I ABOVEISSUBJECTTOAUTOMATIC
REVIEWS A II &ROM*ANUARY'' ASENTENCETHATIN
THE CASE OF A FINE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF 2 IF IMPOSED BY A JUDICIAL
OFFICERWHOHASNOTHELDTHESUBSTANTIVERANKOFAMAGISTRATEORHIGHERFOR
SEVENYEARS ORWHICHEXCEEDSTHEAMOUNTOF2 IFIMPOSEDBYAJUDICIAL
OFFICERWHOHASHELDTHESUBSTANTIVERANKOFAMAGISTRATEORHIGHERFORSEVEN
YEARSORLONGER ISSUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEWS A II
&OR THE PURPOSE OF AUTOMATIC REVIEW IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER A FINE IS COUPLED
WITH AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WHETHER SUSPENDED OR NOT AND
WHETHERTHEFINEISPAIDORNOT-ELANI 3!#2.# !FRIKANER
3!#2# !LLSENTENCESOFFINESABOVETHEPRESCRIBEDLIMITANDIMPOSED
BYMAGISTRATESOFDISTRICTCOURTSRENDERTHEPROCEEDINGSAUTOMATICALLYREVIEWABLE
ANDITISIRRELEVANTWHETHERTHEFINEISPAIDORNOT
)NORDERTOCOMPUTESENTENCESTHATAREAPPROPRIATEFORAUTOMATICREVIEW EACH
SENTENCEONEACHSEPARATECOUNTMUSTBECONSIDEREDASEPARATESENTENCE4HEFACT
THATTHEAGGREGATEOFTHESENTENCESIMPOSEDINRESPECTOFMORETHANONECOUNTIN
THESAMEPROCEEDINGSORCRIMINALTRIALEXCEEDSTHEPRESCRIBEDPERIODSORAMOUNTS
DOESNOTRENDERTHOSESENTENCES IFBELOWTHESTATUTORYPRESCRIBEDLIMITS SUBJECT
TOAUTOMATICREVIEWS
!NAUTOMATICREVIEWDOESNOTAFFECTANACCUSEDSRIGHTOFAPPEALAGAINSTSUCH
A SENTENCE WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER CONFIRMATION THEREOF BY THE JUDGE OR COURT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
REVIEWINGIT)FANACCUSEDHASAPPEALEDAGAINSTACONVICTIONORSENTENCEANDHAS
NOTABANDONEDTHEAPPEAL THEAUTOMATICREVIEWOFTHESENTENCEISSUSPENDEDAND
SHALLCEASETOAPPLYCONCERNINGSUCHACCUSEDWHENJUDGMENTISGIVENS
B
!UTOMATICREVIEWAPPLICABLEINRESPECTOFCHILDRENINTERMSOFTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CTOF
#HILDREN CONVICTED IN TERMS OF THE #HILD *USTICE !CT OR ANY OTHER PROVISION
HAVETHEIRSENTENCESAUTOMATICALLYREVIEWEDASPROVIDEDINTERMSOFSOFTHE
#RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT UNLESS THE CHILD HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO ANY FORM OF
IMPRISONMENT THAT WAS NOT WHOLLY SUSPENDED OR ANY SENTENCE OF COMPULSORY
RESIDENCEINACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTREPROVIDINGAPROGRAMMEPROVIDEDFOR
INS J OFTHE#HILDRENS!CTSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT)NSUCHACASETHE
SENTENCEWILLBEAUTOMATICALLYREVIEWED IRRESPECTIVEOFTHETERMOFIMPRISONMENT
IMPOSEDORTHEPERIOD FOR WHICHTHE PRESIDINGOFFICER HAS HELDTHE SUBSTANTIVE
RANKOFMAGISTRATE#ONTRARYTOTHEPROCEDUREINTERMSOFS INSUCHACASEIT
ISALSOOFNOSIGNIFICANCEWHETHERTHECHILDWASREPRESENTEDDURINGTHEPROCEED
INGSORNOT ORWHETHERTHETRIALWASCONDUCTEDINADISTRICTORREGIONALCOURT,-
3!#2 7## &- 3!#2 '.0 #ONSEQUENTLY WHEN A
CHILDISLEGALLYREPRESENTEDANDSENTENCEDBYANYLOWERCOURTTOIMPRISONMENT
NOTWHOLLYSUSPENDEDORCOMPULSORYDETENTIONINACHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE
THESENTENCEWILLBEAUTOMATICALLYREVIEWED WHILEINRESPECTOFOTHERSENTENCES
WHERETHECHILDENJOYEDTHESERVICESOFALEGALREPRESENTATIVE AUTOMATICREVIEW
WILLBEEXCLUDEDINTERMSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
3UCHAUTOMATICREVIEWWILLBESUSPENDEDWHENANAPPEALISNOTEDINTERMSOF
SOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT2ELEASEOFTHECHILDONBAILWILLBEPOSSIBLE PENDING
REVIEWORAPPEAL
7HENAUTOMATICREVIEWISNOTAPPLICABLE
.OT ALL ORDERS OF A LOWER COURT ARE AUTOMATICALLY REVIEWABLE 4HE FOLLOWING ARE
EXAMPLESOFTHOSENOTREVIEWABLE
7HENAPERSONISCONVICTEDANDITAPPEARSTHATTHECONVICTEDPERSONHASNOT
COMPLIEDWITHACONDITIONOFSUSPENSIONIMPOSEDASPARTOFASENTENCEOFA
PREVIOUSCONVICTION THEPUTTINGINTOEFFECTOFSUCHSUSPENDEDSENTENCESISAN
ADMINISTRATIVEDECISIONANDISNOTA@SENTENCE4HE(IGH#OURTSMAYREVIEW
ITONLYBYVIRTUEOFITSCOMMON LAWPOWEROFREVIEWUPONNOTICEOFMOTION
6AN3TADEN 0((4 :WANE 3!#24
!NORDERMADEUNDERS A OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTTHATANACCUSED
IS NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE PROCEEDINGS TO MAKE A PROPER DEFENCE
ANDDETENTIONOFANACCUSEDINAPSYCHIATRICHOSPITALORDETENTIONINADES
IGNATEDHEALTHESTABLISHMENTPENDINGTHESIGNIFICATIONOFTHEDECISIONOFA
JUDGEINCHAMBERS ISNOTSUBJECTTOAUTOMATICREVIEWSEE#ACAMBILE
3!#2%#" BUTMAYBEAPPEALEDAGAINSTONCONDITIONTHATTHEACCUSED
DIDNOTRAISEHISORHERMENTALILLNESSASADEFENCEAGAINSTANYCRIMINALRE
SPONSIBILITYONHISORHERPARTSEES S AND"LAAUW 3!
# 6AN7YK 3!#24

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
4HEPROCEEDINGSINANINQUESTCONDUCTEDBEFOREAMAGISTRATEINTERMSOFTHE
)NQUESTS !CT OF IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE CAUSE OF DEATH OF A DE
CEASEDPERSON ARENOTCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSANDACCORDINGLYNOTREVIEWABLE
INTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT)NRE-JOLI 3!#24
.OJUDGMENTGIVENORORDERBYAREGIONALCOURTISAUTOMATICALLYREVIEWABLE
EXCEPT AS ENVISAGED BY S OF THE #HILD *USTICE !CT IN THE CASE OF A CHILD
WHOHASBEENSENTENCEDINTHEREGIONALCOURTTOIMPRISONMENTWHICHSEN
TENCEWASNOTWHOLLYSUSPENDED ORSENTENCEDTOCOMPULSORYRESIDENCEINA
CHILDANDYOUTHFACILITY4HEAUTOMATICREVIEWISSUSPENDEDWHENANAPPEAL
ISNOTED
#RIMINALPROCEEDINGSDIVERTEDINTOAMAINTENANCEINVESTIGATIONARENOTAU
TOMATICALLY REVIEWABLE-AHLANGA ;= !LL 3! 4 AND SEE ALSO 6AN
,OGGERENBERG 3!#24 ONTHETIEDHANDSOFA(IGH#OURTTOREVIEW
THEDEFAULTOFTHE-INISTERTOAPPOINTMAINTENANCEINVESTIGATORS
3URFHGXUHRQUHYLHZ
!FTERASENTENCEHASBEENPASSEDTHATISSUBJECTTOREVIEW THECLERKOFTHECOURT
MUST TRANSMIT THE RECORD TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE @PROVINCIAL OR @LOCAL DIVISION
HAVINGJURISDICTION NOTLATERTHANONEWEEKAFTERTHEDETERMINATIONOFTHECASE
4HERESHOULDBENODELAYINTRANSMITTINGTHERECORDASANYDELAYCANSERIOUSLY
PREJUDICE AN ACCUSED2APHATLE 3!#2 4 5NREASONABLE DELAYS IN
SUBMITTINGTHERECORDREFLECTONTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRANDSPEEDYTRIALAND
MIGHT BE IN ITSELF SUFFICIENTLY MATERIAL TO EXCLUDE CONFIRMATION OF THE COURT OF
REVIEWTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHETRIALCOURTWEREINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICE
*OORS 3!#2# 4HEMAGISTRATEMAYAPPENDSUCHREMARKSASHEORSHE
CONSIDERSDESIRABLETOTHERECORD4HEACCUSEDISENTITLED WITHINTHREEDAYSAFTER
CONVICTION TOSUPPLYANYWRITTENSTATEMENTORARGUMENTINSUPPORTOFHISORHER
CASETOTHECLERKOFTHECOURTTOBETRANSMITTEDTOTHEREGISTRARWITHTHERECORDS
ANDSEEALSO"RUNETTE 3!4 !SSOONASPOSSIBLE THEREGISTRAR
MUSTSUBMITALLTHESEPAPERSTOAJUDGEINCHAMBERSFORHISORHERCONSIDERATION
S ! DELAY OF SIX MONTHS IN SUBMITTING THE RECORD TO THE JUDGE DEFEATS THE
PURPOSEOFTHEREVIEWPROCESS6# 3!#2+:0 !JUDGEWHORECEIVES
THEDOCUMENTSINCHAMBERSMUSTCERTIFYONTHERECORDTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSARE
INORDERIF INHISORHEROPINION THEPROCEEDINGSWEREINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICE
@0ROCEEDINGSCOMPRISESBOTHCONVICTIONANDSENTENCEANDACOURTOFREVIEWIS
ACCORDINGLYEMPOWEREDTOREVIEWBOTHCONVICTIONANDSENTENCEEVENTHOUGHTHE
CASEISREFERREDFORRECTIFICATIONOFTHESENTENCEONLY2OTHMAN 3!#2
/
)FTHEJUDGEISUNCERTAINWHETHERTHELEGALRULESWERECOMPLIEDWITHDURINGTHE
MAGISTRATES COURT PROCEEDINGS THE JUDGE REQUESTS A STATEMENT FROM THE MAGIS
TRATEWHOPRESIDEDATTHETRIALSETTINGFORTHHISORHERREASONSFORCONVICTINGTHE
ACCUSEDANDFORTHESENTENCEIMPOSED5SUALLYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
WILLALSOBEAPPROACHEDFORHISORHERCOMMENTSCFS 7HENAQUERYISOR
QUERIESAREDIRECTEDTOAMAGISTRATEBYAREVIEWINGJUDGE ITISEXPECTEDOFTHELATTER
TORESPONDINARESPONSIBLE COMPLETEANDCOURTEOUSMANNER-OGETWANE
3!#2/ 1UERIESBYTHEREVIEWINGJUDGEANDRESPONSESBYTHEMAGISTRATE
MUST ALWAYS BE COUCHED IN CIVIL AND RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE.JIVA 3!#2

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
%#- -AGISTRATESMUSTRESPONDWITHINAREASONABLETIME)N&RANSMAN
3!#27## THELENGTHYFAILUREOFONEYEARTORESPONDTOTHEQUERIESOF
THEREVIEWINGJUDGEWASREPORTEDTOTHE-AGISTRATES#OMMISSION)N(LUNGWANE
3!#24 3!#24 THEMAGISTRATEANDTHEDIRECTOROF
PUBLICPROSECUTIONSWERECHIDEDANDCRITICISEDFORTAKINGFIVEMONTHSANDTHREE
WEEKS RESPECTIVELY TORESPONDTOORTOCOMMENTONTHEJUDGESQUERIESANDRE
QUEST!CCUSEDWHOHAVENOCOUNSELAREENTITLEDTOASPEEDYREVIEWANDTHECOURT
WARNEDTHATAFAILUREBYTHEAUTHORITIESTOENSURETHATSUCHRIGHTISPROPERLYRE
SPECTEDMAYAMOUNTTOAWRONGFULACTAGAINSTANACCUSEDTHATCOULDLEADTOA
CLAIMFORDAMAGESAGAINSTTHEAUTHORITIESIFTHEACCUSEDWASINCORRECTLYCONVICTED
ANDOR SENTENCED /N THE OTHER HAND MAGISTRATES OUGHT NOT TO REGARD A QUERY
DIRECTEDBYAJUDGEASANUNNECESSARYIRRITATION TOBEDISPOSEDOFASQUICKLYAS
POSSIBLE7HENAJUDGEDIRECTSAQUERY ITMEANSTHATHEORSHEISPRIMAFACIENOT
SATISFIEDTHATJUSTICEWASDONE4HEMAGISTRATECAN BYFURNISHINGPROPERREASONS
CONTRIBUTETOTHEREMOVALOFTHEJUDGESINITIALDOUBT ANDTOTHECONFIRMATION
OFTHECONVICTIONANDORSENTENCE*OALE 3!#2/ )FTHEJUDGEHAS
NOFURTHERDOUBTS HEORSHESIGNSTHECERTIFICATE(OWEVER IFTHEJUDGEISSTILLIN
DOUBTORISUNCERTAINORITAPPEARSFROMTHEOUTSETTOTHEJUDGETHATTHEPROCEED
INGSWERENOTACCORDINGTOJUSTICE TWOJUDGESSITTINGASACOURTOFREVIEW MUST
CONSIDERTHEPROCEEDINGSANDDELIVERJUDGMENTCFS A 7HERETHEREVIEW
OFTHEPROCEEDINGSISAMATTEROFURGENCY THECOURTOFREVIEWCONSIDERSTHEPRO
CEEDINGSWITHOUTOBTAININGASTATEMENTFROMTHEMAGISTRATE4HISWOULDBETHE
CASEWHERETHEJUDGEISOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSWERECLEARLYNOTIN
ACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICEANDTHATDELAYINGTHEREVIEWPROCEDUREWOULDBETOTHE
ACCUSEDSPREJUDICE
4HETESTTHATACOURTOFREVIEWAPPLIESINAUTOMATICREVIEWPROCEDUREISWHETHER
JUSTICEHASBEENDONE)FITHAS THESENTENCEWILLBECONFIRMEDEVENTHOUGHTHERE
WERETECHNICALIRREGULARITIES!DDABBA.GEME6AN7YK 3!#24
4HECONFIRMATIONOFPROCEEDINGSONREVIEWREQUIRESAFINDINGONLYTHATTHEPRO
CEEDINGSWEREINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICEALTHOUGHNOTNECESSARILYINACCORDANCE
WITHLAWFOREXAMPLE THEPROCEEDINGSMIGHTBECONFIRMEDONREVIEWALTHOUGH
A RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WAS DISREGARDED.DLOVU 3!#2 7
(OWEVER THEPROCEEDINGSMUSTBEINACCORDANCEWITHREALANDSUBSTANTIALJUSTICE
INSOFARASTHEINTERESTSOFTHECONVICTEDPERSONARECONCERNED:WANE
3!#2.
)FTHECOURTOFREVIEWDESIRESTOHAVEANYQUESTIONOFLAWORFACTINTHECASEAR
GUED ITMAYDIRECTITTOBEARGUEDBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSANDBY
SUCHCOUNSELASTHECOURTMAYAPPOINTFORTHEACCUSED4HEQUERIESBYTHEREVIEW
INGJUDGE THEMAGISTRATESREPLYANDALLOTHERCOMMUNICATIONMUSTBEINCLUDED
INTHECASERECORD.TSHINGILA 3!.
,OSTORINCOMPLETERECORD
)T MAY SOMETIMES HAPPEN THAT THE RECORD OF A CASE IS MISLAID OR BECOMES ME
CHANICALLY DEFECTIVE )N SUCH AN EVENT THE COURT OF REVIEW MAY ORDER THAT THE
CLERKOFTHECOURTSUBMITTHEBESTSECONDARYEVIDENCEOBTAINABLEASTOTHENATURE
OFTHEORIGINALEVIDENCEANDPROCEEDINGS6AN3ITTERS 3!# ORTHAT
THECASEBESENTBACKTOTHECOURTTOHEAREVIDENCEINORDERTORECONSTRUCTTHE

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
RECORD$OMO 3!. OR WHEREITISIMPOSSIBLETORECONSTRUCTTHE

RECORD THEPROCEEDINGSMAYBESETASIDE-ODSENYANE 3!#2'0
4HISALSOAPPLIESTOANAPPEAL)N"IYANA 3!#24 THECOURTHELD
THAT IN ORDER TO RECONSTRUCT A LOST RECORD THE RECALL OF WITNESSES WHO GAVE EVI
DENCEDURINGTHETRIALWOULDBEIRREGULAR BUTFORADIFFERENTVIEWPOINTREGARDING
THERECALLINGOFWITNESSESINORDERTORECONSTRUCTTHERECORD SEE#HOKOE
3!#2'0 (OWEVER THECLERKOFTHECOURTMAYOBTAINAFFIDAVITSFROMSUCH
WITNESSES ASWELLASFROMOTHERPERSONSCONCERNEDWITHTHETRIAL"UTIFNORECORD
EXISTSANDTHERECORDCANNOTBERECONSTRUCTED THECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEMUST
BESETASIDE4HEMATTERMAYNOTBEREFERREDBACKTOTHETRIALCOURTFORADENOVO
TRIAL&REDERICKS 3!#2#
)N3CHOOMBEE 3!#2## AT;=THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHELDTHAT
THE OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A RECONSTRUCTION OF A LOST OR INCOMPLETE RECORD DOES
NOTFALLENTIRELYONTHECOURT4HECONVICTEDACCUSEDSHARESTHEDUTY7HENA
TRIAL RECORD IS INADEQUATE @BOTH THE 3TATE AND THE APPELLANT HAVE A DUTY TO TRY
ANDRECONSTRUCTTHERECORD7HILETHETRIALCOURTISREQUIREDTOFURNISHACOPY
OF THE RECORD THE APPELLANT OR HIS OR HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE @CARRIES THE FINAL
RESPONSIBILITYTOENSURETHATTHEAPPEALRECORDISINORDER(OWEVER ATTHESAME
TIME A COURT OF APPEAL IS OBLIGED TO ENSURE THAT AN ACCUSED IS GUARANTEED THE
RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL INCLUSIVEOFANADEQUATERECORDONAPPEAL PARTICULARLYWHERE
ANIRREGULARITYISAPPARENT4HEFAILUREOFTHE3TATETOFURNISHANADEQUATERECORD
OFTHETRIALPROCEEDINGSORARECORDTHATREFLECTSTHEACCUSEDSFULLEVIDENCEBE
FORETHETRIALCOURT INCIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHTHEMISSINGEVIDENCECANNOTBE
RECONSTRUCTED HAS THE EFFECT OF RENDERING THE APPLICANTS RIGHT TO A FAIR APPEAL
NUGATORYORILLUSORY%VENBEFORETHEBEGINNINGOF3OUTH!FRICANSCONSTITUTIONAL
DEMOCRACY THELAWWASTHAT INSUCHACASE THECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEORTHE
ENTIRETRIALPROCEEDINGSHADTOBESETASIDE!LTHOUGHTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
COMMENTEDONAPPEALRECORDS THEDECISIONAPPLIESEQUALLY WITHTHENECESSARY
AMENDMENTS TORECORDSPREPAREDFORANDDUTIESRELEVANTTO REVIEWSBEFORETHE
(IGH#OURT
$XWRPDWLFUHYLHZDQGWKHULJKWWRDSSHDO
4HE PROVISIONS RELATING TO AUTOMATIC REVIEW ARE SUSPENDED IN RESPECT OF AN AC
CUSEDI WHOHASNOTEDANAPPEALANDHASBEENGRANTEDLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTA
CONVICTIONANDORSENTENCEORII WHOHASANAUTOMATICRIGHTOFAPPEALANDHAS
NOTABANDONEDSUCHAPPEALS B )FTHEACCUSEDPERSONWERETOABANDON
HISORHERAPPEAL THESENTENCEWILLBEREVIEWED/NCEJUDGMENTHASBEENGIVEN
ONAPPEAL NOAUTOMATICREVIEWCANTAKEPLACES B
)FTHEPROCEEDINGSHAVEALREADYBEENCERTIFIEDBYAJUDGEINTERMSOFS
WHENTHENOTICEOFAPPEALBYTHEACCUSEDREACHESTHEREGISTRAR THECERTIFICATEWILL
BEWITHDRAWNTOALLOWANACCUSEDTOPROSECUTEHISORHERAPPEALCF$ISLER
#0$4HEREISNOINCONSISTENCYINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSBEINGSETASIDEON
APPEALAFTERTHEYHAVEBEENCONFIRMEDONREVIEW SINCETHETESTAPPLIEDONREVIEW
ISDIFFERENTFROMTHECRITERIAAPPLIEDONAPPEAL
!JUDGEISATLIBERTYTOWITHDRAWHISORHERCERTIFICATEIFHEORSHEDISCOVERSAFTER
WARDSTHATHEORSHEMADEAMISTAKEORIFADMISSIBLEFRESHEVIDENCEISDISCOVERED
AFTERTHEPROCEEDINGSHAVEBEENCONFIRMED-ADLELANA%$,)N-AKEBE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3!. ITWASHELDTHATIF AFTERAJUDGEHASCONFIRMEDACONVICTION

ANDSENTENCEONAUTOMATICREVIEW ITAPPEARSTHATJUSTICEDEMANDSTHATTHESEN
TENCEBEALTERED ITISCOMPETENTFORTHEREVIEWCOURTTODEALWITHTHEMATTER EVEN
IFTHEREVIEWINGJUDGEISNOLONGERABLETOWITHDRAWTHECERTIFICATEBECAUSEHEOR
SHEISNOLONGERAJUDGE(ERETHEMAGISTRATEFAILEDTOIMPOSEACOMPENSATORY
FINEBESIDESATERMOFIMPRISONMENT 3EEALSO+ATU 3!#2% WHERE
THECOURT INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE SETASIDEASENTENCETHATPROVEDTOBEIMPRAC
TICALALTHOUGHITHADBEENCONFIRMEDONREVIEW
%XTRAORDINARYREVIEW
7HEREITHASBEENBROUGHTTOTHENOTICEOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVING
JURISDICTION OR ANY JUDGE THEREOF THAT THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE
SENTENCEWASIMPOSEDWERENOTINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICE SUCHCOURTORJUDGESHALL
HAVE THE SAME POWERS IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS IF THE RECORD THEREOF
HADBEENSUBMITTEDTOSUCHCOURTORJUDGEACCORDINGTOTHEPROCEDUREONAUTO
MATICREVIEWS 4HEPRESIDINGMAGISTRATEMUSTSPECIFICALLYSTATETHATTHE
PROCEEDINGSWERENOTINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICEANDMAYNOTABUSETHESEPRO
CEEDINGSTOOBTAINTHERECORDATSTATEEXPENSETOSUPPLYTHEDEFENCEWITHAFREE
COPYANDMAGISTRATESSHOULDBEAWARETHATCOURTSARENOTTOBEMISUSEDFORCHEAP
APPEALS IN THE GUISE OF REVIEWS IN TERMS OF S OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE
!CT3INGH 3!#2+:$ $E7EE 3!#2.# 4HESEPRO
VISIONSWILLAPPLYWHERETHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGSARENOTSUBJECTTOAUTOMATIC
REVIEW EITHERBECAUSETHEYDONOTQUALIFYINTERMSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFSOR
THESENTENCESHAVEBEENIMPOSEDINAREGIONALCOURTCF%LI 3!%
4HE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION ENABLE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS A
MAGISTRATE ORTHEACCUSEDTOBRINGIRREGULARITIESINTHEPROCEEDINGSORPRESSING
LEGALQUESTIONSUNDERREVIEWBYBRINGINGITTOTHENOTICEOFAJUDGEINCHAMBERS
FORHIMORHERTOACTACCORDINGTOSORSCF(LOPE 3!4
(OWEVER AMATTERTHATHASBEENFINALLYDISPOSEDOFONAPPEALMAYNOTBEBROUGHT
ON REVIEW IN TERMS OF S -TOMBENI 40$ -AGISTRATES MAY NOT
MISUSETHISSPECIALREVIEWPROCEDURETOREFERPART HEARDMATTERSHEARDBYAMAG
ISTRATEWHOHASRESIGNEDBEFOREFINALISINGTHEMATTER TOAREVIEWINGJUDGETOSET
THEMATTERASIDE!MAGISTRATEHASADUTYTOFINALISEANYPART HEARDMATTER$YIDI
3!#27##
4HEQUESTIONTOBECONSIDEREDBYTHE(IGH#OURTWHENAMATTERCOMESBEFORE
ITONREVIEWINTERMSOFS ISWHETHERTHEREAREANYIRREGULARITIESORCONSID
ERATIONSOFEQUITYANDFAIRDEALINGTHATCOMPELTHECOURTTOINTERVENETOPREVENT
APROBABLEFAILUREOFJUSTICE%VIDENCETOTHISEFFECTSHOULDBEPLACEDBEFORETHE
COURT#EDRAS 3!#2# $E7EE 3!#2.0$ #AREMUST
BETAKENTOPREVENTS BEINGUSEDASACHEAPFORMOFAPPEAL-ATSANE
3!4 &ERREIRA 3!4
.OTIMELIMITISSETBYS ANDCASESHAVEBEENREVIEWEDEVENAFTERALAPSE
OF FOUR YEARS SINCE CONVICTIONCF &OUCH½ 3! # )N #ALLAGHAN V
+LACKERS 3!% THE(IGH#OURTREQUESTED MEROMOTU THERECORDOFA
MAGISTRATESDECISIONTHATHADBEENDELIVEREDMONTHSEARLIERFORTHEPURPOSES
OFREVIEW

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
2
EVIEWOFPROCEEDINGSBEFORESENTENCE
)FAMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATE AFTERCONVICTIONBUTBEFORESENTENCING IS
OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH A CONVICTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT
INARENOTINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICEORTHATDOUBTEXISTSWHETHERTHEPROCEED
INGSAREINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICE SUCHMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAGISTRATESHALL
WITHOUTSENTENCINGTHEACCUSED SUBMITTHERECORDANDTHEREASONSFORHISORHER
OPINION FOR REVIEW BY A JUDGE IN CHAMBERSS ! 4HIS APPLIES IRRESPECTIVE
OF WHETHER THE CONVICTION HAS BEEN ENTERED BY HIM OR HERSELF OR BY SOMEONE
ELSECF!BRAHAMS 3!#2/ (LONGWANE 3!#2.# 4HE
COURTMUSTFORMITSOPINIONONSUPPORTINGEVIDENCEBUTNOTONANUNSWORNSTATE
MENT.GCOBO 3!#2+:0 4HEJUDGESHALLHAVETHESAMEPOWERSAS
IFTHEMATTERHADBEENPLACEDBEFOREHIMORHERINTERMSOFS)NTHEINTERIM
THECASEISPOSTPONED PENDINGTHEOUTCOMEOFTHEREVIEWPROCEEDINGS
3ECTION!SHOULDNOTBEAPPLIEDSOSPARINGLYASTOBEADEADLETTER)TMUST
HOWEVER BEAPPLIEDONLYRARELYWHERETHECONTINUATIONOFTHECASEWOULDCONSTI
TUTEAFAILUREOFJUSTICE ANDREALANDSUBSTANTIALPREJUDICEWOULDBECAUSEDTOTHE
ACCUSED-AKHUBELE 3!4 )FACONVICTIONHASNOTBEENENTERED OR
THEJUDICIALOFFICIALISWITHOUTADOUBTOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSAREIN
ACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICE THEPROVISIONSOFS!ARENOTAVAILABLE"URNS
3!# .GEMA 3!#2.0$ !NACCUSEDSFINANCIALPROBLEMSNOT
A JUSTIFIABLE GROUND FOR PIECEMEAL ADJUDICATION OF CASE NOT FINALISED'OUDEN V
.ONCEDU 3!#2+:0 )NPROPERANDRARECASESTHE(IGH#OURTCOULD
BY VIRTUE OF ITS INHERENT POWERS TO RESTRAIN IRREGULARITIES IN LOWER COURTS GRANT
RELIEFBYWAYOFREVIEW INTERDICTORMANDAMUSAGAINSTTHEDECISIONOFTHEMAG
ISTRATEINUNTERMINATEDPROCEEDINGSINALOWERCOURT4HEPOSSIBILITYTHATGRAVE
INJUSTICEORFAILUREOFJUSTICEWOULDRESULTMUSTBELIKELYBEFORETHE(IGH#OURT
WOULDEXERCISEITSINHERENTPOWER6AN.IEKERKV6AN2ENSBURG 3!4
7HERETHEACCUSEDHADBEENCONVICTEDBUTBEFOREHEWASSENTENCED THERECORDOF
THEPROCEEDINGSWASLOST THEMAGISTRATEWASNOLONGERAVAILABLEANDTHEACCUSED
DISAPPEARED%LEVENYEARSLATER THEACCUSEDWASARRESTEDANDBROUGHTTOCOURT
ANDTHEMATTERWASSENTFORREVIEWBEFORESENTENCINGOFTHEACCUSEDINORDERFOR
THEMATTERTOSTARTDENOVO3ECTION!WOULDNOTBEAPPLICABLEIFNOFINDING
OFWHETHERTHEMATTERWASNOTINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICECOULDBEMADE DUETO
THELOSTRECORD(OWEVER THECOURTINTERVENEDONTHEBASISOFANUNFAIRTRIALAND
RESULTANTSERIOUSINJUSTICEENSUINGSHOULDTHEMATTERSTARTAFRESH DUETONOFAULT
OFTHEACCUSED-ASIYA 3!#2'.0 4HECOURTWILLNOTEXERCISEITS
INHERENTREVIEWJURISDICTIONWHEREITSDECISIONWILLBEOFACADEMICINTERESTONLY
4HEINTRODUCTIONOFS!BROUGHTTOANENDASERIESOFCONFLICTINGDECISIONS
THATDEALTWITHTHEPROBLEMWHETHERAMAGISTRATEWHOHASDOUBTSASTOTHECOR
RECTNESSOFACONVICTIONSHOULDFIRSTIMPOSEASENTENCEALTHOUGHHEORSHEKNOWS
THATITWOULDBESETASIDEONREVIEW
3
ETDOWNOFCASEFORARGUMENT
!FTERANACCUSEDHASBEENCONVICTED HEORSHEMAYINTERMSOFSBRINGTHE
MAGISTRATESCOURTPROCEEDINGSUNDERREVIEWBYWAYOFSETTINGDOWNFORARGU
MENTHISORHERCASEBEFOREA@PROVINCIALOR@LOCALDIVISION WITHJURISDICTION

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HISTYPEOFREVIEWISRESTRICTEDTOTHOSECASESTHATARE INANYEVENT AUTOMATI

CALLYREVIEWABLE(OWEVER ITCREATESANALTERNATIVEREVIEWPROCEDUREFORTHOSE
ACCUSEDWHOARENOTCONTENTWITHTHEPROCEDUREPROVIDEDFORINS NAMELY
THESUBMISSIONOFAWRITTENSTATEMENTORARGUMENT(OWEVER THEACCUSEDMAY
NOTHAVEHISORHERCASESETDOWNAFTERHEORSHEHASSUBMITTEDAWRITTENSTATE
MENTORARGUMENTFORCONSIDERATION3IMELANE 3!. )N3IMELANE
IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE PROCEDURE SET DOWN IN S MAY ONLY BE USED IN THE
CASEOFANALLEGEDIRREGULARITY4HEACCUSEDISNATURALLYFREETOBRINGTHEMATTER
UNDERREVIEWONANYOFTHEGROUNDSMENTIONEDINSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS
!CT4HEPROCEDURECREATEDINSIS HOWEVER MUCHSIMPLERTHANTHEPROCE
DUREINTERMSOFTHAT!CT
)N TERMS OF S THE ACCUSED ENROLS THE CASE BEFORE THE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGSHASBEENTRANSMITTEDTOTHE@PROVINCIALOR@LOCALDIVISIONFORAUTO
MATICREVIEW7HENEVERACASEISSETDOWNFORCONSIDERATION THEACCUSEDMUST
NOTIFYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSINWRITINGOFTHEDATEONANDCOURT
BEFOREWHICHTHEMATTERISSETDOWNFORARGUMENT3UCHNOTIFICATIONMUSTBE
GIVEN MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE ARGUMENT AND THE ACCUSED MUST ALSO
STATETHEGROUNDSUPONWHICHTHESETTINGASIDEORTHEALTERATIONOFTHESENTENCE
ISTOBESOUGHT
2
%6)%7).4%2-3/&4(%350%2)/2#/5243!#4
2EVIEWATTHEINSTANCEOFTHEACCUSED
*HQHUDO
!PARTFROMTHEINDIRECTMANNERBYWHICHAREVIEWMAYBEBROUGHTTOTHE(IGH
#OURTINTERMSOFSS ANDOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT THIS!CT
DOESNOTPROVIDEFORAREVIEWOFLOWERCOURTPROCEEDINGSATTHEINSTANCEOFTHE
ACCUSED 4HE POWER OF THE (IGH #OURT TO REVIEW LOWER COURTS PROCEEDINGS IS
REGULATEDBYS B OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT 4HEAUTHORITYTOREVIEW
IS VESTED IN THE DIVISIONS OF THE (IGH #OURT AND LOCAL SEATS WITH REVIEW JURIS
DICTION SUCH AS THE 'AUTENG (IGH #OURT *OHANNESBURGS 4HE POWER TO
REVIEWLOWERCOURTSPROCEEDINGSIS HOWEVER LIMITEDBYSTATUTETOTHEGROUNDS
SET OUT IN S OF THE SAID !CT SEE BELOW 4HESE GROUNDS DEAL EXCLUSIVELY WITH
IRREGULARITIES OF THE METHOD OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED
IS FORMALLY EMBODIED IN RULE OF THE 5NIFORM 2ULES OF #OURT 4HESE RULES
CALLEDTHE(IGH#OURT5NIFORM2ULES(#2ULESFORSHORT REGULATETHECONDUCT
OFTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTANDARECALLEDTHE@2ULES
2EGULATINGTHE#ONDUCTOFTHE0ROCEEDINGSOFTHE3EVERAL0ROVINCIALAND,OCAL
$IVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA PUBLISHEDIN'OVERNMENT.OTICE2
OF/CTOBERIN'OVERNMENT'AZETTE5NIFORM2ULEHASBEEN
AMENDEDBYNOTICE2OF!PRIL ALLOWINGTHERIGHTTOAFULLCOPYOFTHE
RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS
*URXQGVIRUUHYLHZ
4HEGROUNDSINTERMSOFS OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTUPONWHICHTHEPRO
CEEDINGSINANYLOWERCOURTMAYBEBROUGHTUNDERREVIEWBEFOREADIVISIONOFA
(IGH#OURTHAVINGJURISDICTIONARE

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
A ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE COURT FOR EXAMPLE WHERE THE OF
FENCEISONETHATCANNOTBETRIEDBYTHECOURT ORWHERETHECOURTIMPOSED
APUNISHMENTBEYONDITSJURISDICTION ORWHERETHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED
OUTSIDETHECOURTSTERRITORIALAREAOFJURISDICTIONORWHERETHESENTENCEIM
POSEDBYTHECOURT ALTHOUGHCOMPETENT PROVEDTOBEUNWORKABLE-AHLANGU
3!#24
B INTERESTINTHECAUSE BIAS MALICEORCORRUPTIONONTHEPARTOFTHEPRESIDING
JUDICIALOFFICER4HISGROUNDDEALSWITHIRREGULARITIESWHICHAREFOUNDEDON
ALACKOFGOODFAITH ULTERIORMOTIVEORCORRUPTIONONTHEPARTOFTHEMAGIS
TRATE
C GROSSIRREGULARITYINTHEPROCEEDINGS)N6AN(EERDEN 3!#24
THEREVIEWCOURTASSUMEDREVIEWPOWERSUNDERSINAPARTLYHEARDMATTER
BEFOREAMAGISTRATEINORDERTOSETASIDEASUBSEQUENTPARTLYHEARDTRIALBEFORE
ANOTHERMAGISTRATEONTHESAMECHARGEINVOLVINGTHESAMEACCUSEDANDSAME
SETOFFACTS4HISMATTERWASREFERREDTOTHEREVIEWCOURTINTERMSOFS!
ALTHOUGHITDIDNOTAPPLYTOTHESITUATION4HEFAILUREOFTHEMAGISTRATETOIN
FORMTHEUNDEFENDEDACCUSEDFACINGASENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTFORLIFETHAT
HEWASENTITLEDTOLEGALCOUNSELAMOUNTSTOAGROSSIRREGULARITYVITIATINGTHE
ENTIRETRIAL'2 3!#23#!
D THEADMISSIONOFINADMISSIBLEORINCOMPETENTEVIDENCE ORTHEREJECTIONOF
ADMISSIBLEORCOMPETENTEVIDENCE
!CCUSEDPERSONSFINANCIALPROBLEMS ANDANARGUMENTTHATTHEYWERESUBJECTED
TOALENGTHYANDEXPENSIVETRIALFOUNDEDONINADMISSIBLEEVIDENCE ARENOTJUSTI
FIABLEGROUNDSINTERMSOFSC ANDSD OFTHEABOVE!CTFORANYPIECEMEAL
ADJUDICATIONOFACASENOTYETCONCLUDED'OUDENV.ONCEDU./ 3!#2
+:0 .OEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESWERESHOWN3EEALSO-OTATAV.AIR./
3!#24 AND7ESTERN!REAS0TY ,TD;=:!3#!AT;= APPLIED
INTHISMATTER
3URFHGXUH
!MATTERSHOULDBEBROUGHTUNDERREVIEWWITHINAREASONABLETIME WHICHWILL
DEPENDINEACHCASEONTHERELEVANTCIRCUMSTANCES4HEONUSOFESTABLISHINGAN
UNREASONABLEDELAYISONTHEPARTYALLEGINGIT4HECOURTHASADISCRETIONTOEITHER
CONDONETHEDELAYORREFUSETOENTERTAINTHEAPPLICATIONFORREVIEW
!SARULE REVIEWWILLNOTBEGRANTEDINUNTERMINATEDPROCEEDINGS)TMAY HOW
EVER BE GRANTED WHERE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE DEMAND IT AND THE (IGH #OURT
AVAILSITSELFOFITSINHERENTPOWERSTOCORRECTTHEPROCEEDINGSINALOWERCOURTAT
ANYSTAGETHEREOFTOPREVENTANINJUSTICE,UBISI 3!4 -ALAKWANA
3!/ 3HEZI 3!. !NACCUSEDMAYSEEKEITHERAREVIEW
ORANINTERDICTORMANDAMUSAGAINSTTHEMAGISTRATESDECISIONINORDERTOCOMPEL
THEMAGISTRATETOADOPTTHELEGALPROCEDURE
4HE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR BRINGING CRIMINAL MATTERS UNDER REVIEW IS
BY WAY OF NOTICE OF MOTION DIRECTED ANDDELIVEREDTOTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERAND
TOALLPARTIESAFFECTED4HEPROCEDUREISEMBODIEDIN2ULEAND2ULEOFTHE
(#2ULES2ULEMUSTALSOBEFOLLOWEDINCASESWHERETHE(IGH#OURTSINHER

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ENTPOWEROFREVIEWISSOUGHT4HEAPPLICANTACCUSEDOROTHERPARTYREQUESTINGA
REVIEW CALLSUPONSUCHPERSONS
TOSHOWCAUSEWHYTHELOWERCOURTSDECISIONORPROCEEDINGSSHOULDNOTBE
REVIEWEDANDCORRECTEDORSETASIDE ANDCALLINGONTHEMAGISTRATE PRESIDING
OFFICER
TODESPATCH WITHINDAYSAFTERRECEIPTOFTHENOTICEOFMOTION TOTHEREGIS
TRAROFTHE(IGH#OURT THERECORDOFSUCHPROCEEDINGSSOUGHTTOBECORRECTED
ORSETASIDE WITHSUCHREASONSASHEORSHEISBYLAWREQUIREDORWANTSTOGIVE
ANDTONOTIFYTHEAPPLICANTTHATHEORSHEHASDONESO4HE2EGISTRARMUST
MAKETHERECORDAVAILABLETOTHEAPPLICANT
4HENOTICEOFMOTIONINDICATESTHEDECISIONORPROCEEDINGSSOUGHTTOBEREVIEWED
ANDMUSTBESUPPORTEDBYANAFFIDAVITSETTINGOUTTHEFACTSONWHICHTHEAPPLI
CANTRELIES7ITHINTENDAYSTHEAPPLICANTMAYAMENDORVARYTHETERMSOFTHE
NOTICEOFMOTIONBYMEANSOFAFRESHNOTICEOFMOTIONWITHSUPPORTINGAFFIDAVITS
4HERESPONDENTMAYOPPOSETHEGRANTINGOFTHEORDERPRAYEDINTHENOTICEOFMO
TIONWITHINDAYS2ULE
2EVIEWATTHEINSTANCEOFTHEPROSECUTION
!LTHOUGHTHEREISNOEXPRESSPROVISIONINTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTORTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTREGARDINGREVIEWATTHEINSTANCEOFTHEPROSECUTION THEREISNOTH
INGINTHESAID!CTSORTHE3UPREME#OURT2ULESTHATCONFINESAPRAYERFORREVIEW
TO THE ACCUSED TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE PROSECUTION 4HE DIVISIONS OF THE (IGH
#OURTWITHJURISDICTIONMAYREVIEWANALLEGEDPROCEDURALIRREGULARITYATTHEIN
STANCEOFTHEPROSECUTION3EEFOREXAMPLE!TTORNEY 'ENERALV-AGISTRATE 2EGIONAL
$IVISION .ATAL 3! . WHERE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
SUCCESSFULLYBROUGHTANAPPLICATIONFORREVIEWOFPROCEEDINGSOFAREGIONALCOURT
WHICHHADIMPROPERLYCONVERTEDACASEINTOYETANOTHERPREPARATORYEXAMINATION
ALTHOUGHAPREPARATORYEXAMINATIONHADALREADYBEENHELDANDTHEMATTERHAD
BEENFORWARDEDBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSFORTRIALTOTHESAIDCOURT
3EEALSO-ONCHANYANA 3!/ !LTHOUGHTHESECASESARENOTCLEARON
THESPECIFICMANNEROFREVIEWPROCEDURE THESEREVIEWSPROBABLYFALLWITHINTHE
TYPECONTEMPLATEDBYSONANYOFTHEGROUNDSREFERREDTOINS OF!CT
OF )N $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG ,OCAL $IVISION *OHANNESBURG V
2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE +RUGERSDORP 3!#2'* THECOURTHELDTHATINTERMS
OFS C OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOFTHE3TATEISENTITLEDTOBRINGA
REVIEWAGAINSTADECISIONOFAMAGISTRATEINTHEEVENTOFAGROSSIRREGULARITYINA
TRIAL 4HE COURT HELD THAT AN UNWARRANTED DISCHARGE OF AN ACCUSED IN TERMS OF
SOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTATTHEENDOFTHE3TATESCASE CONTRARYTOLEGAL
PRECEDENT WASANERROROFLAW)TCONSTITUTEDAGROSSIRREGULARITYINTHETRIALAND
PREJUDICEDTHE3TATEANDSHOULDBESETASIDE(OWEVER S PROVIDESANEASIER
MECHANISMFORTHEPROSECUTIONTONOTIFYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOFIRREGULAR
PROCEEDINGSANDTOSEEKRELIEFFROMTHECOURT

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
&
5.#4)/.3!.$0/7%23/&!#/524/&2%6)%7
'ENERAL
5PON AUTOMATIC REVIEW THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS SOLELY TO DECIDE WHETHER
THEPROCEEDINGSWEREINACCORDWITHTHEDEMANDSOFJUSTICE4HEEVIDENCEISNOT
CONSIDERED AS CAREFULLY AS UPON APPEAL AND THE SAME WEIGHT IS NOT ATTACHED TO
TECHNICALPOINTSCF"UTLER 3!# 4HISISEQUALLYAPPLICABLETOALL
OTHERKINDSOFREVIEW SINCEAREVIEWISCONCERNEDONLYWITHTHEQUESTIONWHETHER
THEPROCEEDINGSWEREINACCORDANCEWITHTHEDEMANDSOFJUSTICE(LATSWAYO
3!/ 4HEINTERESTSOFTHECONVICTEDPERSONANDTHOSEOFTHE3TATEARE
CONSIDERED:ULU 3!4 (ERE HOWEVER THECOURTREFUSEDTOEXERCISE
ITS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF THE 3TATE TO CORRECT AN ERROR THAT THE MAGISTRATE HAD
MADE WHEN IMPOSING THE SENTENCE SO THAT A MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT WOULD
HAVETOBEIMPOSED)NTHECIRCUMSTANCES THECOURTHELDTHATJUSTICETOWARDSTHE
CONVICTEDPERSONOUTWEIGHEDJUSTICETOTHE3TATE3EEFURTHER!NNUAL3URVEY
n
4HE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ACCORDING TO JUSTICE MUST IN
GENERAL BEDECIDEDACCORDINGTOTHECIRCUMSTANCESTHATPREVAILEDWHENTHEPRO
CEEDINGSTOOKPLACE)TISONLYINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESTHATTHECOURTWILL
TAKECOGNISANCEOFCIRCUMSTANCESTHATOCCURREDAFTERTHECOMPLETIONOFTHEPRO
CEEDINGSANDALTERTHESENTENCEONTHISACCOUNT3ITHOLE 3!4 -ARX
3!! !DECISIONISRIGHTORWRONGACCORDINGTOTHEFACTSINEXISTENCE
ATTHETIMEITISGIVEN NOTACCORDINGTONEWCIRCUMSTANCESSUBSEQUENTLYCOMING
INTOEXISTENCE6ERSTER 3!!
4HEFUNCTIONSANDPOWERSOFACOURTONREVIEW ASSETOUTBELOW AREAPPLICABLE
IRRESPECTIVEOFTHETYPEORMANNEROFREVIEWWHICHISBROUGHTBEFORETHEREVIEW
COURT 4HE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE 3UPERIOR #OURTS !CT REGARDING
THATCOURTSPOWERSANDFUNCTIONSSUGGESTSTHATTHEPROVISIONSOFS B AND
C APPLYEQUALLYTOREVIEWSBROUGHTUNDERTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF
4HEPOWERSOFTHECOURTOFREVIEWINTERMSOFS B ANDC AND AREAS
FOLLOWS
4HECOURTMAYCONFIRM ALTERORQUASHTHECONVICTION)N)SAACS 3!
.# ATTHECOURTOBSERVEDOBITER THATWHERETHESENTENCEOFAMAG
ISTRATES COURT IS CONFIRMED UPON REVIEW THIS FACT SIGNIFIES ONLY THAT THERE
WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE (IGH #OURT TO INTERFERE WITH THAT SENTENCE )T IS
NOTTOBEREGARDEDASASENTENCETHATTHE(IGH#OURTWOULDNECESSARILYHAVE
IMPOSEDINTHEFIRSTPLACE NORDOESTHATSUCHACONFIRMEDSENTENCEESTABLISH
ANYCRITERIONORNORM
4HECOURTMAYCONFIRM REDUCE ALTERORSETASIDETHESENTENCEORANYORDER
OFTHEMAGISTRATESCOURT!CCORDINGLY THECOURTOFREVIEWHASTHEPOWERTO
CORRECTAPENALTYIMPOSEDORTHECONDITIONSOFSUSPENSIONOFTHESENTENCE
)N DOING SO THE COURT CANNOT RENDER EITHER THE PENALTY OR THE CONDITIONS
OFSUSPENSIONMOREONEROUSWHERETHATSENTENCEORORDERWASACOMPETENT
ONE-ORRIS 3!#2# !COURTOFREVIEWHASNOJURISDICTIONTO

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
INCREASE A SENTENCE(AASBROEK 3! / 3ENTENCES MAY BE IN

CREASEDONAPPEALONLY)FTHESENTENCEIMPOSEDBYTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTIS
LEGALLYWRONG THEAPPROPRIATEANDLEGALSENTENCEMUSTBESUBSTITUTEDFORIT
EVEN THOUGH IT COULD RESULT IN A HEAVIER SENTENCE THAN THE SENTENCE PREVI
OUSLY IMPOSED BY THE MAGISTRATE(IEMSTRA %VIDENTLY THE SENTENCE SO
IMPOSEDMAYNOTBEBEYONDTHELOWERCOURTSPUNITIVEJURISDICTIONCF&REED
MAN!$4HECOURTOFREVIEWMAYIMPOSETHEPROPERSENTENCEBUT
WOULDNORMALLYREFERTHEMATTERBACKTOTHELOWERCOURTFORTHEIMPOSITIONOF
ASUITABLESENTENCEINTHEPRESENCEOFTHEACCUSED:ULU 3!4
7HERETHEREISAPOSSIBILITYOFTHEREVIEWCOURTSUBSTITUTINGFORONECONVIC
TIONANOTHERMORESERIOUSONE WITHTHEEFFECTTHATAHEAVIERSENTENCETHAN
THATIMPOSEDINTHELOWERCOURTMIGHTHAVETOBEIMPOSED THEACCUSED INALL
FAIRNESS OUGHTTOBEGIVENPRIORNOTICEOFTHECOURTSINTENTIONANDCOUNSEL
OUGHTTOBEAPPOINTEDTOREPRESENTTHEACCUSED:ULUABOVE AT6ILJOEN
3!4
)FTHEACCUSEDWASCONVICTEDONONEOFTWOORMOREALTERNATIVECOUNTS THE
COURTMAY WHENQUASHINGTHECONVICTION CONVICTONANALTERNATIVECOUNT
4HE COURT MAY SET ASIDE OR CORRECT THE PROCEEDINGS OR GENERALLY GIVE SUCH
JUDGMENT OR IMPOSE SUCH SENTENCE OR MAKE SUCH ORDER AS THE MAGISTRATE
COULD OR SHOULD HAVE GIVEN IMPOSED OR MADE 4HIS PROVISION PROVIDES THE
COURTOFREVIEWWITHTHEJURISDICTIONTOSUBSTITUTEACONVICTIONFORAMORESERI
OUSOFFENCEANDTOIMPOSEASUITABLESENTENCECF% 3!! -O
KOENA 3!/ % 3!! $-ORGAN 3!#2
! !LSOINTERMSOFTHISPOWER THECOURTMAYAMENDTHECHARGESHEETTO
ACONVICTIONONANOTHERCHARGEACCORDINGTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSONLYIFTHE
PROPOSEDAMENDEDCHARGECORRESPONDSTOTHEORIGINALCHARGEANDIFTHEAC
CUSEDISNOTPREJUDICEDBYTHEAMENDMENT4HEPRACTICALASPECTSINDECIDING
WHETHERPREJUDICEWILLRESULT SUCHASLEGALCOSTANDTHETRAUMAINVOLVEDINA
RETRIAL MUSTALSOBEKEPTINMIND-AHLANGU 3!#24
4HECOURTMAYREMITTHECASETOTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTWITHINSTRUCTIONSTO
DEALWITHANYMATTERINSUCHMANNERASTHECOURTMAYTHINKFIT
4HECOURTMAYMAKESUCHORDERAFFECTINGTHESUSPENSIONOFTHEEXECUTIONOF
ANYSENTENCEORADMITTINGTHEPERSONCONVICTEDTOBAILOR GENERALLY MAKE
SUCH ORDER AFFECTING ANY MATTER OR THING CONNECTED WITH SUCH PERSON IN
CLUDINGPROCEEDINGS ASTHECOURTDEEMSFITINORDERTOPROMOTETHEENDSOF
JUSTICE
&URTHEREVIDENCE!COURTOFREVIEWMAYHEARANYEVIDENCEANDFORTHATPURPOSE
SUMMONANYPERSONTOAPPEARANDTOGIVEEVIDENCEORTOPRODUCEANYDOCU
MENTOROTHERARTICLES B 7HENFURTHEREVIDENCEISALLOWED ATRIAL
CANNOTBECOMPLETEDANDITISINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETHATFINALITYISREACHED
INCRIMINALCASES4HEREFORE FURTHEREVIDENCEWOULDNOTREADILYBEALLOWED
EXCEPTONGOODCAUSE4HEFRESHEVIDENCEMUSTBEOFSUCHVALUEASTOSHED
NEWLIGHTONFACTSTHATEXISTEDATTHETRIALINTHECOURTAQUO6ERSTER
3!! 7HENAPPLICATIONSFORFURTHEREVIDENCE BYEITHERTHEACCUSEDOR
THEPROSECUTION ARETOBEENTERTAINED THEREARETWOREQUISITESTHATTHECOURT
HASTOCONSIDER&IRST THATTHEAPPLICANTSHOULDPRODUCEREASONABLYSUFFICIENT
REASONS WHY SUCH EVIDENCE WAS NOT LED AT THE TRIAL AND SECONDLY THAT THE

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
EVIDENCESOUGHTTOBEADDUCEDSHOULDBEOFMATERIALINTERESTINTHECASE$E
"EER 3!! :ACKEY!$4HECOURTWILLRECEIVEFURTHER
EVIDENCEWHERESUCHEVIDENCEISCLEARLYRELEVANTANDTHECREDIBILITYANDRELI
ABILITYOFTHEFURTHEREVIDENCEARENOTDISPUTEDBYTHEOTHERPARTY.OEMDOE
3!#2 # 'ENERALLY THE MAGISTRATE WOULD BE DIRECTED TO TAKE
SUCHFURTHEREVIDENCE3UCHACOURSEISMORECONVENIENTFORTHEPARTIESCF
"RUNETTE 3!4 4HECIRCUMSTANCESOFTHECASEWOULDDICTATETHE
DECISIONOFTHECOURTOFREVIEW ANDTHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEMAYBESET
ASIDEANDREFERREDFORFURTHEREVIDENCE3CHUTTE40$ ORTHECONVIC
TIONMAYBELEFTSTANDINGANDTHEMAGISTRATEDIRECTEDTOREPORTTOTHECOURT
UPONTHEFRESHEVIDENCE WHICHISTHENCONSIDEREDWITHTHEEVIDENCEALREADY
ONRECORD"ARLOW#0$!NEXAMPLEOFACASEINWHICHTHELEADING
OF FURTHER EVIDENCE WAS ALLOWED IS "ERNHARDT 3! 4 WHERE AN
UNDEFENDEDJUVENILEALLEGEDTHATHEWASFORCEDTOENTERAGUILTYPLEAANDTHE
COURTACCEPTED ASAPOSSIBILITY THATTHEALLEGATIONWASPRIMAFACIETRUE
)FTHECOURTDESIRESTOHAVEAQUESTIONOFLAWORFACTARISINGINANYCASEARGUED
ITMAYDIRECTSUCHQUESTIONTOBEARGUEDBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECU
TIONSANDBYSUCHCOUNSELASTHECOURTMAYAPPOINTS
!PARTFROMTHEPOWERSOFTHECOURTINTERMSOFS ACONVICTIONANDSENTENCE
MAYBESETASIDEONREVIEWORONAPPEAL ONTHEGROUNDTHATANYPROVISIONOF
S B OR ORSWASNOTCOMPLIEDWITHS4HECASEMUSTBEREMIT
TEDTOTHECOURTWHERETHESENTENCEWASIMPOSEDANDSUCHCOURTDIRECTEDEITHER
TOQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDACCORDINGTOS B OR ORTOCORRECTTHEPLEAWHEN
ITISCLEARTHATTHETRIALCOURTSHOULDHAVEHADDOUBTSASENVISAGEDBYSCF
!DDABBA.GEME6AN7YK 3!#24
4HE(IGH#OURTmSINHERENTREVIEWJURISDICTION
!LTHOUGHTHECOURTSARESLOWTOINTERFEREINUNTERMINATEDCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
THE(IGH#OURTSINHERENTPOWERTORESTRAINILLEGALITIESINLOWERCOURTSCOULDBE
EXERCISEDINEXCEPTIONALCASESCF0ITSOV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE +RUGERSDORP
3!4 AND,UBISI 3!4 'ENERALLYSPEAKING THECOURTWILL
CONFINETHEEXERCISEOFITSPOWERSTORARECASESWHEREGRAVEINJUSTICEMAYOTHER
WISE RESULT OR WHERE JUSTICE MAY NOT BE ATTAINED BY OTHER MEANS3APAT V 4HE
$IRECTOR $IRECTORATE FOR /RGANISED #RIME AND 0UBLIC 3AFETY 3!#2 #
7ESTERN!REAS0TY ,TD;=:!3#!)N4SHABALALA 3!#27,$
THEREVIEWCOURTUSEDITSINHERENTPOWERINORDERTOSETASIDEANACQUITTALONA
CHARGEOFTHEFTINAMAGISTRATESCOURT THEMAGISTRATEHAVINGERREDINAPPLYINGTHE
DEMINIMISRULEINACASEOFTHEFTOFITEMSTOTHEVALUEOF2 SEEALSO$IRECTOR
OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG ,OCAL $IVISION *OHANNESBURG V 2EGIONAL -AGISTRATE
+RUGERSDORP 3!#2'* WHERETHECOURTUSEDITSINHERENTPOWERTOSET
ASIDEANUNWARRANTEDDISCHARGEOFTHEACCUSEDAFTERCLOSINGOFTHE3TATESCASE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
0OWERSOFJUDICIALREVIEWANDEXCLUSIONOFEVIDENCE
*HQHUDO
)N(ANSENV4HE2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE #APE4OWN 3!#2# ITWASHELD
THAT S OF THE #ONSTITUTION HAD BROADENED THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALANDTHE(IGH#OURT TOPRO
MOTETHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEWITHINTHECONTEXTOFTHEVALUESOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
!COURTISTHEREFOREPERMITTEDINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES ANDNOTWITHSTAND
INGTHATTHEACCUSEDHASEXHAUSTEDALLHISORHERPROCEDURALREMEDIES TOGRANT
RELIEF
([FOXVLRQRIXQFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\REWDLQHGHYLGHQFH
4HE#ONSTITUTIONDEMANDSAFAIRTRIALFORANYACCUSEDPERSONANDPRESIDINGOF
FICIALSARETASKEDWITHENSURINGTHATTRIALSARECONDUCTEDFAIRLY&AIRNESSISANISSUE
WHICHHASTOBEDECIDEDUPONTHEFACTSOFEACHCASE ANDTHEPRESIDINGOFFICIALIS
THEPERSONBESTPLACEDTOTAKETHATDECISION&ERREIRAV,EVIN6RYENHOEKV0OWELL
./ 3! ## 5LTIMATELY IF EVIDENCE IS OBTAINED IN A MANNER THAT
VIOLATESANYRIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS ITMUSTBEEXCLUDEDIFTHEADMISSIONOFTHAT
EVIDENCEWOULDRENDERTHETRIALUNFAIROROTHERWISEBEDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMIN
ISTRATIONOFJUSTICES OFTHE#ONSTITUTION0ILLAY 3!#23#!
4HECOURTOFREVIEWMAY BYVIRTUEOFITSJUDICIALPOWERSOFREVIEW EXCLUDESUCH
EVIDENCEIFTHEPRESIDINGOFFICIALHASEXERCISEDHISORHERDISCRETIONINALLOWING
THEEVIDENCEINANIRREGULARMANNERWHICHAFFECTEDTHEFAIRNESSOFTHETRIAL)N
+EYV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL #APEOF'OOD(OPE0ROVINCIAL$IVISION 3!##
+RIEGLER*SUMMARISEDTHEPOWERSOFEXCLUSIONINTHEFOLLOWINGMANNER
!TTIMES FAIRNESSMIGHTREQUIRETHATEVIDENCEUNCONSTITUTIONALLYOBTAINEDBEEXCLUDED
"UTTHEREWILLALSOBETIMESWHENFAIRNESSREQUIRESTHATEVIDENCE ALBEITOBTAINEDUNCON
STITUTIONALLY NEVERTHELESSBEADMITTED
#OMPARE ALSO PARA ABOVE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW 4HE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
IMPROPERLYOBTAINEDISWITHINTHEPOWEROFALLCOURTSANDNOTONLYWITHINTHE
JURISDICTIONOFCOURTSOFREVIEWORAPPEAL
%
8%#54)/./&4(%3%.4%.#%0%.$).'2%6)%7
4HEEXECUTIONOFANYSENTENCEBROUGHTUNDERREVIEWISNOTSUSPENDEDPENDING
THEREVIEW UNLESSTHEMAGISTRATEWHOIMPOSEDTHESENTENCE GRANTSBAILORTHE
CONVICTED PERSON IS RELEASED ON A WARNING TO SURRENDER HIMSELF OR HERSELF FOR
SENTENCEATALATERSTAGESSAND!4HEMANNEROFREVIEWDOESNOTAFFECT
THISPROVISIONATALL
2
%42)!,7(%2%#/.6)#4)/.)33%4!3)$%
7HENEVERCONVICTIONANDSENTENCEOFALOWERCOURTARESETASIDEONREVIEWONTHE
GROUND
THATTHECOURTTHATCONVICTEDTHEACCUSEDWASNOTCOMPETENTTODOSOOR

#(!04%2r 2%6)%7
THATTHECHARGESHEETONWHICHTHEACCUSEDWASCONVICTEDWASINVALIDORDE
FECTIVEINANYRESPECTOR
THATTHEREHASBEENANYTECHNICALIRREGULARITYORDEFECTINTHEPROCEDURE
PROCEEDINGSINRESPECTOFTHESAMEOFFENCETOWHICHTHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCE
RELATEDMAYBEINSTITUTEDDENOVO4HENEWTRIALCOULDBEEITHERONTHEORIGINAL
CHARGE SUITABLY AMENDED WHERE NECESSARY OR UPON ANY OTHER CHARGE AS IF THE
ACCUSEDHADNOTBEENPREVIOUSLYARRAIGNED TRIEDANDCONVICTED3UCHPROCEED
INGSMUSTTHENBEINSTITUTEDBEFORESOMEJUDICIALOFFICEROTHERTHANTHEONEWHO
RECORDEDTHECONVICTIONANDPASSEDTHESENTENCESETASIDEONAPPEALORREVIEW
S READALSOWITHSSEEALSO#HAPTERPARA
!LTHOUGHPROCEEDINGSARENOTLIGHTLYSETASIDEBECAUSEOFIRREGULARITIESOFAFOR
MALNATURE SOMEIRREGULARITIESAREOFSUCHASERIOUSNATURETHATTHECOURTSWILL
CONSIDERTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSHAVENOTBEENINACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICEANDFAIR
NESS ANDWILLSETASIDETHECONVICTION7HERETHEIRREGULARITYISCLEARLYAMATTER
OFSUBSTANCEANDNOTAMATTEROFFORMONLYANDCONSTITUTESSUCHAGROSSDEPAR
TUREFROMESTABLISHEDRULESOFPROCEDURETHATTHEACCUSEDHASNOTBEENPROPERLY
TRIED ITISPERSEAFAILUREOFJUSTICE2APHATLE 3!#24 )NTHISCASE
THEFAILUREOFTHECOURTTOEXPLAINTOTHEACCUSEDHISRIGHTSORTORECORDTHEFULL
DETAIL OF SUCH EXPLANATION ONCE GIVEN WAS HELD TO BE A FAILURE OF JUSTICE )N
-ABUZA 3!#2/ EITWASHELDTHATPUBLICPOLICYISANIMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION IN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PRESIDING OFFICER IN HIS CONDUCT AS
JUDICIALOFFICERCOMMITTEDANIRREGULARITYANDWHETHERTHEACCUSEDWASTHEREBY
PREJUDICEDTOSUCHANEXTENTTHATAFAILUREOFJUSTICEOCCURRED)FTHEREWASSUCH
AFAILUREOFJUSTICE CONSIDERATIONSOFJUSTICEANDALSOOFPUBLICPOLICYWILLREQUIRE
THATTHEPROCEEDINGSBESETASIDE)NTHISCASETHEREGIONALCOURTMAGISTRATEQUES
TIONEDTHEACCUSEDINAFASHIONTHATWASDESCRIBEDBYTHE(IGH#OURTASSEVERE
CROSS EXAMINATIONANDINQUISITORIALINNATURE
/THER INSTANCES OF IRREGULAR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE CONSIDERED NOT TO BE IN
ACCORDANCEWITHJUSTICEINCLUDEWHERETHEMAGISTRATEWASCLEARLYBIASEDANDINDI
CATEDTHATHEWASSATISFIEDTHATTHEACCUSEDWASGUILTYBEFORETHE3TATEHADEVEN
CLOSEDITSCASE"ERKOWITZV0RETORIA-UNICIPALITY40$ 7HEREAPROSECUTOR
INATRIALLATERASSUMEDTHEROLEOFMAGISTRATEANDSENTENCEDTHEACCUSED AGROSS
IRREGULARITYWOULDCLEARLYRESULT,OUW 3!%
)N+OK 3!#2.# ONTHEMULTIPLICITYOFTHEIRREGULARITIESPERPE
TRATEDBYTHEMAGISTRATE THECOURTREMARKEDTHATTHECASESERVESASANEXCELLENT
CASESTUDYFORASPIRANTMAGISTRATESON@HOWNOTTOCONDUCTACRIMINALTRIAL
4HEPROVISIONSOFSMUSTBEREADINCONJUNCTIONWITHTHEPRINCIPLESINVOLVED
INAUTREFOISACQUITANDAUTREFOISCONVICTSEE-ASIYA 3!#2'.0
$%#,!2!4/29/2$%2
!SMENTIONEDABOVE CRIMINALPROCEEDINGSSHOULDNOT EXCEPTINACASEOFGRAVE
INJUSTICE BEINTERRUPTEDTOTAKEANILLEGALORIRREGULARRULINGOFTHEMAGISTRATEON
REVIEW,EGALRIGHTSOROBLIGATIONSCAN HOWEVER BEDECIDEDBYMEANSOFADECLARA
TORY ORDER 3ECTION C OF THE 3UPERIOR #OURTS !CT OF PROVIDES THAT
ANYDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHASTHEPOWERINITSDISCRETIONANDATTHEINSTANCE
OF ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO INQUIRE INTO AND DECIDE ANY EXISTING FUTURE OR CON

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TINGENTRIGHTOROBLIGATION DESPITETHEFACTTHATSUCHPERSONCANNOTCLAIMRELIEF
CONSEQUENTIALUPONTHEDETERMINATION3UCHINTERESTEDPARTIESCOULDALSOBETHE
ACCUSEDORTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY3ECTION C OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
PROVIDESASTATUTORYBASISFORTHEGRANTINGOFDECLARATORYORDERSWITHOUTREMOV
INGTHECOMMON LAWJURISDICTIONOFCOURTSTODOSO.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONSV-OHAMED 3!#2##
)TISADISCRETIONARYREMEDY!DECLARATORYORDERCANALSOBEGRANTEDALTHOUGH
THEREISNOEXISTINGDISPUTEBETWEENTHEPARTIESCONCERNED BUTTHEDISPUTEMUST
STILLBEALIVE*40UBLISHING0TY ,TDV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!
## 4HECOURTSWILLNOTDEALWITHORPRONOUNCEUPONABSTRACT HYPOTHETICALOR
ACADEMICPOINTSOFLAWINPROCEEDINGSFORADECLARATORYORDER4HEAPPLICANTMUST
SHOWTHATHEORSHEHASATANGIBLE REALANDJUSTIFIABLEINTERESTINTHEDETERMINA
TIONOFHISORHERRIGHTSANDOBLIGATIONS
7HEREANAPPEALORAREVIEWMIGHTNOTCOVERTHERIGHTSOROBLIGATIONSINQUES
TIONONWHICHCLARITYISREQUIRED ADECLARATORYORDERMAYBEREQUESTED%XPARTE
!TTORNEY 'ENERAL "OPHUTHATSWANA 3!"
)N!TTORNEY 'ENERALOF.ATALV*OHNSTONE!$ THECOURTDISCUSSEDTHEPRO
PRIETYOFRELIEFBYMEANSOFADECLARATORYORDER)TISHIGHLYQUESTIONABLEWHETHER
RELIEFBYWAYOFADECLARATORYORDERISAPPROPRIATEINRELATIONTOAMATTERINWHICH
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED3ITA V /LIVIER 3! !
7HERE DETAILED AND COMPLEX STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED IN
DIFFERENTWAYSAREINQUESTION ANDTHEREISARESULTANTRISKOFREPEATEDCRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGSAGAINSTTHEAPPLICANT THECOURTMAYGRANTADECLARATORYORDEREVEN
THOUGHTHEAPPLICANTSRIGHTSOROBLIGATIONSWEREINISSUEATACONCLUDEDCRIMINAL
TRIAL*OHNSTONEABOVE
4HE #ONSTITUTION MAKES PROVISION IN S A FOR ITS OWN SPECIAL FORM OF A
DECLARATORYORDERWHENDECIDINGAMATTERWITHINITSPOWER ANDMUSTDECLARETHAT
ANYLAWTHATISINCONSISTENTWITHTHE#ONSTITUTIONTOBEINVALIDTOTHEEXTENT
OFITSINCONSISTENCY4HISPROVISIONALLOWSNOROOMFORADECLARATORYORDERASEN
VISAGEDBYTHECOMMONLAWORSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT#ONSEQUENTLY SUCH
DECLARATORYORDERSARENOTDESIGNEDFORUSEWHENTHECONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYOF
ASTATUTORYPROVISIONISBEINGCONSIDERED.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
V-OHAMED 3!#2##

#(!04%2
!PPEAL
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
'%.%2!,
(ISTORICALBACKGROUND
2IGHTOFAPPEAL
4HECONSTITUTIONALDEVELOPMENTOFTHERIGHT
,IMITATIONOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS
!CCESSTOTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAINRESPECT
OFAPPEALSAGAINSTDECISIONSANDORDERSOFLOWER
COURTSANDOFCONSTITUTIONALISSUES
'ENERALAPPEALPROCEDURE
#ONSTITUTIONALISSUES
!CCESSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALANDTOTHE
FULLCOURTSOFDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH
!FRICAINRESPECTOFAPPEALSAGAINSTDECISIONSAND
ORDERSOFDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURT
!CCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
'ENERAL
7AYSOFACCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
.OAPPEALBEFORECONVICTION
!PPEALAGAINSTASENTENCE
!PPEALONTHEFACTS
$IFFERENCEBETWEENANAPPEALONFACTSANDANAPPEALONA
QUESTIONOFLAW
!PPEARANCEOFTHEAPPELLANT
7ITHDRAWALOFAPPEAL
0UBLICATIONOFPROCEEDINGS
)NSPECTIONINLOCO
!SPECTFIRSTRAISEDONAPPEAL
2ECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!00%!,34/4(%()'(#/524/&3/54(!&2)#!
4OWHICHDIVISION
!PPEALAGAINSTBAILDECISION
7HENMAYANACCUSEDAPPEAL
!PPEALFROMLOWERCOURTBYPERSONCONVICTED
%XCEPTIONS
7HOHASTOAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
$UTYOFCOURTINRELATIONTOUNREPRESENTEDACCUSED
PERSONSREGARDINGTHEIRRIGHTS
!NAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALINTHELOWERCOURT
'ROUNDSOFAPPEAL
0ROSPECTSOFSUCCESSONAPPEAL
!MENDMENTOFGROUNDSOFAPPEAL
0ROCEDUREAFTERLEAVETOAPPEALISGRANTEDORDENIED
!NAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATION
!NAPPLICATIONTOADDUCEFURTHEREVIDENCE
2EFUSALOFAPPLICATION0ETITIONPROCEDURE
0OWERSANDDUTIESOFACOURTCONSIDERINGAPETITION
(EARINGOFAPPEALBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
7HENMAYTHEPROSECUTIONAPPEAL
!PPEALBYTHEPROSECUTIONAGAINSTABAILDECISION
!PPEALBYPROSECUTIONRESTRICTEDTOAQUESTIONOFLAW
!PPEALBYTHEPROSECUTIONAGAINSTASENTENCE
0OWERSOFCOURTOFAPPEAL
%XECUTIONOFASENTENCEPENDINGAPPEAL
2EMISSIONFORANEWSENTENCE
&RESHTRIAL
!00%!,34/!&5,,#/524/&!$)6)3)/.!.$4/4(%
3502%-%#/524/&!00%!,
*URISDICTIONAND#ONSTITUTION
!FULLCOURT
7HENWILLAFULLCOURTHEARANAPPEAL
2IGHTOFAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORTOA
FULLCOURTOFADIVISION
!PPEALSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALREGARDINGAPPEALS
INCRIMINALCASESORIGINATINGINLOWERCOURTS
!PPEALSAGAINSTDECISIONOFDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTTO
HIGHERCOURTS

#(!04%2r !00%!,
!PPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL

!PPEALAGAINSTDECISIONSOFADIVISIONOFTHE
(IGH#OURTASATRIALCOURT
!PPEALAGAINSTDECISIONSOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH
#OURTASACOURTOFAPPEAL
4OWHOMMUSTTHEAPPLICATIONBEMADE
'ROUNDSOFAPPEAL
7HENLEAVETOAPPEALSHOULDBEGRANTED
!PPLICATIONFORLEAVETOADDUCEFURTHEREVIDENCE
!PPLICATIONFORCONDONATION
2EFUSALOFAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
!PPEALONSPECIALENTRYOFIRREGULARITYORILLEGALITYTOTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
2ESERVATIONOFQUESTIONSOFLAW
!PPEALBYTHEPROSECUTIONTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
!PPEALAGAINSTADECISIONBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH
#OURTONBAIL
!PPEALSLIMITEDTOQUESTIONSOFLAW
!PPEALAGAINSTASENTENCEIMPOSEDBYADIVISIONOF
THE(IGH#OURT
0OWERSOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
3TATUTORYOROTHERLIMITATIONSONTHEPOWERSOFTHE
3ETTINGASIDEORALTERATIONOFCONVICTIONONGROUND
OFIRREGULARITY
4HEINHERENTJURISDICTIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEAL
0ROCEEDINGSGHQRYRWHENCONVICTIONISSETASIDEONAPPEAL
3ECTION !CCESSTO#OURTS
DECIDEDINAFAIRPUBLICHEARINGBEFOREACOURTOR WHEREAPPROPRIATE ANOTHERINDEPEN
DENTANDIMPARTIALTRIBUNALORFORUM
3EE BELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTION r!RRESTED DETAINEDANDACCUSEDPERSONS

%VERYACCUSEDPERSONHASARIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHT
c
c
3EE BELOW
3EE BELOW
!NYONELISTEDINTHISSECTIONHASTHERIGHTTOAPPROACHACOMPETENTCOURT ALLEGINGTHAT
ARIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSHASBEENINFRINGEDORTHREATENED ANDTHECOURTMAYGRANT
APPROPRIATERELIEF INCLUDINGADECLARATIONOFRIGHTS4HEPERSONSWHOMAYAPPROACHA
COURTAREr
D ANYONEACTINGINTHEIROWNINTEREST
E ANYONEACTINGONBEHALFOFANOTHERPERSONWHOCANNOTACTINTHEIROWNNAME
F ANYONEACTINGASAMEMBEROF ORINTHEINTERESTOF AGROUPORCLASSOFPERSONS
G ANYONEACTINGINTHEPUBLICINTERESTAND
H ANASSOCIATIONACTINGINTHEINTERESTOFITSMEMBERS
3EE BELOW
3ECTION AND r#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTr
D ISTHEHIGHESTCOURTOFTHE2EPUBLICAND
E MAYDECIDEr
I CONSTITUTIONALMATTERSAND
II ANYOTHERMATTER IFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTGRANTSLEAVETOAPPEALONTHE
GROUNDSTHATTHEMATTERRAISESANARGUABLEPOINTOFLAWOFGENERALPUBLIC
IMPORTANCEWHICHOUGHTTOBECONSIDEREDBYTHAT#OURTAND
F MAKESTHEFINALDECISIONWHETHERAMATTERISWITHINITSJURISDICTION
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTMAKESTHEFINALDECISIONWHETHERAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT A
PROVINCIAL!CTORCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTISCONSTITUTIONAL ANDMUSTCONFIRMANY
ORDEROFINVALIDITYMADEBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH
!FRICA ORACOURTOFSIMILARSTATUS BEFORETHATORDERHASANYFORCE
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r !00%!,
3ECTIONr/THERCOURTS
!LLCOURTSOTHERTHANTHOSEREFERREDTOINSECTIONS ANDMAYDECIDEANYMAT
TERDETERMINEDBYAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT BUTACOURTOFASTATUSLOWERTHANTHE(IGH#OURT
OF3OUTH!FRICAMAYNOTENQUIREINTOORRULEONTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFANYLEGISLATIONOR
ANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr#OURTPROCEDURES
!LLCOURTSFUNCTIONINTERMSOFNATIONALLEGISLATION ANDTHEIRRULESANDPROCEDURESMUST
BEPROVIDEDFORINTERMSOFNATIONALLEGISLATION
3EE BELOW
3ECTIONr0OWERSOFCOURTSINCONSTITUTIONALMATTERS
7HENDECIDINGACONSTITUTIONALMATTERWITHINITSPOWER ACOURTr
D MUSTDECLARETHATANYLAWORCONDUCTTHATISINCONSISTENTWITHTHE#ONSTITUTION
ISINVALIDTOTHEEXTENTOFITSINCONSISTENCYAND
E MAYMAKEANYORDERTHATISJUSTANDEQUITABLE INCLUDINGr
AND
II ANORDERSUSPENDINGTHEDECLARATIONOFINVALIDITYFORANYPERIODANDONANY
CONDITIONS TOALLOWTHECOMPETENTAUTHORITYTOCORRECTTHEDEFECT
D 4
HE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL THE (IGH #OURT OF 3OUTH !FRICA OR A COURT OF
SIMILARSTATUSMAYMAKEANORDERCONCERNINGTHECONSTITUTIONALVALIDITYOFAN
!CTOF0ARLIAMENT APROVINCIAL!CTORANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT BUTANORDER
OFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYHASNOFORCEUNLESSCONFIRMEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURT
E !COURTWHICHMAKESANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYMAYGRANTATEMPORARY
INTERDICTOROTHERTEMPORARYRELIEFTOAPARTY ORMAYADJOURNTHEPROCEEDINGS
PENDING A DECISION OF THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT ON THE VALIDITY OF THAT !CT OR
CONDUCT
F .ATIONALLEGISLATIONMUSTPROVIDEFORTHEREFERRALOFANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONAL
INVALIDITYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
G !NY PERSON OR ORGAN OF STATE WITH A SUFFICIENT INTEREST MAY APPEAL OR APPLY
DIRECTLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTOCONFIRMORVARYANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONAL
INVALIDITYBYACOURTINTERMSOFTHISSUBSECTION
3EEAND BELOW
3ECTIONr)NHERENT0OWER
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT 3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAND(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAHAVE
INHERENTPOWERTOPROTECTANDREGULATETHEIROWNPROCESS ANDTODEVELOPTHECOMMON
LAW TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
3EEAND BELOW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTIONr!PPEALS
!NAPPEALBYACHILDAGAINSTACONVICTION SENTENCEORORDERASPROVIDEDFORINTHIS
!CTMUSTBENOTEDANDDEALTWITHINTERMSOFTHEPROVISIONSOF#HAPTERSAND
OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT 0ROVIDED THAT IF THAT CHILD WAS AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMISSIONOFTHEALLEGEDOFFENCEr
D UNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSOR
E YEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSANDHASBEENSENTENCEDTOANY
FORMOFIMPRISONMENTTHATWASNOTWHOLLYSUSPENDED
HEORSHEMAYNOTETHEAPPEALWITHOUTHAVINGTOAPPLYFORLEAVEINTERMSOFSECTION
"OFTHAT!CTINTHECASEOFANAPPEALFROMALOWERCOURTANDINTERMSOFSECTION
OFTHAT!CTINTHECASEOFANAPPEALFROMA(IGH#OURT0ROVIDEDFURTHERTHATTHE
PROVISIONSOFSECTION E OFTHAT!CTAPPLYINRESPECTOFACHILDWHODULYNOTES
ANAPPEALAGAINSTACONVICTION SENTENCEORORDERASPROVIDEDFORINSECTION
D OFTHAT!CT
!CHILDREFERREDTOINSUBSECTION MUSTBEINFORMEDBYTHEPRESIDINGOFFICEROFHIS
ORHERRIGHTSINRESPECTOFAPPEALANDLEGALREPRESENTATIONANDOFTHECORRECTPROCE
DURESTOGIVEEFFECTTOTHESERIGHTS
3EE AND BELOW
3ECTIONr2ELEASEONBAILPENDINGREVIEWORAPPEAL
7HENEVERTHERELEASEOFACHILDONBAILISCONSIDERED PENDINGr
D THEREVIEWOFASENTENCEASPROVIDEDFORINSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CTOR
E THE APPEAL AGAINST A SENTENCE AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTIONS AND OF THE
#RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION OF THIS !CT DEALING WITH THE
RELEASEOFCHILDRENONBAIL APPLY
3EE BELOW
'%.%2!,
(ISTORICALBACKGROUND
)N 2OMAN $UTCH LAW THE GENERAL RULE WAS THAT NEITHER THE PROSECUTION NOR A
CONVICTEDPERSONCOULDAPPEALINCRIMINALCASES4HISRULEWASREGARDEDASSOSELF
EVIDENTTHATWHEN7ILLIAMOF/RANGEREFERREDANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
TOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF(OLLAND THEREPLYWASTHATPRACTICALLYTHROUGHOUTTHE
#HRISTIANWORLD THERULEWASTHATCONVICTEDPERSONSCOULDNOTAPPEAL)FAPPEALS
WEREALLOWED THEREPLYNAIVELYCONTINUED CONVICTEDCRIMINALSWOULDONLYBEEN
ABLEDTOCOMMITFURTHERCRIMESWHILETHEIRAPPEALSWEREPENDING3EE'RUNDLINGH
3!! 4HEHARSHNESSOFTHISRULEWASSOMEWHATALLEVIATEDBYSTATUTE
BOTHINTHE.ETHERLANDSANDATTHE#APEOF'OOD(OPE)NBOTHCOUNTRIES UNTIL
AFTERTHESECOND"RITISHOCCUPATION THERIGHTTOAPPEALINCRIMINALCASESWASFAR
MORERESTRICTEDTHANTHERIGHTTOAPPEALINCIVILCASES$URINGTHEPERIODTO
THE2AADVAN*USTITIEWASTHECOURTOFAPPEALFORLOWERCOURTS!TTHEPAYMENT
OF AN AMOUNT OF RIX DOLLARS RIX DOLLARS WERE MOSTLY SILVER COINAGE BUT LATER
REPLACEDWITHNOTES THEACCUSEDWEREALLOWEDARIGHTOFAREHEARINGRE AUDITIE
WHICHREHEARINGWASBASEDONTHERECORDOFTHETRIAL&RESHEVIDENCECOULDNOTBE

#(!04%2r !00%!,
ADDUCEDATTHEREHEARING.ORE AUDITIEWASALLOWEDWHERETHEACCUSEDHADCON
FESSEDORWHERETHESENTENCEDIDNOTEXCEEDAPRESCRIBEDMINIMUM)NADDITION
TOAREHEARING APPEALSLAYFROMTHE#OLLEGEOF,ANDDROSTAND(EEMRADEN TOTHE
#IRCUIT#OURTORTHE#OURTOF*USTICE TOTHE(IGH#OURTOF!PPEALSASTHEHIGHEST
COURT4HEDECISIONOFTHELATTERWASFINAL BUTTHEGOVERNORRETAINEDTHERIGHTTO
PARDONANUNSUCCESSFULAPPELLANT$URINGTHEPERIODTO AFURTHERAP
PEALWASAVAILABLETOTHE0RIVY#OUNCIL WITHTHELEAVEOFTHE0RIVY#OUNCILONLY
#F*$UGARD3OUTH!FRICAN#RIMINAL,AWAND0ROCEDURE6OLUME6)NTRODUCTIONTO
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE FF 5NTILNOAPPEALWASALLOWEDINCRIMINALCASES
TRIEDINSUPERIORCOURTS BUTAFTERWARDSAPPEALSWEREALLOWEDWITHLEAVEANDONLY
TOTHEEXTENTPROVIDEDFOR!SPECIALENTRYWASALLOWEDTOBEMADEIFTHEPROCEED
INGSWEREIRREGULAR ASWELLASTHERESERVATIONOFANYQUESTIONOFLAWFORDECISION
BYTHEAPPEALCOURT,EAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTFINDINGSONTHEFACTSWASNOTALLOWED
!LTHOUGH NO RIGHT OF APPEAL INITIALLY EXISTED IT WAS GENERALLY ACCEPTED LATER
THATANYPERSONWHOFELTAGGRIEVEDBYHISORHERCONVICTIONORSENTENCEINALOWER
COURTHADARIGHTOFAPPEALTOASUPERIORCOURT PROVIDEDTHATTHEAPPEALWASNOTED
AND PROSECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE COURT 6AN :YL 4HE 4HEORY
OF *UDICIAL 0RACTICE FF 4ODAY THE RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISIONS OF
LOWERCOURTSANDTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAISGOVERNEDBYSTATUTEANDTHE
#ONSTITUTIONCF'RUNDLINGHABOVE 3EFATSAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL
3!!
2IGHTOFAPPEAL
7KHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHULJKW
!FTERTHEDECISIONIN-INISTEROF*USTICEV.TULI 3!#2## ALLCONVICTED
PERSONSIRRESPECTIVEOFWHETHERSUCHAPERSONWASLEGALLYREPRESENTEDORNOT OR
IMPRISONEDORNOT HADANUNLIMITEDORABSOLUTERIGHTOFAPPEALTOACOURTOFA
HIGHERINSTANCEAGAINSTADECISIONORORDEROFALOWERCOURT)N.TULI 3!#2
## S A OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTOFWHICHPROHIBITED
ANY CONVICTED PERSON WHO WAS UNDERGOING IMPRISONMENT FROM PROSECUTING IN
PERSONANYAPPEALRELATINGTOSUCHCONVICTION UNLESSAJUDGEHADCERTIFIEDTHAT
THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL THE SO CALLED @JUDGES CERTIFICATE
WASDECLAREDINVALIDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTONACCOUNTOFITSINCONSISTENCY
WITHTHE#ONSTITUTION(OWEVER THEPOSITIONWASDRASTICALLYCHANGEDWHEN
THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!MENDMENT!CTOFCAMEINTOOPERATIONON
-AY AMENDINGTHEFORMERUNLIMITEDRIGHTOFAPPEALINFAVOUROFALIMITED
RIGHTOFAPPEAL4HEAMENDMENTINTENDEDTOBRINGTHEPROCEDUREREGARDINGAP
PEALS FROM LOWER COURTS DECISIONS INTO LINE WITH THOSE NOTED AGAINST DECISIONS
HANDEDDOWNBYANYDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA SITTINGEITHERAS
ACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEORASACOURTOFAPPEAL4HEREHADNEVERBEENAGENERAL
RIGHTOFAPPEALFROMHIGHERCOURTS ANDLEAVETOAPPEALHADBEENAPREREQUISITEAT
ALLTIMES!CCORDINGTOTHE$EPARTMENTOF*USTICETHEREASONSFORTHEAMENDMENT
TOTHE!CT WERE THAT THE UNLIMITED RIGHTTOAPPEALCAUSEDABACKLOG IN HEARING
APPEALSBYTHEALREADYOVERBURDENED(IGH#OURTANDTHATITPLACEDTOOHEAVYA
BURDEN ON STATE FUNDS WHICH FACTORS WOULD EVENTUALLY CAUSE INFRINGEMENTS OF
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDTHEWEAKENINGOFTHEJUDICIALSYSTEM

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3ECTION H PROVIDEDTHATINCLUDEDINTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALWASTHERIGHT
@TOHAVERECOURSEBYWAYOFAPPEALORREVIEWTOAHIGHERCOURTTHANTHECOURTOF
FIRSTINSTANCE3ECTION OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONENTRENCHESAGENERALRIGHT
TOAFAIRTRIALANDS O GUARANTEESASPECIFICRIGHTTOAPPEALTO ORTOHAVEA
MATTERREVIEWEDBY AHIGHERCOURT)TPROVIDESTHATEVERYACCUSEDPERSONHASA
RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHT@OFAPPEALTO ORREVIEWBY AHIGHER
COURT 4HEREISNOSUBSTANTIALDIFFERENCEBETWEENS O OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
ANDS H OFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION EVENTHOUGHTHEWORDINGDIFFERS4HE
FIRSTQUESTIONTHATAROSEAFTERTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION !CTOF CAMEINTO
EFFECTWASWHETHER INVIEWOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS H ANACCUSEDACQUIRED
ANABSOLUTERIGHTOFAPPEAL3ECONDLY THEQUESTIONWASINVESTIGATEDWHETHERTHE
ACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAPPEALCOULDBELIMITEDBYCONDITIONSTHAT
THEACCUSEDHASTOBEGRANTEDLEAVETOAPPEALASAPREREQUISITEFORAPPEALING
FROMASUPERIORCOURTTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORTOAFULLCOURTOFANY
DIVISION OF THE (IGH #OURT OF 3OUTH !FRICA AS PROVIDED IN SS A AND
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT AND
INORDERTOSUCCEEDWITHSUCHANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL THEACCUSED
HASTOCONVINCETHECOURTHEARINGTHEAPPLICATIONTHATHEORSHEHASAREA
SONABLEPROSPECTOFSUCCESSONAPPEALORTHATTHEREISSOMEOTHERCOMPELLING
REASONWHYTHEAPPEALSHOULDBEHEARDS A OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
SEEALSOPARABELOW
!FTER A NUMBER OF OPPOSING DECISIONS SEE .OCUSE 3!#2 4K 6AN
3CHOOR 3!#2% 3TROWITZKI 3!#2.M( THECONSTITU
TIONALQUESTIONSCAMETOAHEADIN2ENS 3!#2## AT;=n;=4HE
#ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT HELD THAT SS H AND OFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITU
TIONSHOULDBECONSTRUEDINSUCHAWAYASTOHARMONISETHEMANDTHATTHELEAVE
TOAPPEALPROCEDURESMUSTBECONSISTENTWITHTHEBROADCRITERIONOFFAIRNESSSET
BY S OF THE INTERIM #ONSTITUTION 4HE COURT HELD THAT THE PROCEDURE PRE
SCRIBEDBYS FORAPPEALSFROMASUPERIORCOURT DOESNOTOFFENDAGAINSTTHE
PROVISIONSOFS H ALTHOUGHITREQUIRESTHETRIALJUDGETOPRONOUNCEONTHE
PROSPECTSOFSUCCESSONAPPEALAGAINSTHISOWNJUDGMENT4HECOURTFOUNDTHAT
THETRIALCOURTISNOTREQUIREDTOSAYTHATITSOWNJUDGMENTISWRONG BUTSIMPLY
TODECIDEWHETHERANOTHERCOURTMAYREASONABLYCOMETOADIFFERENTCONCLUSION
4HEUNDERLYINGPURPOSEOFTHESELIMITINGREQUIREMENTSISTOPROTECTTHEAPPEAL
COURTSAGAINSTTHEBURDENOFDEALINGWITHAPPEALSINWHICHTHEREARENOPROSPECTS
OFSUCCESSAT;=AND;=OFTHEJUDGMENT 4HECOURTALSOFOUNDTHATTHEPROCE
DUREPRESCRIBEDBYS ISFAIRBECAUSEITALLOWSTHEACCUSEDADUALOPPORTUNITY
OFRECOURSETOAHIGHERCOURTEITHERWITHTHELEAVEOFTHETRIALCOURTORWITHLEAVE
GRANTEDBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALUPONAPETITIONSUBMITTEDTOTHE0RESI
DENTOFTHATCOURT)N4WALA 3!#2## THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHAD
THEOPPORTUNITYTODECIDEONTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFSREADWITHS OF
THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT INTHELIGHTOFTHEPROVISIONSOFTHEFINAL#ONSTITU
TION #ONSTITUTION 4HE COURT HELD THAT THESE SECTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISIONSOFS O OFTHEFINAL#ONSTITUTIONANDTHATTHEREQUIREMENTOFLEAVE
TOAPPEALISCONSTITUTIONALSEEALSO#ONRADIE;=:!## )N4WALAABOVE AT

#(!04%2r !00%!,
;= 9ACOOB*EXPLAINEDTHEPURPOSEOFS O WITHINTHEFRAMEWORKOFS

ANDHELDFOLLOWS
4HE AMBIT OF THE RIGHT ENSHRINED IN SECTION O MUST BE DETERMINED BY HAVING
REGARDTOTHECONTEXTINWHICHITAPPEARSANDTHEPURPOSEFORWHICHITISINTENDED4HE
RIGHTOFAPPEALTO ORREVIEWBY AHIGHERCOURTISNOTASELF STANDINGRIGHTITISANINCI
DENCEORCOMPONENTOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALCONTAINEDINSECTION ANDAPPEARS
IN THAT CONTEXT )T FOLLOWS THAT ANY STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH IS CONCERNED WITH THE
RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALMUST ATTHEVERYLEAST BEINHARMONYWITHTHENOTIONOFAFAIRTRIAL
AND MOREGENERALLY WITHTHESTANDARDOFFAIRNESSWHICHISINHERENTINTHECONCEPTOFA
FAIRTRIAL4HEPURPOSEOFSECTION READASAWHOLEISTOMINIMISETHERISKOFWRONG
CONVICTIONS AND THE CONSEQUENT FAILURE OF JUSTICE AND SECTION O IS INTENDED TO
CONTRIBUTETOWARDSACHIEVINGTHISOBJECTBYENSURINGTHATANYDECISIONOFACOURTOFFIRST
INSTANCECONVICTINGANDSENTENCINGANYPERSONOFACRIMINALOFFENCEWOULDBESUBJECT
TORECONSIDERATIONBYAHIGHERCOURTHEPROVISIONREQUIRESANAPPROPRIATEREASSESSMENT
OFTHEFINDINGSOFLAWANDFACTOFCOURTSOFFIRSTINSTANCEANDISCLEARLYNOTINTENDEDTO
PRESCRIBEINATECHNICALSENSE THENATUREOFTHEREASSESSMENTTHATWILLALWAYSBEAPPRO
PRIATE4HEREASONFORTHISISTHATTHENATUREOFTHEREASSESSMENTTHATISAPPROPRIATEWILL
DEPENDONTHEPREVAILINGCIRCUMSTANCES3ECTION DOESNOTPROVIDEFORSPECIFICS
)TCREATESABROADFRAMEWORKWITHINWHICHTHELAWMAKERISAFFORDEDFLEXIBILITYINORDER
TOPROVIDEFORTHEKINDOFREASSESSMENTMECHANISMWHICHISBOTHAPPROPRIATEANDFAIR
)N3TEYN 3!#2## THECONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHEREQUIREMENTOFLEAVE

TOAPPEALFROMALOWERCOURT ASEMBODIEDINSS"AND#OFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT INSERTEDBY!CTOF WASCONSIDEREDANDHELDTOBEANIN
FRINGEMENTOFANACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESARIGHTTOANAPPEAL
ANDHISORHERRIGHTTODIGNITY!CCORDINGLY THECOURTFOUNDTHESEPROVISIONSTO
BEUNCONSTITUTIONALANDINVALID4HECOURTREASONEDTHATWHENANAPPLICATIONFOR
LEAVETOAPPEALWASREFUSEDBYAMAGISTRATE THEREAPPRAISALOFTHECASEONAPETI
TIONBYJUDGESOFTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAWASDONEONLIMITEDINFORMATION
SUPPLIEDBYTHELOWERCOURTANDDIDNOTALLOWFORANINFORMEDDECISION4HESIG
NIFICANTDIFFERENCESINTHEFUNCTIONINGANDRESOURCESOFLOWERCOURTSANDSUPERIOR
COURTS ACCORDINGTO3TEYN ALLOWEDFORAGREATERRISKOFERRORINLOWERCOURTSPROCE
DUREANDJUDGMENTS ANDTHETHRESHOLDOFWHATACCORDEDWITHFAIRNESSCOULDNOT
APPROPRIATELYBEORIENTEDATALEVELSIMILARTOTHEPROCEDUREFORAPPEALSFROMSUPE
RIORCOURTS)NORDERFORTHELEGISLATURETOAMENDTHE!CT THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
SUSPENDED THE INVALIDITY ORDER RELATING TO SS " AND # OF THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTFORASIX MONTHPERIOD4HEFAILUREOFTHE$EPARTMENTFOR*USTICETO
CURETHECONSTITUTIONALDEFECTTIMEOUSLYCAUSEDTHEORDERTOBECOMEEFFECTIVEON
-AY)NACCORDANCEWITHTHEDOCTRINEOFOBJECTIVECONSTITUTIONALINVA
LIDITYTHATDETERMINESTHEMOMENTOFINVALIDITYASSETOUTIN&ERREIRAV,EVIN./
6RYENHOEKV0OWELL./ 3!## AT;=n;= THEPROVISIONSOFTHE!CT
WERERENDEREDINVALIDFROMTHEDAYFROMWHICHSUCHPROVISIONSOFTHE!CTHAD
BEENDECLAREDINVALID4HEDECLARATIONOFINVALIDITYWASNOTMADERETROACTIVE
.DLOVUV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS+WA:ULU.ATAL 3!#2. !LL
APPEALSLAUNCHEDBUTNOTCOMPLETEDBY-AYWERETHENGOVERNEDBYTHE
PREVIOUSPOSITIONASITHADBEENBEFORESS AND OFTHE!CTWEREAMENDED
WHENNOLEAVETOAPPEALWASREQUIRED$ANSTER.QIDO 3!#2#
(OWEVER INTHEUNLIMITEDRIGHTOFAPPEALFROMALOWERCOURTTOAHIGHER
COURTWASAGAINRESTRICTEDWHENSWASAMENDEDANDSS"AND#WERE
REINTRODUCEDINTOTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT ALBEITWITHCERTAINAMENDMENTS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HEAMENDMENTSALSOBROUGHTABOUTTHATCERTAINJUVENILEOFFENDERSNOWENJOYAN
UNLIMITEDRIGHTOFAPPEALINRESPECTOFAPPEALSFROMTHELOWERCOURTSTOSUPERIOR
COURTS #ONVICTED PERSONS OTHER THAN JUVENILE OFFENDERS WHO ARE SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDEDFORINSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOF NOWHAVETOAPPLYFOR
LEAVETOAPPEALFROMTHECOURTSTHATTRIEDTHEIRCASESORIGINALLYSEEPARASAND
BELOW FOR THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND THEIR RIGHT TO
APPEAL )N3HINGAV4HE3TATE3OCIETYOF!DVOCATES0IETERMARITZBURG"AR )NTERVENING
AS!MICUS#URIAE 3V/#ONNELL 3!#2## THECOURTHELDTHATTHE
LEAVE TO APPEAL REQUIREMENT IN TERMS OF SS " AND # IS CONSISTENT WITH
S O OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDALSOADESIRABLEPROCEDUREASITPREVENTSUNMERI
TORIOUSAPPEALS(OWEVER IN3HINGATHECOURTSTRUCKDOWNCERTAINPROVISIONSTHAT
WEREINTRODUCEDBYTHEAMENDMENTASBEINGINPARTORCOMPLETELYUNCONSTITU
TIONALANDINVALID
4HROUGHTHE#ONSTITUTION3EVENTEENTH!MENDMENT!CT THEREPEALOFTHE
3UPREME#OURT!CTOF ANDITSSUBSTITUTIONBYTHE3UPREME#OURT!CT
OF THEJURISDICTIONANDHIERARCHYOFTHEHIGHERCOURTSCHANGEDSIGNIFICANTLY
/LPLWDWLRQRIFRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWV
!NUNLIMITEDRIGHTOFAPPEALHASBEENTHESUBJECTOFDISPUTEINANUMBEROFCASES
ADJUDICATEDUNDERTHENEWCONSTITUTIONALDISPENSATION!SDISCUSSEDIN#HAPTER
ITISTRITELAWTHATNORIGHTISABSOLUTEANDRESTRICTIONSARESETBYTHERIGHTSOF
OTHERSANDBYTHELEGITIMATENEEDSOFSOCIETY)NORDERTOFACILITATETHESECLAIMS
THE#ONSTITUTIONPROVIDESFORTHELIMITATIONOFRIGHTSTHROUGHAGENERALLIMITATION
CLAUSEINS WHEREBYCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSMAYBELIMITEDBYLAWOFGENERALAP
PLICATION AND ON CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNISED GROUNDS 4HE JUSTIFICATION
FORALIMITATIONOFAFUNDAMENTALRIGHTMUSTBEESTABLISHEDBYTHEPARTYRELYING
THEREONANDITISNOTFORTHEPARTYCHALLENGINGITTOSHOWTHATITWASUNJUSTIFIABLE
SEE:UMA 3!#2##
4HE CRITERIA FOR AN ACCEPTABLE LIMITATION OF THE RIGHTS ENTRENCHED IN THE "ILL
OF2IGHTSAREENUMERATEDINSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION NAMELY THATTHEYMUSTBE
REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE IN AN OPEN AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BASED ON HUMAN
DIGNITY FREEDOMANDEQUALITY4HISISNOTANEXHAUSTIVELIST BUTTHECRITERIAARE
THEKEYFACTORSTHATHAVETOBECONSIDEREDINANOVERALLASSESSMENTASTOWHETHER
ORNOTTHECONTESTEDLIMITATIONISREASONABLEANDJUSTIFIABLE-ANAMELA
3!#2## )NADDITION CERTAINFACTORSMENTIONEDINS A nE MUSTALSO
BECONSIDEREDINANYAPPRAISALOFTHEREASONABLENESSANDJUSTIFIABILITYOFTHELIMI
TATION!COMPETENTCOURTMUSTAPPLYTHESECRITERIAWHENDECIDINGANYALLEGED
INFRINGEMENTOFANALLEGEDCONSTITUTIONALRIGHT)NTHESAMEMANNERTHECONSTI
TUTIONALVALIDITYOFALIMITEDRIGHTOFAPPEALMUSTBEASSESSEDACCORDINGTOTHESE
CRITERIA
!LTHOUGHEVERYACCUSEDPERSONHAS INTERMSOFS D OFTHE#ONSTITUTION
ARIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHRIGHTINCLUDESTHERIGHTTOHAVEHISORHERTRIALBEGIN
ANDCONCLUDEWITHOUTUNREASONABLEDELAY SUCHADELAYDOESNOTNECESSARILYCALL
FORAREMEDY7HILEUNDUEDELAYINTHEHEARINGOFCRIMINALAPPEALSISOBVIOUSLY
UNDESIRABLE PARTICULARLYWHENANAPPELLANTISINCUSTODY ITDOESNOTFOLLOWTHAT
ANYUNDUEDELAYCONSTITUTESANINFRINGEMENTOFTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOAFAIR
TRIAL0ENNINGTON 3!#2 ## 'ENERALLY DELAYS IN FINALISATION OF

#(!04%2r !00%!,
APPEALSDENYJUSTICETOTHEPERSONSCONCERNEDANDSHOULDBEAVOIDEDATALLCOST
ANDCONSEQUENTLYTHEDIRECTORSOFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMUSTENSURETHATAPPEALS
ESPECIALLYTHOSEOFUNREPRESENTEDACCUSED ARENOTLOSTINTHESYSTEM(ESLOP
3!#23#! )N#ARTER 3!#23#! THECOURTEMPHASISEDTHAT
APPELLANTS WHETHERTHE3TATEORTHEACCUSED AREUNDERADUTYTOPURSUEAPPEALS
WITHREASONABLEEXPEDITION!NUNDUEDELAYCOULDAMOUNTTOANABANDONMENT
OF AN APPEAL AND THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING APPELLANTS WOULD BE ACTING TO THE
POTENTIALDETRIMENTOFBOTHTHEIRCLIENTSANDTHEPUBLICINTERESTIFTHEYCHOSETO
IGNOREEXPEDITIOUSPROSECUTIONOFTHEAPPEAL SIMPLYBECAUSETHEYDIDNOTREGARD
THEIR CLIENTS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY 4HE DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
LIKEWISE OWEASIMILARDUTYTOTHEAPPELLANTANDTOTHEPUBLICTOPURSUEANAPPEAL
WITHREASONABLEEXPEDITION
)N$ZUKUDA4SHILO 3!#2## ATDnE !CKERMANN*HELDTHAT
THERIGHTTOANAPPEALEMBRACESMORETHANTHEPRINCIPLEOFJUSTICE
4HEREARE HOWEVER OTHERELEMENTSOFTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALSUCHAS FOREXAM
PLE THEPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE THERIGHTTOFREELEGALREPRESENTATIONINGIVEN
CIRCUMSTANCES ATRIALINPUBLICWHICHISNOTUNREASONABLYDELAYED WHICHCANNOT
BEEXPLAINEDEXCLUSIVELYONTHEBASISOFAVERTINGAWRONGCONVICTION BUTWHICH
ARISEPRIMARILYFROMCONSIDERATIONSOFDIGNITYANDEQUALITY;%MPHASISADDED=
)N $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG V 0ISTORIUS 3!#2 3#!
AT ;= THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL DESCRIBED GENERALLY AN APPEAL AGAINST
THECONVICTIONANDORSENTENCEASACOMPLETEREHEARINGWITHOUTTHELEADINGOF
EVIDENCE WHERE A COURTS CONCLUSIONS OF BOTH FACT AND LAW MAY BE CHALLENGED
IN A HIGHER COURT BY HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD ONLY )N THE FOL
LOWINGPARAGRAPHSTHEREGIMEOFAPPEALSFROMLOWERCOURTSDISTRICTCOURTSAND
REGIONAL COURTS TO SUPERIOR COURTS WILL BE DISCUSSED SUPERIOR COURTS BEING THE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALANDTHEDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH
#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA INCLUSIVEOFALLTHELOCALSEATSOFADIVISION 3ECTIONOF
THE#ONSTITUTIONPROVIDESTHATALLCOURTSFUNCTIONINTERMSOFNATIONALLEGISLATION
ANDTHEIRRULESANDPROCEDURESMUSTBEPROVIDEDFORINTERMSOFNATIONALLEGISLA
TION4HESEPROCEDURESANDRULESARETOBEFOUNDINTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
OF THE#HILD*USTICE!CT THE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF DIRECTIVESOR
PRACTICEMANUALSOFTHEVARIOUSSUPERIORCOURTS ANDTHEUNIFORMRULESPERTAINING
TOLOWERANDSUPERIORCOURTS
$
FFHVVWRWKH+LJK&RXUWRI6RXWK$IULFDLQUHVSHFWRIDSSHDOVDJDLQVW
GHFLVLRQVDQGRUGHUVRIORZHUFRXUWVDQGRIFRQVWLWXWLRQDOLVVXHV
!NYCONVICTION SENTENCEORORDEROFALOWERCOURT EVENADISCHARGEAFTERCONVIC
TION ISSUBJECTTOLEAVETOAPPEALSEESSAND"OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT(OWEVER INRESPECTOFCERTAINAGEGROUPSWITHREGARDTOCHILDDELINQUENTS
LEAVETOAPPEALISNOTREQUIREDSEESOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT!COURTHEARING
THEAPPLICATIONISREQUIREDTOREFLECTDISPASSIONATELYUPONTHEDECISIONANDDECIDE
WHETHERTHEREISAREASONABLEPROSPECTTHATAHIGHERCOURTMAYDISAGREE-ABENA
3!#23#! 7HENLEAVETOAPPEALISDENIEDBYTHELOWERCOURT THE
APPLICANTSTILLHASRECOURSETOAHIGHERCOURTBYMEANSOFAPETITIONTOTHEDIVI

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTWITHAPPELLATEJURISDICTION ANDIFLEAVETOAPPEALISDENIED
BYTHELATTERCOURT THEACCUSEDMAYBRINGANAPPLICATIONTOTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALFORSPECIALLEAVETOAPPEALBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL.OTETHAT
THE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTDOESNOTUSETHETERM@PETITIONINGTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALWHENLEAVETOAPPEALWASREFUSEDBYA(IGH#OURT BUTUSESTHEPHRASE
INS B OFBRINGING@ANAPPLICATIONTOTHE2EGISTRAROFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEAL !NAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALMAYBEACCOMPANIEDBYANAPPLICA
TIONTOLEADFURTHEREVIDENCERELATINGTOTHECONVICTIONORSENTENCESEES"
AND 4HETRIALCOURTGRANTINGTHEAPPLICATIONMUSTEVALUATETHENEWEVIDENCE
ANDMAKEAFINDING4HEEVIDENCESOACCEPTEDWILLBEREGARDEDASTAKENATTHE
TRIAL3EEPARA@!PPEALSTOTHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA BELOW FORADETAILED
DISCUSSIONOFTHISTOPIC
7HENITISALLEGEDINALOWERCOURTTHATALAWISINVALIDBECAUSEITISINCONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE #ONSTITUTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT TO
DECIDETHEISSUESHOULDBEDETERMINEDWITHDUEREGARDTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSS
AND OF THE #ONSTITUTION AND WITH REFERENCE TO S WHICH PROHIBITS
LOWERCOURTSFROMDECIDINGONTHEVALIDITYOFANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTOROF
THELAW INCLUDINGTHECOMMONLAW ANDSOFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS!CT
OF)NTERMSOFSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION NOLOWERCOURTMAYENQUIREINTO
ORRULEONTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFANYLEGISLATIONORANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT
3ECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTALSOPROHIBITSLOWERCOURTSFROMGIVING
JUDGMENTONTHEVALIDITYOFANYPROVINCIALORDINANCEORPROCLAMATIONISSUEDBY
THE0RESIDENT3ECTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONPROHIBITSLOWERCOURTSFROMDEVEL
OPINGTHECOMMONLAW ASTHEYDONOTHAVEANINHERENTPOWER/NLYSUPERIOR
COURTS HAVE INHERENT JURISDICTION TO DEVELOP THE COMMON LAW /NLY WHERE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHECONDUCTORACTIVITIESOFAPERSONORORGANOFTHE3TATEIS
CHALLENGED WILLLOWERCOURTSHAVEJURISDICTIONTODECIDETHECONSTITUTIONALMAT
TERINVOLVINGTHEINTERPRETATION PROTECTIONORENFORCEMENTOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONIN
RESPECTOFTHATCONSTITUTIONALMATTER
FFHVVWRWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWRI$SSHDODQGWRDIXOOFRXUWRIDGLYLVLRQRIWKH
$
+LJK&RXUWLQUHVSHFWRIDSSHDOVDJDLQVWGHFLVLRQVDQGRUGHUVRIWKH+LJK
&RXUW
A !PPEALFROMADECISIONOFTHE(IGHCOURTSITTINGASATRIALCOURT
)NTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTTHEREARETHREEWAYSINWHICHAPERSON
WHOHASBEENCONVICTEDINADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTMAYBRINGHISORHERCASE
BEFORETHECOURTOFAPPEAL4HEYARE FIRST BYANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
INTERMSOFS WHICHPROVIDESFORAWIDEANDGENERALAPPEALONTHEFACTSAND
ONTHELEGALISSUESOFTHECASE3ECONDLY INTERMSOFS ANAPPLICATIONMAYBE
MADEFORASPECIALENTRYWHERETHEPROCEEDINGSAREALLEGEDTOHAVEBEENIRREGULAR
ANDNOTACCORDINGTOLAW&INALLY THEACCUSEDCANMAKEUSEOFSTOASKFORTHE
RESERVATIONOFPOINTSOFLAW(OWEVER IFAQUESTIONOFLAWHASALREADYBEENDEALT
WITHATANUNSUCCESSFULAPPLICATIONINTERMSOFS ANDITWASCONCLUDEDTHAT

#(!04%2r !00%!,
FORTHEPOINTOFLAWNOPROSPECTOFSUCCESSONAPPEALEXISTS ANAPPLICATIONFORTHE
RESERVATIONOFTHESAMEQUESTIONOFLAWWILLBEREFUSED
4HERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OR ORDER OF THE (IGH
#OURT AS A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN JUVENILE OFFEND
ERSOFSPECIFICAGEGROUPS)NALLOTHERINSTANCESANAPPEALAGAINSTACONVICTION
SENTENCEORORDERMAYBENOTEDONLYWITHTHELEAVEOFTHETRIALCOURTS
ANDSEES4HEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHEARINGTHEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETO
APPEALDECIDESONCERTAINGROUNDSWHETHERTHEFULLCOURTOFTHATDIVISIONORTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALSHOULDDECIDETHEAPPEAL!PROSPECTIVEAPPELLANTHAS
RECOURSETOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALBYMEANSOFAPETITIONAGAINSTTHE(IGH
#OURTSDECISIONTOREFUSELEAVETOAPPEALORTOREFERTHEHEARINGOFTHEAPPEALTO
THEFULLCOURTOFADIVISION
)NDETERMININGWHETHERORNOTTOALLOWANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL THE
MAINCONSIDERATIONISWHETHERORNOTTHEAPPLICANTHASAREASONABLEPROSPECTOF
SUCCESSONAPPEAL4HEREFORE THEAPPROACHTOSUCHAPPLICATIONSHOULDNOTBEONE
ASTHOUGHITISANIMPERTINENTCHALLENGETOTHEJUDGECONCERNEDTOJUSTIFYHISOR
HERDECISION BUTWHETHERTHEREISAREASONABLEPROSPECTTHATAHIGHERCOURTMAY
DISAGREE-ABENA 3!#23#! 3EEALSO3HINGAABOVE
.EVERTHELESS WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL HAS BEEN REFUSED THE
ACCUSEDMAYAPPROACHTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALBYMEANSOFAPETITIONFOR
LEAVETOAPPEALBYVIRTUEOFTHEPROVISIONSOFSS )NEXCEPTIONALCIRCUM
STANCESTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYDECIDETHEMATTER BUTGENERALLYITIS
REFERREDBACKTOTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
)NTERMSOFSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF AFULLCOURT INRELATIONTO
ANYDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT MEANSACOURTCONSISTINGOFTHREEJUDGESOFTHE
DIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT!FULLCOURTOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTISINSTI
TUTEDSPECIFICALLYBYTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTWITHTHEPOWERSTOHEARAPPEALS
FROMTHE(IGH#OURTSITTINGASACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE)FTHEAPPEALISDENIEDIN
THEFULLCOURT SPECIALLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTOFTHEFULLCOURTHASTO
BEREQUESTEDDIRECTLYFROMTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
)NTERMSOFSS A ANDB OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT THEAPPROPRIATECOURT
TO APPROACH ON APPEAL IN RESPECT OF AN APPEAL AGAINST ANY DECISION OF A DIVI
SION AS A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IE AS THE TRIAL COURT LIES UPON LEAVE HAVING
BEENGRANTEDWHERETHECOURTCONSISTEDOFASINGLEJUDGETOTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALORTOAFULLCOURTOFTHATDIVISION DEPENDINGONTHEDIRECTIONSISSUED
IN TERMS OF S OR WHERE THE COURT CONSISTED OF MORE THAN ONE JUDGE THE
APPEALISTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL)FLEAVETOAPPEALISREFUSED ITMAYBE
GRANTEDBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALONAPPLICATIONFILEDWITHTHEREGISTRAROF
THATCOURTWITHINONEMONTHAFTERSUCHREFUSALS THE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
3ECTION F OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTPROVIDESTHATTHEDECISIONOFTHEMAJOR
ITYOFTHEJUDGESCONSIDERINGANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALINTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEAL ORTHEDECISIONOFTHECOURT ASTHECASEMAYBE TOGRANTORREFUSE
THEAPPLICATIONSHALLBEFINAL0ROVIDEDTHATTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALMAYINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES WITHINONEMONTHOFTHEDECISION
REFERTHEDECISIONTOTHECOURTFORRECONSIDERATIONAND IFNECESSARY VARIATION
SEE.OTSHOKORU;=:!3#!-ALELE;=:!3#! WHERES F WAS
APPLIED!GRAVEINJUSTICECONSTITUTESEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES'WABABA>@

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
=$6&$%VEN AFTER THE S F APPLICATION IS DISMISSED THE APPLICANT CAN
STILLAPPROACHTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTWITHANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
,IESCHING 3!#2## AT;=
.OTETHATAPPEALSINTERMSOF#HAPTERSSTO OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
DONOTINCLUDEANAPPEALINAMATTERREGULATEDINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT ORPROVIDEDFORINTERMSOFANYOTHERCRIMINALPROCEDURALLAW4HESEPROVI
SIONSARECONSEQUENTLYRELEVANTWHERETHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDUREDOESNOTPROVIDE
FORAPARTICULARMATTERSEESOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTAND6AN7YK
3!#23#! AT;=
B !
PPEALFROMADECISIONOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGHCOURTSITTINGASTHECOURTOF
APPEAL
!NAPPEALAGAINSTANYDECISIONOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT ONAPPEALTOIT LIES
TOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALUPONSPECIALLEAVEHAVINGBEENGRANTEDBYTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL UNLESSSPECIFICALLYPROVIDEDOTHERWISE
7HEN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE RAISED IN A LOWER COURT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT THELATTERCOURTMUST INTERMSOFS OFTHE
#ONSTITUTION DEALWITHTHEMANDGIVEJUDGMENT4HE(IGH#OURTISNOWOBLIGED
TOMAKEARULING UNLIKETHEPREVIOUSPOSITIONUNDERTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION
WHENITHADTHEPOWERTOREFERANYISSUEOFVALIDITYFALLINGWITHINITSJURISDICTION
TOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
)FTHECONSTITUTIONALVALIDITYOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT APROVINCIAL!CTORCONDUCT
OFTHE0RESIDENTISCHALLENGED THE(IGH#OURTORTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL IS
NOTOBLIGEDTOMAKEANORDERANDTHEISSUEMAYBEREFERREDTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTS A )NTHEEVENTWHEREANORDERISSOUGHTFORINVALIDATINGASTATU
TORYPROVISIONWHICHISTHREATENINGACONSTITUTIONALRIGHT A(IGH#OURTMAYBE
APPROACHEDBEFORETHESTARTORCOMPLETIONOFTHECRIMINALPROCEEDINGS$E6OS
./V-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#27##
$FFHVVWRWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDO&RXUW
'ENERAL
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTISTHEHIGHESTCOURTINTHE2EPUBLICANDHASTHEINHER
ENTPOWER INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE TOPROTECTANDPROVIDEFORITSOWNPROCESS
ANDTODEVELOPTHECOMMONLAW4HISCOURTALSOGIVESFINALJUDGMENTONWHETHER
AN !CT OF 0ARLIAMENT A PROVINCIAL !CT OR ANY CONDUCT OF THE 0RESIDENT IS CON
STITUTIONALLY VALID AND NO ORDER OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY GIVEN BY THE 3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEAL THE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICAORACOURTWITHSIMILARSTATUS
HAS ANY FORCE UNLESS IT IS CONFIRMED BY THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT S OF
THE#ONSTITUTION 4HEJURISDICTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTISDEALTWITHIN
#HAPTER3EEALSO0ENNINGTON 3!## .OTETHESUBSTITUTIONOFS
OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONBYTHE#ONSTITUTION3EVENTEENTH!MENDMENT!CTOF
THATALLOWSTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTHEFINALDECISIONONWHETHERAMAT
TERISWITHINITSJURISDICTION)TMAYDECIDECONSTITUTIONALMATTERS ANDANYOTHER

#(!04%2r !00%!,
MATTER IFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTGRANTSLEAVETOAPPEALONTHEGROUNDSTHATTHE
MATTERRAISESANARGUABLEPOINTOFLAWOFGENERALPUBLICIMPORTANCEWHICHOUGHT
TOBECONSIDEREDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT$ISMISSALBYTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALOFAS F APPLICATIONINTERMSOFTHE3UPREME#OURT
!CT FORLEAVETOAPPEAL ALLOWSTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTHEFINALAPPEAL
DECISIONONWHETHERTOGRANTORDENYLEAVETOAPPEAL ,IESCHING 3!#2
## 4HROUGHTHISFURTHEROPPORTUNITYOFAPPEALTHERANGEOFTHEPROCESSOFLEAVE
TOAPPEALHASBEENEXTENDED
3ECTION OF THE #ONSTITUTION EMPOWERS A COURT WITH JURISDICTION WHEN
DECIDING A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER WITHIN ITS POWER TO MAKE ANY ORDER THAT IS
JUST AND EQUITABLE !N APPROPRIATE REMEDY WILL IN ESSENCE BE THE RELIEF THAT IS
REQUIREDTOPROTECTANDENFORCETHEVALUESINTHE#ONSTITUTIONASSETOUTINS!
COURTHASADISCRETIONTODECIDEWHAT INAPARTICULARCASE THEAPPROPRIATEREMEDY
SHOULDBE)N&OSEV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!## AT;= THE
COURT CONSIDERINGTHEVARIOUSCONSTITUTIONALREMEDIESACOURTMAYGRANT HELD
$EPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE THE RELIEF MAY BE A
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AN INTERDICT A MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS MAY BE
REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE #ONSTITUTION ARE PROTECTED
ANDENFORCED)FITISNECESSARYTODOSO THECOURTSMAYEVENHAVETOFASHIONNEW
REMEDIESTOENSURETHEPROTECTIONANDENFORCEMENTOFTHESEALL IMPORTANTRIGHTS
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTMAY INTERMSOFSSANDOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
BEAPPROACHEDFORRELIEFBYANYPERSONWHICHMAYINCLUDEJURISTICPERSONSSEE
S WITHSUFFICIENTINTERESTINTHEMATTERTOBEADMITTEDASAPARTY IFANYRIGHT
ENTRENCHEDIN#HAPTEROFTHE#ONSTITUTIONISINFRINGEDORTHREATENED3ECTION
ISMUCHBROADERTHANTHECOMMONLAWONSTANDING BUTSTANDINGISTHESTART
ING POINT WHEN A PERSON SEEKS TO VINDICATE AN INFRINGEMENT 4HOSE WITH LOCUS
STANDIINIUDICIOARE
ANYONEACTINGINHISORHEROWNINTERESTSWHICHINTERESTSORPOTENTIALINTER
ESTSMUSTBEDIRECTLYAFFECTEDBYTHEINFRINGEMENTANDTHEDIRECTEFFECTMUST
NOTBEUNSUBSTANTIATED4ULIP$IAMONDS&:%V-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTI
TUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2##
ANYONEACTINGONTHEBEHALFOFANOTHERPERSONWHOCANNOTACTINHISORHER
OWNNAME
ANYONEACTINGASAMEMBEROF ORINTHEINTERESTOF AGROUPORCLASSOFPER
SONS
ANYONEACTINGINTHEPUBLICINTEREST
ANASSOCIATIONACTINGINTHEINTERESTSOFITSMEMBERS
ANAMICUSCURIAE!NAMICUSCURIAEISANYPERSONINTERESTEDINANYMATTERBE
FORETHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTANDWHOHASBEENADMITTEDASSUCH!NAMICUS
CURIAEMAY WITHTHEWRITTENCONSENTOFALLTHEPARTIESINTHEMATTERBEFORETHE
COURTANDUPONSUCHTERMSANDCONDITIONS RIGHTSORPRIVILEGESASAREAGREED
UPONINWRITINGWITHALLTHEPARTIESBEFORETHECOURT BEADMITTED)FTHECON
SENTHASNOTBEENSECURED ANAPPLICATIONTOBEADMITTEDASANAMICUSCURIAE
MAYBEDIRECTEDTOTHE#HIEF*USTICE WHOMAYADMITAPERSONASANAMICUS
CURIAE4HE#HIEF*USTICEMAYGRANTTHEAPPLICATIONUPONSUCHTERMSANDCON
DITIONS RIGHTSORPRIVILEGESASHEORSHEMAYDETERMINERULEOFTHE2ULES

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTPROMULGATEDUNDER'OVERNMENT.OTICE2IN
'OVERNMENT'AZETTEOF/CTOBER REFERREDTOAS@##2ULES
ANYPERSONORORGANOFSTATEWITHSUFFICIENTINTEREST3UCHAPERSONORORGAN
MAY APPEAL DIRECTLY OR APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT TO CON
FIRMORVARYANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYGIVENBYACOURTINRESPECT
OF PARLIAMENTARY OR PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION OR ANY CONDUCT OF THE 0RESIDENT
S D OFTHE#ONSTITUTION @/RGANOFTHESTATEISDEFINEDINSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONAND BROADLYSPEAKING INCLUDESANYFUNCTIONARYOFTHESTATEOR
ANYPERSONPERFORMINGPUBLICFUNCTIONSORANYSTATEDEPARTMENT EXCLUDING
AJUDICIALOFFICERORACOURT
0RACTICALDIRECTIVESCONCERNINGTHEPROCEDURESTHATARETOBEFOLLOWEDWHENIN
STITUTINGANAPPEALINTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTAREISSUEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURT4HE##2ULESMUSTMAKEPROVISIONFORDIRECTAPPEALSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTS OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTANDSEE##2ULESn
7AYSOFACCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
A $IRECTACCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
I $IRECTACCESSINTERMSOFS AND OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONTOTHE#ON
STITUTIONAL#OURTBYAMEMBEROFTHEPUBLICSHALLBEALLOWEDINEXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY AND MUST BE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SEE :UMA
3!#2## )TISNOTANAPPEAL ASTHISCOURTISASKEDTOSITASCOURTOF
FIRSTANDLASTINSTANCE3HONGWE 3!#2## -OLOIV-INISTEROF
*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2## )TWILLBEINTHE
INTERESTSOFJUSTICEFORACONSTITUTIONALISSUETOBEDECIDEDFIRSTBYTHE#ON
STITUTIONAL#OURTWITHOUTBEINGCONSIDEREDBYOTHERCOURTS WHERETHEREARE
COMPELLINGREASONSTHATITSHOULDBEDONE&ERREIRAV,EVIN./6RYENHOEKV
0OWELL./ 3!## 4HEFACTORSTHATARERELEVANTINCONSIDERING
WHATWOULDBEINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEWERESUMMEDUPIN+HUMALOV(OLO
MISA 3!## AT;= ANDINCLUDETHEIMPORTANCEOFADETERMI
NATIONOFTHECONSTITUTIONALISSUESRAISED THEAPPLICANTSPROSPECTSOFSUCCESS
ON APPEAL AND WHETHER THE MATTER IS APPEALABLE TO THE (IGH #OURT ANDOR
TOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL%XCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESWILLORDINARILY
BEWHERETHEMATTERISOFSUCHURGENCYOROFSUCHIMPORTANCETHATTHEDELAY
NECESSITATED BY THE APPLICATION OF THEORDINARYPROCEDURESWOULDPREJUDICE
THEPUBLICINTERESTORPREJUDICETHEENDSOFJUSTICEANDGOODGOVERNMENT)N
TERMSOFRULEOFTHE##2ULES ANAPPLICATIONFORDIRECTACCESSASCONTEM
PLATEDINS A OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONMUSTBEBROUGHTBYWAYOFANOTICEOF
MOTIONSUPPORTEDBYANAFFIDAVITSETTINGFORTHTHEFACTSUPONWHICHTHEAP
PLICANTRELIESFORRELIEF4HEAPPLICATIONMUSTSETOUTTHEGROUNDSONWHICHIT
ISCONTENDEDTHATITISINTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICETHATANORDERFORDIRECTACCESS
BEGRANTED THERELIEFSOUGHT THEGROUNDSUPONWHICHSUCHRELIEFISBASEDAND
WHETHERTHEMATTERCOULDBEDEALTWITHWITHOUTTHEHEARINGOFORALEVIDENCE
ORIFNOT HOWSUCHEVIDENCESHOULDBEADDUCEDANDCONFLICTOFFACTSRESOLVED
II )NTERMSOFSS AND READWITHS OFTHE#ONSTITU
TION DIRECTACCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTISPERMITTEDINTHEFOLLOWING
INSTANCESWHICHAREINTHEEXCLUSIVEJURISDICTIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT

#(!04%2r !00%!,
 INTHECASEOFAREFERRALOFA"ILLOF0ARLIAMENTOROFTHEPROVINCIALLEGISLA
TUREBYTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE23!ORBYTHE0REMIEROFAPROVINCE
 WHENTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHEWHOLEORPARTOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENTOR
THATOFAPROVINCIALLEGISLATUREISCHALLENGEDBYMEMBERSOFTHE.ATIONAL
!SSEMBLYOROFA0ROVINCIAL,EGISLATURE
 WHENTHECERTIFICATIONORAMENDMENTBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTOFA
PROVINCIALCONSTITUTIONISREQUESTED##2ULES AND REGULATING
THERULESANDPROCEDURESINRESPECTOFSUCHMATTERS
III !NORDEROFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYBYACOURTASCONTEMPLATEDINSOF
THE#ONSTITUTIONISREFERREDDIRECTLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTFORCONFIR
MATION!STATEORGANORAPERSONMAY INTERMSOFS D OFTHE#ONSTITU
TION APPROACH THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT DIRECTLY WHERE A COMPETENT COURT
HASINTERMSOFS A DECLAREDLEGISLATIONPROMULGATEDBY0ARLIAMENT OR
BYAPROVINCE ORANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT UNCONSTITUTIONALANDINVALID
IV !PERSONORSTATEORGANWHOWISHESTOAPPEALAGAINSTSUCHANORDERORTOHAVE
ITCONFIRMEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTMUST WITHINDAYSAFTERTHEORDER
HASBEENMADE LODGEANOTICEOFAPPEALINTHECASEOFANAPPEAL ORLODGEAN
APPLICATIONFORCONFIRMATIONINTHECASEWHERECONFIRMATIONISSOUGHT WITH
THEREGISTRAROFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTANDLODGEACOPYTHEREOFWITHTHE
REGISTRAROFTHECOURTTHATHASMADETHEORDER##2ULE
!NAPPLICATIONFORDIRECTACCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHASTOBEMADEAC
CORDING TO THE TERMS AND PROCEDURES AS SPECIFIED IN THE ## 2ULES 4HE #HIEF
*USTICEMAYEXTENDANYTIMELIMITPRESCRIBEDINTHESE2ULES4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTMAY ONSUFFICIENTCAUSESHOWN CONDONEANYFAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHE
##2ULES##2ULE
B !CCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTBYMEANSOFANAPPEALWITHTHELEAVEOF
THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTMAYBEAPPROACHEDDIRECTLYINANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVE
TO APPEAL TO THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT AGAINST A DECISION ON A CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTEROTHERTHANANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYINTERMSOFSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTION THATHASBEENGIVENBYANYCOURT INCLUDINGTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEAL4HEAGGRIEVEDLITIGANTISNOTDENIEDACCESSTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
SIMPLYBECAUSETHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASREFUSEDLEAVE
TOAPPEALORSPECIALLEAVETOAPPEAL4HEAPPELLANTORLITIGANTWHOISAGGRIEVEDBY
THEDECISIONOFACOURTANDWHOWISHESTOAPPEALDIRECTLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURTMUST WITHINDAYSAFTERTHATDECISIONWASHANDEDDOWN APPLYFORLEAVE
TOTHEREGISTRAROFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT.OTICEMUSTBEGIVENTOALLINTERESTED
PARTIES4HEAPPLICATIONMUSTCLEARLYINDICATE AMONGOTHERTHINGS WHATCONSTITU
TIONALMATTERWASCONSIDEREDINTHEDECISION ANDMENTIONWHATOTHERCONNECTED
CONSTITUTIONALISSUESWERERAISEDSEE##2ULE
4HEDECISIONWHETHERTOGRANTORREFUSELEAVETOAPPEALISAMATTERFORTHEDIS
CRETION OF THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT ## 2ULE A "OESAK 3!#2
## AT ;= )N 0ROPHET V .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 3!#2
## THECOURTSETOUTTHEREQUIREMENTSTHATMUSTBESATISFIEDWHENSEEKING
LEAVE TO APPEAL 4HE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT MAY DECIDE TO DEAL WITH THE APPLI

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
CATION SUMMARILY WITHOUT RECEIVING ORAL OR WRITTEN ARGUMENT OTHER THAN THAT
CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF ## 2ULE B (OWEVER THE COURT MAY
ORDERTHATTHEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALBESETDOWNFORARGUMENTANDDIRECT
THATTHEWRITTENARGUMENTOFTHEPARTIESDEALNOTONLYWITHTHEQUESTIONWHETHER
LEAVE TO APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED BUT ALSO WITH THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE )N
-OLAUDZI 3!#2 ## THE APPELLANT AND HIS CO ACCUSED WERE CON
VICTEDOFSERIOUSCRIMESANDSENTENCEDTOLIFEIMPRISONMENTBYASINGLEJUDGEIN
THE(IGH#OURT4HEAPPELLANTAPPLIEDTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTFORLEAVETO
APPEAL WHICHWASREFUSED3UBSEQUENTLYTWOOFHISCO ACCUSEDAPPLIEDFORLEAVE
TO APPEAL TO THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT WHICH WAS GRANTED 4HEIR APPEALS SUC
CEEDEDONTHEBASISOFTHEERRONEOUSADMISSIONOFCERTAINEVIDENCEBYTHETRIAL
COURT WHICH ALSO AFFECTED THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT 0URSUANT TO DIREC
TIONS BY THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT THE APPELLANT BROUGHT A FURTHER APPLICATION
FORLEAVETOAPPEALTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT WHICHWASGRANTED BASEDONTHE
COURTSINHERENTPOWERSIRRESPECTIVEOFITSFINALORDERWHICHRENDEREDTHATORDER
RESJUDICATA4HECOURTHELDTHATADEPARTUREFROMTHERESJUDICATADOCTRINECOULD
BEJUSTIFIEDBY@TRULYEXCEPTIONALCASESWHERETHEAPPLICATIONOFRESJUDICATAWOULD
FAIL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED AND WOULD RESULT IN
GRAVEINJUSTICEAT;= IN@RAREANDEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES WHERETHEREISNO
ALTERNATIVEEFFECTIVEREMEDYAT;=
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTMAYHEARFURTHEREVIDENCE BUTTHECONSIDERATIONSFOR
ASUCCESSFULAPPLICATIONINTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTARENOTNECESSARILYTHESAME
ASFORORDINARYAPPEALS0RINCEV0RESIDENT ,AW3OCIETY #APEOF'OOD(OPE
3!#2##
)TISTHEPRACTICEOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTOCONSIDERAPPLICATIONSFORLEAVE
TOAPPEALATCONFERENCESATTENDEDBYATLEASTEIGHTJUSTICESANDAPPLICATIONSARE
NOTREFUSEDUNLESSTHEMAJORITYOFTHOSEJUSTICESAREOFTHEOPINIONTHATTHEREARE
NOREASONABLEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSCONSISTENTWITHTHE#ONSTITUTION0ENNINGTON
3!## "IERMAN 3!#2##
.
OAPPEALBEFORECONVICTION
4HEGENERALRULEISTHATANAPPEALSHOULDNOTBEDECIDEDPIECEMEALANDUSUALLY
THECOURTOFAPPEALWILLEXERCISEITSPOWERSONLYAFTERTERMINATIONOFTHECRIMINAL
TRIAL)NTHENORMALCOURSEOFEVENTSITISPREFERABLETOREACHFINALITYINTHEDISPOS
ALOFCASESTHATALLISSUESSHOULDBEDECIDEDDURINGASINGLESESSIONSOTHATAFINAL
JUDGMENTCANBEGIVENATTHEENDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSWHICHDISPOSESOFTHECASE
ASAWHOLE4HEAPPROACHTHATACASESHOULDNOTBEHEARDPIECEMEALALSOAPPLIESTO
THEFINALDISPOSALOFTHEAPPEALCF!DAMS 3!! &URTHERMORE THERE
ISNOSTATUTORYPROVISIONTOPROSECUTEANUNTERMINATEDCRIMINALTRIAL7AHLHAUS
V !DDITIONAL -AGISTRATE *OHANNESBURG 3! ! AT )N EXCEPTIONAL
CASES HOWEVER THECOURTOFAPPEALWILL EVENBEFORETHETERMINATIONOFTHETRIAL
EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWER AND THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE #ONSTITUTION TO
PREVENT IRREGULARITIES IN LOWER COURTS SEE 6AN 2OOYEN 3! ## AT
;= FOREXAMPLE WHEREAMAGISTRATEUNREASONABLYDENIESTHEACCUSEDTHEOP
PORTUNITYTOOBTAINLEGALREPRESENTATION4HE(IGH#OURTHASGRANTEDRELIEFWHERE
AREGIONALCOURTHADDISMISSEDANAPPLICATIONFORAPERMANENTSTAYOFPROSECUTION
BASEDONANINEXPLICABLEANDINEXCUSABLEDELAYOFSEVENYEARSBETWEENCOMPLE

#(!04%2r !00%!,
TION OF INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES AND THE ACCUSED BEING BROUGHT TO
COURT AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT PART OF IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SEIZED
BY THE 3TATE HAD BEEN LOST RESULTING IN THE ACCUSED SUFFERING IRREPARABLE TRIAL
PREJUDICEINPREPARINGAPROPERDEFENCE"ROOMEV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
7ESTERN#APE7IGGINSV!CTING2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE #APE4OWN 3!#2
# 7HEREGRAVEINJUSTICEMIGHTOTHERWISERESULTORWHEREJUSTICEMIGHTNOTBE
ATTAINEDBYOTHERMEANS THE(IGH#OURTWILLNOTHESITATETOINTERFERE'ONCALVES
V!DDISIONELE,ANDDROS 0RETORIA 3!4 )N-ALINDE 3!!
AT"ITWASHELDTHATALTHOUGHTHE(IGH#OURTDOESNOTPOSSESSINHERENTPOWER
TOENHANCETHESUBSTANTIVEJURISDICTIONWHICHITHASBYVIRTUEOFSTATUTORYPROVI
SIONS THEREISNODOUBTTHATTHISCOURTPOSSESSESANINHERENTPOWERTOREGULATEITS
PROCEDUREINTHEINTERESTOFTHEPROPERADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE)NTHATMATTER
AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL GRANTED AN ORDER TO
SEPARATETHEHEARINGOFTHESPECIALENTRYFROMTHEWHOLEOFTHEAPPEAL 4HE(IGH
#OURTSINHERENTPOWERTOREGULATEANDPROTECTITSOWNPROCESSISCONFIRMEDBY
THE#ONSTITUTION S
7HENEVERTHE(IGH#OURTISAPPROACHEDTOEXERCISEITSINHERENTPOWERSTOPRE
VENT IRREGULARITIES IN LOWER COURTS THE COURT MAY GRANT A MANDAMUS AN ORDER
DIRECTINGTHEMAGISTRATETOACTASORDERED ORANINTERDICTANORDERDIRECTINGTHE
MAGISTRATENOTTOACTINACERTAINMANNER 3EE"AILEY 3!% WHERE
THEMAGISTRATEIMPROPERLYREFUSEDTORECUSEHIMSELF3EEALSO.CUKUTWANAV!CTING
!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE ,ADY&RERE 3!% WHEREAMAGISTRATEUNREASON
ABLY REFUSED TO ALLOW THE DEFENCE ATTORNEY TO RECORD THE COURT PROCEEDINGS BY
MEANSOFATAPERECORDER)F HOWEVER THEMAGISTRATEPERFORMSHISORHERFUNC
TIONSINAPROPERANDREGULARWAYPROCEDURALLY BUTCOMESTOAWRONGCONCLUSION
ONTHEMERITS NOAPPLICATIONMAYBEMADETOTHECOURTOFAPPEALBEFORECONVIC
TION'INSBERGV!DDITIONAL-AGISTRATE #APE4OWN#0$-ARAIS
3! 4 )T FOLLOWS THAT IF THE GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT ARE SUCH THAT THEY CAN
AFFORDANEFFECTIVEBASISFORRELIEFINAPPEALORREVIEWPROCEEDINGSAFTERTHETRIAL
SUCHANINTERLOCUTORYAPPLICATIONWILLNOTBEENTERTAINED6AN(EERDEN
0((%
)NMATTERSHEARDBEFORETHE(IGH#OURTOF3OUTH!FRICA ANAPPEALBASEDONA
QUESTIONOFLAWRESERVEDSEEBELOW GENERALLYCANNOTTAKEPLACEUNLESSTHETRIALHAS
BEENCONCLUDED!DAMS 3!! 4HISRULE SETBYTHECOURTIN!DAMS
WAS EXTENDED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WHEN THE COURT IN "ASSON 3!#2
## ALLOWEDTHE3TATETOAPPEALAGAINSTTHEQUASHINGOFANINDICTMENTALTHOUGH
THEREWASNOCONVICTIONORSENTENCESEEPARA!LSO ANORDERMADEBYACOURT
THATISFINALANDDEFINITIVEINITSEFFECT SUCHASACOURTSDECISIONONANEXCEPTION
TOACHARGEORONAPLEAOBJECTINGTOACOURTSJURISDICTIONINTERMSOFS F
MAYBEAPPEALEDAGAINSTBEFOREFINALISATIONOFTHETRIAL$E"EER 3!#2
3#!
4HE GENERAL RULE THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD LIE TO THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL
WHETHERBYMEANSOFASPECIALENTRY RESERVEDQUESTIONOFLAWORINTHEORDINARY
WAY UNLESSTHEACCUSEDISFIRSTSENTENCED MAY HOWEVER ALSOBEDEPARTEDFROM
IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES 3EE -AJOLA 3! ! IN WHICH CASE IT
APPEAREDBEFORESENTENCINGTHATTHEAPPELLANTHADNEVERBEENCONSULTEDBYHIS
LEGALADVISERASTOWHETHERHEWANTEDTOGIVEEVIDENCEORNOT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!NINTERLOCUTORYORDERNOTHAVINGTHEEFFECTOFAFINALJUDGMENT WHICHISTHE
SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL OR OF AN APPEAL IS NOT SUSPENDED
PENDINGTHEDECISIONOFTHEAPPLICATIONORAPPEALUNLESSTHEPARTYWHOAPPLIED
TOTHECOURTTOORDEROTHERWISE PROVESTHATHEWILLSUFFERIRREPARABLEHARMIFTHE
COURTDOESNOTSOORDERANDTHATTHEOTHERPARTYWILLNOTSUFFERIRREPARABLEHARM
IFTHECOURTSOORDERS S AND OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
!
PPEALAGAINSTASENTENCE
!LTHOUGHANAPPEALCOURTISVESTEDWITHJURISDICTIONTOREDUCEASENTENCE ITIS
TOBENOTEDTHATACOURTOFAPPEAL WHETHERTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORTHE
@PROVINCIAL OR @LOCAL DIVISION WITH APPEAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT HAVE A GEN
ERALDISCRETIONTOCORRECTTHESENTENCESOFTRIALCOURTS0RINCIPLESDERIVEDFROM
JUDICIALPRECEDENTREGULATETHEPOWERSOFTHEAPPEALCOURTONAPPEALAGAINST
ASENTENCE)TISTHETRIALCOURTTHATHASTHEDISCRETIONTOIMPOSEAPROPERSEN
TENCE7HITEHEAD 3!! 4HEMEREFACTTHATTHECOURTOFAP
PEALWOULDHAVEIMPOSEDALIGHTERSENTENCEIFTHEPUNISHMENTWEREWITHINITS
DISCRETIONISNOTINITSELFSUFFICIENTREASONFORTHECOURTTOINTERVENE
!COURTOFAPPEALCANNOTINTERFEREWITHASENTENCEUNLESSTHETRIALCOURTHAS
NOTEXERCISEDITSDISCRETIONJUDICIALLY THATISINAPROPERANDREASONABLEMAN
NER+OCK 3!! 3 3!! 4SHOKO 3!!
4HISWILLBETHECASE
A WHEN THE SENTENCE IS VITIATED BY AN IRREGULARITY AND IT APPEARS TO THE
COURTOFAPPEALTHATAFAILUREOFJUSTICEHASINFACTRESULTEDFROMSUCHIR
REGULARITYORDEFECTEGWHEREAMAGISTRATEIMPOSESASENTENCEBEYONDHIS
ORHERPENALJURISDICTION CF0ILLAY 3!!
B WHEN THE TRIAL COURT MISDIRECTS ITSELF EG BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
IRRELEVANT FACTORS 3EE FOR EXAMPLE 2UNDS 3! ! ! MERE
MISDIRECTIONDOESNOTSUFFICETOWARRANTINTERFERENCEBYACOURTOFAPPEAL
4HEMISDIRECTIONMUSTBEOFSUCHANATURE DEGREEORSERIOUSNESSTHATIT
VITIATESTHETRIALCOURTSDECISIONONASENTENCE' 3!!
-TUNGWA 3!#2!
C WHENTHESENTENCEISSOSEVERETHATNOREASONABLECOURTWOULDHAVEIM
POSEDIT!NDERSON 3!! /VERTHEYEARSDIFFERENTTESTSHAVE
BEENAPPLIEDFORDETERMININGWHETHERANIMPOSEDSENTENCEISSUCHTHAT
THECOURTOFAPPEALISCOMPETENTTOINTERFERE4HUS THE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALHASASKEDITSELFWHETHERTHESENTENCEAPPEALEDAGAINSTINDUC
ESA@SENSEOFSHOCKINSOMECASESAGAINTHEQUESTIONWASWHETHERTHE
SENTENCE WAS @STARTLINGLY INAPPROPRIATE AND THEN AGAIN IN OTHER CASES
WHETHER THERE WAS A @STRIKING DISPARITY BETWEEN THE SENTENCE IMPOSED
AND THE SENTENCE WHICH THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL WOULD HAVE IM
POSED HADITACTEDASACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCESEE3ADLER 3!#2
3#! /NTHEDISPARITYCRITERION THECOURTSTATEDIN-ATLALA
3!#23#! AT;=ANDIN-ONYANE 3!#23#! THAT
SUCHACRITERIONISNOTALWAYSTHEAPPROPRIATEMEASUREBYWHICHTODE
TERMINEWHETHERAPPELLATEINTERFERENCEISCOMPETENT4HECRUCIALFACTOR
WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DISPARITY APPROACH IS WHETHER
THE APPELLATE COURT IS ABLE TO ARRIVE AT A DEFINITE VIEW @N BESLISTE ME

#(!04%2r !00%!,
NING ASTOWHATSENTENCEITWOULDHAVEIMPOSED/THERCRITERIAAPPLIED
BYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAREWHETHER@NOREASONABLECOURTWOULD
HAVE IMPOSED THE SENTENCE WHICH WAS IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR
@WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTHASREASONABLYEXERCISEDTHEDISCRETIONCONFERRED
UPON ITCF - 3! ! 4HE DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS MAY BE
COMBINEDINTOTHEONECRUCIALQUESTIONTHATNEEDSTOBEANSWERED THAT
IS WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTCOULDREASONABLYHAVEIMPOSEDTHESENTENCE
WHICHITDID0IETERS 3!! AT#n('ROSS 3!
! 3 3!! 4HEREFORE THEFUNDAMENTALAPPROACHTOANAP
PEALONSENTENCEISTHATACOURTOFAPPEALWILLINTERFEREWITHANIMPOSED
SENTENCEONLYIFITISSATISFIEDTHATTHETRIALCOURTEXERCISEDITSDISCRETION
IMPROPERLYORUNREASONABLY0IETERSABOVE /BVIOUSLY THISAPPLIESONLY
IFNOMISDIRECTIONOCCURRED
)N AN APPEAL AGAINST A SENTENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED
ONTHEAPPELLANTISDISTURBINGLYINAPPROPRIATEWHENCOMPAREDWITHTHESEN
TENCEIMPOSEDINADIFFERENTTRIALONANOTHERACCUSEDFORTHESAMECRIME THE
QUESTIONWHETHERTHESENTENCEAPPEALEDAGAINSTISDISTURBINGLYINAPPROPRIATE
MUSTOBVIOUSLYBEANSWEREDONTHEBASISOFACOMPARISONBETWEENTHATSEN
TENCEANDTHELESSERSENTENCEWHICHWASIMPOSEDONACONVICTEDPERSONWHO
PLAYEDANEQUALPARTINTHECOMMISSIONOFTHESAMECRIMEANDWHOSHARED
COMPARABLEPERSONALCIRCUMSTANCES%VENIFTHEREISASTRIKINGDIFFERENCEBE
TWEEN THE TWO SENTENCES WHEN THEY ARE COMPARED IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY
MEANTHATINTERFERENCEISJUSTIFIED)NTERFERENCEISJUSTIFIEDONLYIFTHELIGHTER
SENTENCEISAREASONABLEORCOMMONLYIMPOSEDSENTENCE7HERETHELIGHTER
SENTENCEISUNREASONABLEORCLEARLYINAPPROPRIATEANDTHEHEAVIERSENTENCEIS
INALLCIRCUMSTANCESANAPPROPRIATEONE INTERFERENCEWITHTHELATTERSENTENCE
WOULDBEIMPROPERCF-ARX 3!! )N"OGAARDS 3!#2
## AT;=THECOURTCONFIRMEDTHEAPPROACHOFTHECOURTSTOANAPPEAL
AGAINSTTHESENTENCEWHENITSTATEDASFOLLOWS
/RDINARILY SENTENCING IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT !N AP
PELLATECOURTSPOWERTOINTERFEREWITHSENTENCESIMPOSEDBYCOURTSBELOWIS
CIRCUMSCRIBED )T CAN ONLY DO SO WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN IRREGULARITY THAT
RESULTS IN A FAILURE OF JUSTICE THE COURT BELOW MISDIRECTED ITSELF TO SUCH AN
EXTENTTHATITSDECISIONONSENTENCEISVITIATEDORTHESENTENCEISSODISPRO
PORTIONATEORSHOCKINGTHATNOREASONABLECOURTCOULDHAVEIMPOSEDIT
3EEALSO(EWITT 3!#23#! AT;=
5NLESSANAPPEALISBASEDSOLELYONAQUESTIONOFLAW ACOURTOFAPPEALHAS
JURISDICTIONTOIMPOSEONAPPEALANYOTHERFORMOFSENTENCEINLIEUOFORIN
ADDITIONTOTHESENTENCEIMPOSED PROVIDEDTHATNOCONVICTIONORSENTENCE
SHALLBEREVERSEDORALTEREDBYREASONOFANYIRREGULARITYORDEFECTINTHERE
CORDORPROCEEDINGSUNLESSITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTOFAPPEALTHATAFAILUREOF
JUSTICE HAS IN FACT RESULTED FROM SUCH IRREGULARITY OR DEFECTSS
AND OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT(OWEVER ONCETHESENTENCEISSET
ASIDE ON APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF AN IRREGULARITY MISDIRECTION OR INAPPRO
PRIATENESS THECOURTOFAPPEALISCOMPETENTTOIMPOSEASENTENCEWHICHWAS
NOTAVAILABLETOTHETRIALCOURTATTHETIMEOFSENTENCINGTHEACCUSED%
3!#2! )NTHISCASE THE!PPELLATE$IVISIONASTHE3UPREME#OURT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
OF!PPEALWASTHENCALLED IMPOSEDASENTENCEOFCORRECTIONALSUPERVISION A

PUNISHMENTTHATWASNOTINOPERATIONWHENTHEACCUSEDWASSENTENCED#F
ALSO0ROKUREUR'ENERAAL .OORD +AAPV(ART 3!! !LSO THEACCUSED
HASARIGHTINTERMSOFS N OFTHE#ONSTITUTIONTOTHEBENEFITOFTHELEAST
SEVEREPRESCRIBEDPUNISHMENTWHERETHEPRESCRIBEDPUNISHMENTHASCHANGED
BETWEENTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCEANDTHETIMEOFSENTENC
ING3ENYOLO 3!#2'3* AT;=n;=
!LL DIVISIONS OF THE (IGH #OURT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL JURISDICTION HAVE THE
POWERTOINCREASEANYSENTENCEONAPPEALUNLESSTHEAPPEALISBASEDSOLELYON
AQUESTIONOFLAWSS AND OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT!COURT
MAYINCREASETHESENTENCEONAPPEALEVENTHOUGHTHEAPPEALISAGAINSTCON
VICTIONONLY& 3!/ 4HISPOWERISCONFERREDUPONTHECOURT
TOSEETHATJUSTICEISDONEBECAUSE@ITISJUSTASMUCHINTHEINTERESTOFJUSTICE
THATAGUILTYPERSONSHOULDBEADEQUATELYPUNISHEDASTHATHESHOULDBECON
VICTED'RUNDLINGH 3!! AT(!TPRESENT AFTERTHEDECISION
IN"OGAARDS;=:!## 3!#2## ABOVE ITISARULEOFPRACTICE
THATIFANINCREASEOFSENTENCEISCONSIDERED THECOURTSHALLMEROMOTUONITS
OWNINITIATIVE GIVENOTICETOTHEACCUSED)N3ONDAY 3!#2#
THEPRACTICEOFTHECOURTSTOGIVENOTICEOFAPOSSIBLEINCREASEINTHESENTENCE
EVENTHOUGHSUCHANINCREASEWASNOTREQUESTEDBYTHEPROSECUTION WASAL
LEGEDTOBEINVALID)TWASALLEGEDTHATITCONSTITUTEDAVIOLATIONORTHREATENED
VIOLATIONOFANAPPELLANTSCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTOFACCESSTOACOURT WHICHHAD
BEENENTRENCHEDINSOFTHEINTERIMNOW SOFTHEFINAL #ONSTITUTION
ANDOFHISRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALMORESPECIFICALLY THERIGHTTOHAVERECOURSE
BYWAYOFAPPEALTOAHIGHERCOURTTHANTHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCES H
OFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTIONS O OFTHEFINAL#ONSTITUTION (OLDINGTHE
ALLEGATIONSTOBEDEVOIDOFMERIT THECOURTRULEDTHATTHEPOWERTOINCREASEA
SENTENCEONAPPEALISAWELL ESTABLISHEDRULEINOURLAWANDTHATTHEPRACTICE
TOGIVENOTICEISNOINDICATIONTHATTHECOURTHASALREADYMADEUPITSMINDTO
DISMISSTHEAPPEALEVENBEFOREHEARINGTHEAPPELLANTSARGUMENTORTHATTHE
COURTHASTAKENOVERTHEROLEOFTHEPROSECUTIONINRESPECTOFASENTENCE(OW
EVER THECOURTHASNOJURISDICTIONTOENTERTAINANAPPLICATIONBYTHE3TATEIN
TERMSOFTHESAIDRULEOFPRACTICETOINCREASEASENTENCEONAPPEALIFTHE3TATE
HASNOTBROUGHTACROSS APPEALINTERMSOFS!.ABOLISA 3!#2
## AT;=
)N THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER TO INCREASEASENTENCEONAPPEAL THEGENERALPRIN

CIPLES WITH REGARD TO APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE ARE APPLIED 4HEREFORE A SENTENCE
WILLBEINCREASEDONLYIFTHETRIALCOURTHASEXERCISEDITSDISCRETIONUNREASONABLY
ORIMPROPERLY ORMISDIRECTEDITSELFCF$U4OIT 3!! AT" #AREFUL
CONSIDERATIONOFTHEOFFENCE THEOFFENDERANDTHEINTERESTSOFSOCIETYFORMSANINTE
GRALPARTOFDECIDINGONAPOSSIBLEINCREASEINSENTENCE.ATURALLY ACOURTOFAPPEAL
WILLNOTLIGHTLYINCREASEASENTENCEEVENTHOUGHTHATCOURTWOULDHAVEIMPOSEDA
HEAVIERSENTENCE$U4OITABOVE AT(3EE@0OWERSOFCOURTOFAPPEAL

#(!04%2r !00%!,
!PPEALONTHEFACTS
!COURTOFAPPEALISUSUALLYLOATHTOINTERFEREWITHTHEFINDINGSOFTHETRIALCOURT
ONQUESTIONSOFFACT&RANCIS 3!#2! 4HEREASONISTHATTHETRIAL
COURTISINABETTERPOSITIONTHANTHECOURTOFAPPEALTOMAKERELIABLEFINDINGSON
CREDIBILITY)TENJOYSANADVANTAGEOVERTHECOURTOFAPPEALINTHATITSEESANDHEARS
THEWITNESSESINTHEATMOSPHEREOFTHECOURTANDISTHEREFOREBETTEREQUIPPEDTO
ASSESSTHEDEMEANOUR APPEARANCEANDPERSONALITYOFTHEWITNESSES7HERETHE
FINDINGSOFFACTBYTHETRIALCOURTAREBASEDTOANYGREATEXTENTONTHEIMPRESSIONS
MADEBYWITNESSES ACOURTOFAPPEALWILLBEPARTICULARLYUNWILLINGTOUPSETTHE
FINDINGSONTHEFACTSANDWILLDOSOONLYIFTHECOURTISCONVINCEDTHATTHEYARE
WRONG-ONYANE 3!#23#! #OURTSOFAPPEAL WHILESLOWTODISTURB
CREDIBILITY FINDINGS BASED ON THE PERSONAL IMPRESSIONS MADE ON THE TRIAL COURT
BYTHEDEMEANOUROFWITNESSES HAVEGREATERLIBERTYINDOINGSOWHEREFINDINGS
AREBASEDONINFERENCES OTHERFACTSANDPROBABILITIES)NSUCHCASES COURTSOFAP
PEAL HAVINGTHEBENEFITOFTHEPROCEEDINGSINTHEFULLRECORD MAYOFTENBEBETTER
PLACEDINDRAWINGINFERENCESTHANTHETRIALCOURT-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY
V#RAIG../ 3!#23#! )TISWELL ESTABLISHEDLAWTHATIFTHEREISNO
MISDIRECTIONONTHEFACTS THEREISAPRESUMPTIONTHATTHETRIALCOURTSEVALUATION
OFTHEEVIDENCEASTOTHEFACTSISCORRECT ANDTHATACOURTOFAPPEALWILLINTERFERE
ONLYIFITISCONVINCEDTHATTHEEVALUATIONISWRONG-KOHLE 3!#2!
-LUMBI 3!#2! +EKANA 3!#23#! )NDETERMINING
WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTSFINDINGSOFFACTWERECLEARLYWRONG THEEVIDENCEULTI
MATELYHASTOBEASSESSEDASAWHOLE(ADEBE 3!#23#! 2AMULIFHO
3!#23#! )NSPECIALCASES WHERETHEREARECIRCUMSTANCESWHICH
CONVINCETHECOURTOFAPPEALTHAT HAVINGMADEEVERYALLOWANCEFOROBSERVATIONS
ASTOTHEDEMEANOUROFWITNESSES THECOURTAQUOSHOULDHAVEENTEREDADIFFER
ENTFINDING ANAPPEALONTHEFACTSWILLBEALLOWED-PETA!$ ANDCF
$HLUMAYO 3!! ONTHEGENERALPRINCIPLESTHATSHOULDGUIDEACOURT
OFAPPEALINANAPPEALPURELYONTHEFACTS
4HEDEMEANOUROFWITNESSESINCOURTIS HOWEVER ONLYONEOFVARIOUSFACTORS
WHICHPLAYAPART!BELS 3!/ AT
;)=TMUSTNOWBEREGARDEDASSETTLEDLAWTHATTHEDEMEANOUROFAWITNESSWHILSTTESTIFY
INGISINMANYCASESTHEDECISIVEANDDETERMININGFACTORINTHESEARCHFORTHETRUTH)TIS
HOWEVERDIFFICULTTOCONCEIVEOFACASEWHEREITISTHEONLYFACTORFOREVENWHEREGREAT
STRESSISLAIDONTHEDEMEANOUROFACERTAINWITNESSONEKNOWSBYEXPERIENCETHATTHE
SETTING THESURROUNDINGCIRCUMSTANCES THEPROBABILITIES THEINFERENCES ALLGOTOWARDS
CREATINGTHATSUBTLE PERVASIVEANDINDEFINABLEATMOSPHEREATATRIALFROMWHICHTHEWIT
NESSEMERGESASTHESYMBOLOFTRUTH
)TISDESIRABLETHATTHECOURTSHOULDPLACEONRECORDINWHATRESPECTSTHEDEMEAN
OUROFAWITNESSISUNSATISFACTORY4HEREASONSGIVENBYTHECOURTMUSTBETHOSEOF
THEMAJORITYIE ASSESSORSANDPRESIDINGOFFICER ANDNOTOFTHEPRESIDINGOFFICER
ALONE+ALOGOROPOULOS 3!#2! )FTHEQUESTIONISWHETHERACORRECT
INFERENCEHASBEENDRAWNFROMTHEFACTS WHICHFACTSARENOTTHEMSELVESINDIS
PUTE THECOURTOFAPPEALISINASFAVOURABLEAPOSITIONASTHETRIALCOURT3IMILARLY
THECOURTOFAPPEALCANDETERMINEJUSTASWELLASTHETRIALCOURTWHETHERCORROBO
RATIVEEVIDENCEWHERETHISISREQUIRED ISPRESENT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
$
IFFERENCEBETWEENANAPPEALONFACTSANDANAPPEALONAQUESTIONOF
LAW
)TISNOTALWAYSEASYTODISTINGUISHBETWEENANAPPEALONAQUESTIONOFFACTAND
ONEONAQUESTIONOFLAW)NANAPPEALONAQUESTIONOFFACT ITISTHEDUTYOFTHE
COURTOFAPPEALTORETRYORREHEARTHECASEONTHERECORDBEFORETHECOURTTOGETHER
WITHANYOTHEREVIDENTIALMATERIALITMAYHAVEDECIDEDTOADMIT ANDTHENDECIDE
FORITSELFWHETHERTHEREISAREASONABLEDOUBTABOUTTHEAPPELLANTSGUILT
)N AN APPEAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE COURT OF
APPEALWOULDHAVEMADETHESAMEFINDINGBUTWHETHERTHETRIALCOURTCOULDHAVE
MADESUCHAFINDING!QUESTIONOFLAWARISESONLYWHENTHEFACTSUPONWHICH
THETRIALCOURTBASEDITSJUDGMENTCOULDHAVEALEGALCONSEQUENCEOTHERTHANTHAT
WHICHTHETRIALCOURTFOUND!COURTSEXCLUSIONOFCERTAINRELEVANTEVIDENCEIN
ARRIVINGATANOPINIONASTOWHETHERTHEACCUSEDESTABLISHEDAPARTICULARDEFENCE
ANDACTEDWITHAPARTICULARINTENTIONSUCHASDOLUSDIRECTUSORDOLUSEVENTUALIS IS
AQUESTIONOFLAW$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV0ISTORIUS 3!#2
3#! !CCORDINGLY WHETHER THE TRIAL COURTS FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE RIGHT OR
WRONGISTOTALLYIRRELEVANTINDETERMININGWHETHERTHECOURTERREDINLAW"ASSON
3!#23#! ALTHOUGHTHEFACTSUPONWHICHTHETRIALCOURTBASEDITS
DECISIONMUSTBEDETERMINEDANDMUSTBECERTAININORDERTODETERMINEWHETHER
THELEGALQUESTIONCOULDHAVEHADALEGALCONSEQUENCEOTHERTHANTHEONEWHICH
THE TRIAL COURT HAD FOUND"ASSON ABOVE AT n "OEKHOUD 3!#2
3#! AT;=4HEQUESTIONOFLAW THEREFORE CANNOTBEWHETHERTHEEVIDENCE
SUPPORTS THE FINDING OF THE COURT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION OF FACT )N
$IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG V 0ISTORIUS 3!#2 3#! THE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHELDTHATTHETRIALCOURT INDETERMININGTHEPRESENCEOR
OTHERWISEOFDOLUSEVENTUALIS INCORRECTLYAPPLIEDTHEPRINCIPLESOFDOLUSEVENTUALIS
WHICHCONSTITUTEDANERROROFLAWORAPOINTOFLAW&AILUREBYANYCOURTTOTAKE
INTOACCOUNTRELEVANTANDADMISSIBLEEVIDENCEISANERROROFLAW ASISITAQUESTION
OFLAW REGARDNOTBEINGHADTOMATERIALWHICHMIGHTAFFECTTHEOUTCOMETOBE
WEIGHEDINTHESCALES$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV+- 3!#2
3#! 6HHALSO$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS +WA:ULU .ATALV2AMDASS
3!#23#!
7HERETHEPROSECUTIONAPPEALSINTERMSOFS ORAPPLIESINTERMSOFS
FORTHERESERVATIONOFAQUESTIONOFLAWFORTHECONSIDERATIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEAL THEQUESTIONOFLAWMAYNOTBEFORMULATEDINSUCHAFASHIONTHATA
QUESTIONOFFACTISMASQUERADINGASAQUESTIONOFLAW4HISISILLUSTRATEDBYTHE
CASEOF-AGMOEDV*ANSEVAN2ENSBURG 3!#2! WHEREAPURELYFACTUAL
QUESTION WAS FORMULATED AS A LEGAL ONE BY ASKING WHETHER A PARTICULAR INFER
ENCEISTHEONLYPOSSIBLEINFERENCETOBEDRAWNFROMAGIVENSETOFFACTS3EEALSO
#OLGATE 0ALMOLIVE 3!4 ATAND#OETZEE 3!!
!PPEARANCEOFTHEAPPELLANT
)FANAPPELLANTWHOHASNOTEDANDPROSECUTEDHISORHERAPPEALFAILSTOAPPEAR THE
FOLLOWINGCOURSESOFACTIONAREOPENTOTHECOURTOFAPPEAL
)TMAYSUMMARILYDISMISSTHEAPPEAL

#(!04%2r !00%!,
)T MAY STRIKE THE APPEAL OFF THE ROLL(LONGWA 3!#2 ! 4HIS
WILLBETHECASE FOREXAMPLE WHERETHEAPPELLANTISAFUGITIVEFROMJUSTICE
3UCHANAPPELLANTHASNORIGHTTOBEHEARDONAPPEALANDTHEAPPEALWILLBE
STRUCKFROMTHEROLL3TOPFORTHV-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!#23#!
7HEREANAPPEALHASBEENSTRUCKFROMTHEROLL ITWILLBEREINSTATEDONLYIF
ASUBSTANTIVEAPPLICATIONISBROUGHT INDICATINGAREASONABLEPROSPECTOFSUC
CESS4SHAPO 3!.
)TMAYPOSTPONETHEAPPEALIFTHEREISREASONTOBELIEVETHATTHEAPPELLANTHAS
BEENPREVENTEDFROMAPPEARINGTHROUGHNOFAULTOFHISORHEROWNCF-OHAPI
3!#2/ ,ETWELI 3!.# WHEREGUIDELINESWERE
LAIDDOWNONTHEPROCEDURETOBEFOLLOWEDWHEREATTORNEYSWITHDRAWAFTER
NOTINGANAPPEAL ORAREUNABLETOOBTAININSTRUCTIONSORAREREQUESTEDNOTTO
PROCEEDWITHTHEAPPEAL ORHAVETOREQUESTAPOSTPONEMENT
)T MAY HEAR THE APPEAL )N VARIOUS CASES WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO
APPEAR AND WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN ABOVE ARE NOT PRES
ENT THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHAS OFITSOWNACCORD HEARDTHEAPPEAL!
DIVISIONORLOCALSEATOFTHE(IGH#OURTTHATHASAPPEALJURISDICTIONWOULDBE
COMPETENTTOHEARTHEAPPEALBYVIRTUEOFS ASIFITHADBEENBROUGHT
BEFOREITONREVIEW(LOPE 3!4 3EEINGENERAL'OVENDER
3!. 'RUNDLINGH 3!! AT3OLOMON 3!
!
7ITHDRAWALOFAPPEAL
'ENERALLY ITMAYBESAIDTHATANACCUSEDMUSTHAVEARIGHTTOWITHDRAWHISOR
HERAPPEAL(OWEVER WHEREANINCREASEINTHESENTENCEISCONSIDERED THISRIGHT
ISCURTAILEDBYTHECOURTS)NSUCHANINSTANCE LEAVEOFTHECOURTTOWITHDRAWIS
REQUIRED )N ALL OTHER INSTANCES THE APPEALMAYBEWITHDRAWNATANYTIME BUT
NOTICEOUGHTTOBEGIVENTOTHECOURTANDTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
-OHAPI 3!#2 / AT )T IS REASONABLE THAT CERTAIN TIME LIMITS
SHOULDBESETWITHINWHICHTHEAPPELLANTMAYRECONSIDERHISORHERDECISIONTO
APPEAL4HEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALISNOW INMOSTINSTANCES APREREQUI
SITEFORNOTINGANAPPEAL7HERETHEPROSECUTIONOFANAPPEALHASPROGRESSEDTO
THEPOINTWHERETHECOURTOFAPPEALHASTAKENCOGNISANCEOFTHEMATTERORWHERE
THEAPPEALISCALLEDFORARGUMENTINOPENCOURT THEAPPELLANTMAYNOTWITHDRAW
THEAPPEALWITHOUTTHELEAVEOFTHECOURT4HECOURTMAYINITSDISCRETIONDECIDE
TODISPOSEOFTHECASECF'RUNDLINGH 3!! 7ILKEN 3!
!
)TWASHELDIN$U4OIT 3!! WITHREGARDTOTHEQUESTIONWHETHER
AN APPELLANT IS ENTITLED UNILATERALLY TO WITHDRAW HIS OR HER APPEAL SUBSEQUENT
TOTHEDATEOFSET DOWN THAT ASFARASAPPEALSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
ARE CONCERNED PRACTICAL AND EQUITABLE REASONS WOULD REQUIRE AN APPELLANT TO
OBTAINLEAVETOWITHDRAWHISORHERAPPEALONLYINTHOSEINSTANCESWHEREEITHER
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASALREADYGIVENNOTICETHATITWOULDCONSIDERAN
INCREASE OF THE SENTENCE OR THE 3TATE HAS NOTED ITS INTENTION TO ASK FOR LEAVE TO
CROSS APPEALTHEAPPEALSOUGHTBYTHEACCUSED4HESEPRACTICALANDEQUITABLEREA
SONSAREEQUALLYRELEVANTTOAPPEALSNOTEDTOTHE(IGH#OURT+IRSTEN 3!
! )N+IRSTENITWASFURTHERHELDTHATAWITHDRAWALOFANAPPEALNEEDNOTBE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
EMBODIEDINAFORMALNOTICE!LLTHATISREQUIREDISTHATANAPPELLANTMUSTDECIDE
TOWITHDRAWHISORHERAPPEALANDTHATSUCHDECISIONMUSTBECONVEYEDTOTHE
COURTOFAPPEALANDTHE3TATE
0UBLICATIONOFPROCEEDINGS
3INCEANAPPEALISACONTINUATIONOFTHETRIAL THEPROVISIONSOFSSAND
CONCERNINGTHEEXCLUSIONOFTHEPUBLICANDPROHIBITIONOFPUBLICATIONALSOAPPLY
TOAPPEALS%XPARTE8!$(OWEVER APPEALCOURTSDOHAVEADISCRETION
WHETHERTOALLOWOTHERFORMSOFOPENJUSTICEANDPUBLICATION ASWASSEENINTHE
APPEALPROCEEDINGSIN$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV0ISTORIUS
3!#23#! ASACONTINUATIONOFTHETRIALCOURTSDECISIONIN-ULTICHOICE0TY
,TDV.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY)N2E0ISTORIUS 3!#2'0 APPLICA
TIONTOBROADCASTTHETRIAL AND0ISTORIUS## ;=:!'00(#
3EPTEMBER THETRIALINTHE(IGH#OURT 4HETRIALCOURTPROCEEDINGSASWELL
ASTHEAPPEALCOURTPROCEEDINGSWEREATTENDEDBYUNPARALLELEDWORLDWIDEPUBLIC
ITYANDCOVEREDONLIVETELEVISIONINBOTHCOURTS
7HERETHEEXERCISINGOFTHECOURTSDISCRETIONINRESPECTOFTHEAPPLICATIONOF
THEPRINCIPLEOFOPENJUSTICEWHICHPRINCIPLEISALSOEMBODIEDINTHEABOVEMEN
TIONEDSECTIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT IMPINGESONCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS
THEAPPEALCOURTISREQUIREDTOENSURETHATTHEIMPAIRMENTISPROPORTIONALTOTHE
PURPOSESOUGHTTOBEACHIEVED ANDTHATTHEPROCEEDINGSBEFOREITREMAINFAIR
3OUTH!FRICAN"ROADCASTING#ORPORATION,TDV.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
3!#2##
)NSPECTIONINLOCO
!COURTOFAPPEALMAYHOLDANINSPECTIONINLOCO#ARELSE#0$BUTA
COURTMAYNOTPARTICIPATEINTHEPROCEEDINGSDURINGSUCHINSPECTIONANDMUST
RECORDITSOBSERVATIONS)TISTRITELAWTHATANINSPECTIONINLOCOWOULDNORMALLY
BEREQUESTEDBYAPARTYTOTHEPROCEEDINGS7HEREAPRESIDINGOFFICIALMEROMOTU
REQUESTSANINSPECTIONINLOCO THEPRESIDINGOFFICIALMUSTEXPLAINTHEREASONFOR
CALLINGFORSUCHANINSPECTION BECAUSETHERESOMETIMESISATHINLINEBETWEEN
CONDUCTREFLECTINGTHATOFANIMPARTIALARBITERANDTHATOFAPRESIDINGOFFICIALAC
TIVELYDESCENDINGINTOTHEARENAANDHAVINGHISORHERVISIONCLOUDEDBYTHEDUST
OF THE CONFLICTSEE #ITY OF *OHANNESBURG -ETROPOLITAN #OUNCIL V .GOBENI
;=:!3#!-ARCH AT;=FF
!SPECTFIRSTRAISEDONAPPEAL
)N (ERSCHEL !$ AT THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL THEN CALLED THE
!PPELLATE$IVISION MADETHEFOLLOWINGPRONOUNCEMENTABOUTANASPECTOFTHE
CASEWHICHWASRAISED NOTDURINGTHETRIAL BUTONAPPEALFORTHEFIRSTTIME
)N CRIMINAL APPEALS FROM MAGISTRATES COURTS FORMAL DEFECTS APPARENT ON THE
FACEOFTHECHARGESHEETCANNOTBERELIEDUPONFORTHEFIRSTTIMEONAPPEALOBJEC
TIONSTOTHEMMUSTBEMADEBYWAYOFEXCEPTIONBEFOREAPLEA-ATERIALDEFECTS
OFSUCHANATURETHATTHECHARGESHEETDISCLOSESNOCRIMEMAYBERELIEDUPONON
APPEAL EVENTHOUGHTHEPOINTWASNOTTAKENATTHETRIAL"UTWHERETHECHARGE
SHEET THOUGHMATERIALLYDEFECTIVE DOESDISCLOSEACRIME THENTHEDEFECTCAN

#(!04%2r !00%!,
NOTBERELIEDUPONIF INTHEOPINIONOFTHE#OURTOF!PPEAL ITCOULD IFTIMEOUSLY

TAKEN HAVEBEENREMEDIEDBYAMENDMENTWITHOUTPREJUDICETOTHEACCUSEDIN
THECONDUCTOFHISDEFENCE
4HE EFFECT OF (ERSCHELS CASE AND LATER DECISIONS ON DEFECTIVE CHARGE SHEETS
WAS CONSIDERABLY INFLUENCED BY THE ENACTMENT IN OF S OF THE PREVIOUS
4HEDICTUMIN(ERSCHELSCASEWOULDNOWALSOAPPLYWHENTHEDEFECTHASBEEN
CURED BY EVIDENCE BUT WITH DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE ACCUSEDS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTSANDTHEISSUEOFPREJUDICE ASCASESDECIDEDBEFORETHECONSTITUTIONALORDER
SUCH AS (ERSCHEL MUST BE MEASURED AND WEIGHED AGAINST THE NORMS AND FAIR
TRIALGUARANTEESAFFORDEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONSEE-OLOIV-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND
#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENT 3!#2##
4HETRIALCOURTHASTHEPOWERTOAMENDACHARGEINTERMSOFSEVENIFITDIS
CLOSESNOCRIME3EESAND#RAUSE 3!! (OWEVER THETRIALCOURTS
POWERTOAMENDTHECHARGESHEETISSUBJECTTOTHEPOSSIBILITYOFPREJUDICETOTHE
ACCUSEDANDTHEACCUSEDSFAIRTRIALRIGHTTOBEINFORMEDWITHSUFFICIENTDETAILTO
CONDUCT HIS OR HER DEFENCE#RAUSE ABOVE AT !LBERTS 3! !
+RUGER 3!! +USE 3!#2% 4HUS IFTHEACCUSEDOBJECTS
TO A MATERIALLY DEFECTIVE CHARGE DURING THE TRIAL AND THE TRIAL COURT ALTERS THE
CHARGE WITHOUT PREJUDICE RESULTING TO THE ACCUSED HE OR SHE CANNOT ON APPEAL
RELYONTHEFACTTHATTHECHARGEWASDEFECTIVE(OWEVER THEFACTTHATANACCUSED
PERSONISENTITLEDUNDERTHE#ONSTITUTIONTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHT
TOBEINFORMEDWITHSUFFICIENTPARTICULARITYOFTHECHARGES A MAYWELL
CAUSEACOURTOFAPPEALTOTAKEADIFFERENTAPPROACH
)FANAMENDMENTISCOMPETENTONTHETESTSETINRESPECTOFSSAND ITMAY
BEGRANTEDONAPPEAL4HISDOESNOTRESOLVETHEMATTER HOWEVER!NADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATIONISTHATANAMENDMENTWILLONLYBEGRANTEDWHERENOPOSSIBLEPREJU
DICECOULDRESULTTOTHEAPPELLANT-OTHA 3!#2+:0 /NAPPEALTHE
CHARGESHEETORTHEINDICTMENTMAYBEAMENDEDIFTHECOURTISSATISFIED FIRST THAT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS AN AMENDMENT AS ENVISAGED BY S AND SECOND
THATTHEACCUSEDWOULDNOTBEPREJUDICEDCF"ARKETTS4RANSPORT%DMS "PK
3!! !LTHOUGHTHETESTREGARDINGPREJUDICEISTHESAMEDURINGTHETRIAL
ASONAPPEAL ACOURTOFAPPEALWILLBELESSINCLINEDTOGRANTANAMENDMENTON
APPEALFORTHEOBVIOUSREASONTHATEVIDENCEWOULDALREADYHAVEBEENGIVENAND
THETRIALCONDUCTEDONADIFFERENTBASISFROMTHATONWHICHITWOULDPERHAPSHAVE
BEENCONDUCTED HADTHEAMENDMENTBEENGRANTEDATTHETRIAL.DHLOVU
3!#27
2ECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
)TISIMPORTANT FORPURPOSESOFAPPEAL TOHAVEARELIABLERECORDOFTHEPROCEED
INGSOFTHETRIALCOURT7HERETHEREISANERRORINTHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
OR THE CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT THEREOF THE ACCUSED OR THE PROSECUTOR MAY WITHIN A
CERTAIN TIME PERIOD APPLY TO THE COURT TO CORRECT SUCH ERROR 3UCH AN APPLICA
TIONMUSTBEBROUGHTINOPENCOURT$E7ETV'REEFF./ 3!#24 )F
THETIMELIMITSPECIFIEDHASEXPIRED ANAPPLICATIONMAYBEBROUGHTINTHE(IGH
#OURT3LABBERT 3!/ )FESSENTIALEVIDENCEHASBEENOMITTEDFROM
THERECORDANDCANNOTBESUPPLEMENTEDSATISFACTORILY THEACCUSEDSAPPEALMUST

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SUCCEED#OLLIER 3!# -ARAIS 3!4 *OUBERT 3!

! (OWEVER ACOURTOFAPPEALWILLNOTBEINCLINEDTOSETPROCEEDINGSASIDE
ONTHEBASISOFAMERESPECULATIONTHATTHEMISSINGPARTSOFTHERECORDOFTHEPRO
CEEDINGSTHATCOULDNOTBERECONSTRUCTEDWEREMATERIALEVIDENCE4HEREMUSTBE
SOMEINDICATIONSINTHERECORDITSELFORBYWAYOFAFFIDAVITSMADEBYTHEAPPELLANT
OFTHEMATERIALITYOFTHEMISSINGEVIDENCE3 3!#24
7HEREITISIMPOSSIBLETORECONSTRUCTALOSTRECORDANDTHELOSTPORTIONOFTHE
RECORDCONTAINSEVIDENCEWHICHISOFMATERIALIMPORTANCETOTHEADJUDICATIONOF
THEAPPEAL THEAPPEALOUGHTTOSUCCEEDANDTHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCESHOULD
BESETASIDE)NSUCHCIRCUMSTANCESITISNOTPERMISSIBLETOREFERTHEMATTERBACK
TOTHETRIALCOURTFORATRIALDENOVO&REDERICKS 3!#2# CONTRA:ONDI
3!#2 7 HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S WERE APPLICABLE
INSUCHACASE !NACCUSEDISENTITLEDNOTONLYTOKNOWWHATWASWRITTENASA
RECONSTRUCTION OF A LOST RECORD BUT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS OF RECONSTRUC
TION,ESLIE 3!#27 4HE3TATEANDTHEAPPELLANTHAVEADUTYTO
TRY TO RECONSTRUCT THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT FROM SECONDARY
SOURCESIFTHERECORDISINADEQUATEFORTHEPROPERCONSIDERATIONOFTHEAPPEAL
:ONDIABOVE
)N3CHOOMBEE;=:!## 3!#2## AT;=THECOURTHELDTHAT
THE OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A RECONSTRUCTION OF A LOST OR INCOMPLETE RECORD DOES
NOT FALL ENTIRELY ON THE COURT 4HE CONVICTED ACCUSED SHARES THE DUTY 7HEN A
TRIAL RECORD IS INADEQUATE @BOTH THE 3TATE AND THE APPELLANT HAVE A DUTY TO TRY
ANDRECONSTRUCTTHERECORD7HILETHETRIALCOURTISREQUIREDTOFURNISHACOPY
OF THE RECORD THE APPELLANT OR HIS OR HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE @CARRIES THE FINAL
RESPONSIBILITYTOENSURETHATTHEAPPEALRECORDISINORDER(OWEVER ATTHESAME
TIME AREVIEWCOURTORACOURTOFAPPEALISOBLIGEDTOENSURETHATANACCUSEDIS
GUARANTEEDTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL INCLUSIVEOFANADEQUATERECORDONAPPEAL PAR
TICULARLYWHEREANIRREGULARITYISAPPARENT4HEFAILUREOFTHE3TATETOFURNISHAN
ADEQUATERECORDOFTHETRIALPROCEEDINGSORARECORDTHATREFLECTSTHEACCUSEDSFULL
EVIDENCEBEFORETHETRIALCOURTINCIRCUMSTANCESINWHICHTHEMISSINGEVIDENCE
CANNOTBERECONSTRUCTED HASTHEEFFECTOFRENDERINGTHEAPPLICANTSRIGHTTOAFAIR
APPEALNUGATORYORILLUSORY%VENBEFORETHEDAWNOF3OUTH!FRICANSCONSTITU
TIONALDEMOCRACY THELAWWASTHAT INSUCHACASE THECONVICTIONANDSENTENCE
ORTHEENTIRETRIALPROCEEDINGSHADTOBESETASIDE3EEALSO0HAKANE 3!#2
## AT;=
!FTERCONVICTIONACOURTMAYNOTAMENDCERTAINPORTIONSOFTHERECORD!TTHE
CONCLUSIONOFTHETRIALTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERISFUNCTUSOFFICIOANDUNABLETOAMEND
THERECORDMEROMOTU-POPO 3!!
!
00%!,34/4(%()'(#/524/&3/54(!&2)#!
4OWHICHDIVISION
)N TERMS OF THE SYSTEM OF THE HIERARCHY OF 3OUTH !FRICAN COURTS APPEALS FROM
MAGISTRATESCOURTSLIETOTHE(IGH#OURTHAVINGJURISDICTIONS A OFTHE
#RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT 3UCH APPEALS REQUIRE LEAVE BEING GRANTED BY THE TRIAL
COURTINTERMSOFS"OFTHE!CT)FLEAVEISGRANTED SUCHAPPEALMUSTBEHEARD
INTHESPECIFICDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVINGJURISDICTION!DIVISIONOFTHE

#(!04%2r !00%!,
(IGH#OURTHASJURISDICTIONOVERALLPERSONSWHORESIDEORAREPRESENTWITHINITS
AREA OF JURISDICTION AND HAS THE POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE APPEALS FROM ALL
INFERIOR COURTS WITHIN ITS AREA OF JURISDICTION AND TO REVIEW THE PROCEEDINGS OF
ALLSUCHCOURTS)FADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHASONEORMORELOCALSEATS THE
MAINSEATOFTHATDIVISIONHASCONCURRENTAPPEALJURISDICTIONOVERTHEAREAOFJU
RISDICTIONOFTHELOCALSEATOFTHATDIVISIONS OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT4HE
DIVISIONINWHOSEAREAOFJURISDICTIONTHETRIALBYALOWERCOURTWASHELDHASJU
RISDICTION IRRESPECTIVEOFWHERETHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTED%XPARTEDIE-INISTER
VAN*USTISIE)NRE3V$E"RUIN 3!! (OWEVER WHEREACONVICTIONINA
REGIONALCOURTTAKESPLACEWITHINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH
#OURTANDANYRESULTANTSENTENCEISPASSEDORORDERISMADEWITHINTHEAREAOFJU
RISDICTIONOFANOTHERDIVISION ANYAPPEALAGAINSTSUCHCONVICTIONORSENTENCEOR
ORDERSHALLBEHEARDBYTHELAST MENTIONEDDIVISIONS B OFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT
)FLEAVETOAPPEALISREFUSEDBYTHETRIALCOURT THEACCUSEDCANDIRECTAPETITION
TOTHE*UDGE 0RESIDENTOFTHESPECIFICDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVINGJURISDIC
TIONOVERTHATTRIALCOURT INTERMSOFS# OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT FOR
LEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTTHEDECISIONOFTHETRIALCOURT5PONLEAVEBEINGGRANTED
THEACCUSEDISFREETOPROSECUTETHEAPPEALINTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAV
INGJURISDICTIONSEE6AN7YK 3!#23#! 7HERETHE(IGH#OURT
REFUSES LEAVE TO APPEAL SUCH AN ACCUSED MAY APPEAL TO THE 3UPREME #OURT OF
!PPEAL BUT ONLY WITH THE SPECIAL LEAVE OF THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL 3UCH
LEAVETOAPPEALWILLNOTBEAGAINSTTHECONVICTIONORSENTENCEBYTHETRIALCOURT
BUTAGAINSTTHEREFUSALOFLEAVETOAPPEALBYTHE(IGH#OURT3ECTION A OFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAKESITABUNDANTLYCLEARTHATNOAPPEALSHALLLIEDIRECTLY
FROMALOWERCOURTTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
)NTERMSOFS OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT ANAPPEALTOADIVISIONOFTHE
(IGH #OURT AGAINST A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF A LOWER COURT MUST BE HEARD BY NO
FEWER THAN TWO JUDGES )F THE JUDGES ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT A THIRD JUDGE MAY
BE ADDED TO HEAR THE APPEAL BEFORE JUDGMENT IS HANDED DOWNS OF THE
3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
7HEN THE APPELLANT WISHES TO APPEAL FURTHER AGAINST A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF
THEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTGIVENONAPPEAL SPECIALLEAVETOAPPEALFROMTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMUSTBEAPPLIEDFORS B OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS
!CT
$SSHDODJDLQVWDEDLOGHFLVLRQ
)N -AGISTRATE 3TUTTERHEIM V -ASHIYA 3!#2 3#! AT ;= THE COURT
HELDTHATITISOBVIOUSTHATFINALISINGANAPPLICATIONFORBAILISALWAYSAMATTEROF
URGENCY ANDWHENBAILISREFUSED THEDECISIONCANBEAPPEALED4HECOURTHELD
THAT@;T=HERIGHTTOAPROMPTDECISIONISTHUSAPROCEDURALRIGHTINDEPENDENTOF
WHETHERTHERIGHTTOLIBERTYACTUALLYENTITLESTHEACCUSEDTOBAIL)N"OTHA
3!#23#! THECOURTHELDTHATBAILAPPLICATIONSAREINESSENCECRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGSANDINTHEINSTANCEOFANAPPEALAGAINSTADECISIONOFALOWERCOURT
ONABAILAPPLICATION SUCHAPPEALSHALLBEHEARDBYASINGLEJUDGEOFADIVISIONOR
LOCALSEATOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTS B OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT.OAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALISNECESSARY6AN7YK 3!#2

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3#! !NAPPEALAGAINSTTHEREFUSALBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTTOGRANTBAIL
LIESTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL UPONSPECIALLEAVETOAPPEALHAVINGBEEN
GRANTEDBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALS B OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
7HENMAYANACCUSEDAPPEAL
SSHDOIURPORZHUFRXUWE\SHUVRQFRQYLFWHG
$
!NY PERSON CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENCE BY ANY LOWER COURT INCLUDING A PERSON
DISCHARGEDAFTERCONVICTION MAY SUBJECTTOTHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#HILD
*USTICE !CT AND SUBJECT TO LEAVE TO APPEAL BEING GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN
TERMS OF S " OR S # OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT APPEAL AGAINST SUCH
CONVICTIONANDAGAINSTANYRESULTANTSENTENCEORORDERTOTHE(IGH#OURTHAVING
JURISDICTIONS A
!NAPPEALUNDERSSHALLBENOTEDANDPROSECUTEDWITHINTHEPERIODANDIN
THEMANNERPRESCRIBEDBYRULEOFTHE@2ULESREGULATINGTHECONDUCTOFTHEPRO
CEEDINGSOFTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTSOF3OUTH!FRICA@-AGISTRATES2ULESPUBLISHED
IN'OVERNMENT.OTICE2ON!UGUST ASAMENDED 0ROVIDEDTHATTHE
MAGISTRATEAGAINSTWHOSEDECISIONORORDERTHEAPPEALISTOBENOTED ORIFHEOR
SHEISUNAVAILABLE ANYOTHERMAGISTRATEOFTHECOURTCONCERNED MAYONAPPLICA
TIONANDONGOODCAUSESHOWNEXTENDSUCHPERIOD)NORDERTONOTEANAPPEAL
ANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTTHECONVICTION SENTENCEORORDEROFTHE
TRIALCOURTMUSTBEMADETOTHETRIALCOURTS" A
([FHSWLRQV
4HEFOLLOWINGARESPECIFICEXCEPTIONSTOTHEGENERALPRINCIPLETHATANYCONVICTED
PERSON MAY APPEAL WITH LEAVE AGAINST HIS OR HER CONVICTION THESE EXCEPTIONS
APPLYALSOINRESPECTOFAPPEALSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
!FUGITIVECONVICTEDPERSONMAYNOTAPPEAL)SAACS 3!! 4HE
REASONFORTHISISTHATBYHISORHERFLIGHTTHECONVICTEDPERSONPUTSHIMSELFOR
HERSELF SOTOSPEAK BEYONDTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHECOURT7HILEHEORSHETHUS
DISREGARDSTHELEGALPROCESS HEORSHECANNOTINVOKEITFORANYLEGALRELIEF
-OLOTSI 3!/ 3EEALSO%XPARTE(ANSMANN 3!##
WHERETHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTCONFIRMEDTHISPRINCIPLE ANDSEE3TOPFORTHV
4HE-INISTEROF*USTICE 3!#23#!
!THIRDPARTYWHOHASANINTERESTINAVERDICTOFGUILTYORINASUBSEQUENTOR
DERHASNOLOCUSSTANDITOAPPEAL!NEXAMPLEIS2AFTOPULOS 3!4
INWHICHCASETHEACCUSEDWASFOUNDGUILTYOFGAMBLINGINTHATHEUNLAWFULLY
HADAPINTABLEINHISSHOP4HEMAGISTRATEORDEREDTHATTHETABLEBEFORFEITED
TOTHESTATE BUTITAPPEAREDLATERTHATTHETABLEWASTHEPROPERTYOFACERTAIN
22APPEALEDAGAINSTTHEORDEROFFORFEITURE BUTTHECOURTHELDTHATHEHAD
NOPOWERTODOSO2INTHISCASEHADNOTBEENFOUNDGUILTYBYTHECOURTAND
COULDTHEREFORENOTRELYONS
!FINDINGOFNOTGUILTYBECAUSETHEACCUSEDLACKEDCRIMINALCAPACITYISNOT
ANAPPEALABLEVERDICTWHERETHEFINDINGWASMADEINCONSEQUENCEOFSUCHAN
ALLEGATIONMADEBYTHEACCUSEDS

#(!04%2r !00%!,
!NACCUSEDMAYNOTAPPEALAGAINSTTHEPUTTINGINTOOPERATIONOFASUSPENDED
SENTENCE+HALPY 3!# +HAN 3!. 'ASAV2E
GIONAL-AGISTRATEFORTHE2EGIONAL$IVISIONOF.ATAL 3!.
!NAPPEALMAYNOTBECONTINUEDAFTERTHEDEATHOFTHEACCUSEDBECAUSEALL
APPEALPROCEEDINGSTHENLAPSE6OS#0$4REMEARNE.0$
4HESAMEAPPLIESWHERETHEPROCEEDINGSWEREBROUGHTBYTHE3TATE SAVEPOS
SIBLYWHERETHESTATESHOULDDERIVESOMEPECUNIARYBENEFITINTHEEVENTOFTHE
APPEALBEINGUPHELD*ANUARY0ROKUREUR 'ENERAAL .ATALV+HUMALO
3!#2! )FANAPPELLANTDIESBEFOREJUDGMENTISGIVENONAPPEAL ANDTHE
JUDGMENTOFTHECOURTAQUOAFFECTSHISORHERESTATEEGWHERETHESENTENCEISA
FINE THECOURTOFAPPEALHASJURISDICTIONTOPRONOUNCEJUDGMENT0
3!.# -OLOTSI 3!/ 7HENAFINEISIMPOSED ITPROVIDES
THEEXECUTOROFTHEDECEASEDWITHTHENECESSARYLOCUSSTANDITOPROSECUTETHE
APPEAL6ON-OLENDORFF 3!4 NOTAPPROVING6OS#0$
ANDSEEALSOS
7HOHASTOAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
3ECTION A PROVIDESTHATANAPPEALTOTHE(IGH#OURTISSUBJECTTOLEAVETO
APPEALEXCEPTINTHEINSTANCESBELOW WHEREANAPPEALMAYBENOTEDWITHOUTHAV
INGTOAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEALASCONTEMPLATEDINS"
7HERETHECONVICTEDPERSONWAS INTERMSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT AT
THETIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCE
I BELOWTHEAGEOFYEARSOR
II YEARSOROLDERBUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSANDHADBEENSENTENCEDTO
ANYFORMOFIMPRISONMENTTHATWASNOTWHOLLYSUSPENDEDOR
7HERETHECONVICTEDPERSONWASSENTENCEDTOLIFEIMPRISONMENTBYAREGIONAL
COURTUNDERSOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CTOF!FTERTHE
DECISIONIN#HAKE 3!#23#! WHERETHE3UPREME#OURTOF!P
PEALHELDTHATAPPELLANTSSENTENCEDTOLIFEIMPRISONMENTBYREGIONALCOURTS
DIDNOTENJOYANAUTOMATICRIGHTOFAPPEAL THELEGISLATURECORRECTEDS
A ANDS" A ANDPROVIDEDUNEQUIVOCALLYTHATAPPELLANTSSENTENCEDTO
LIFEIMPRISONMENTINTERMSOFSOFTHE#RIMINAL,AW!MENDMENT!CT
OFHAVEANAUTOMATICRIGHTOFAPPEALWITHOUTFIRSTHAVINGTOSEEKLEAVE
TOAPPEAL
!SFARASCHILDRENARECONCERNED THEFIRSTPROVISIONABOVESERVESASAMEASURETO
ENSURETHATYOUNGCHILDOFFENDERSBELOWYEARSOFAGEWHOWERESENTENCEDIN
ANYLOWERCOURTANDYOUNGOFFENDERSAGEDOROLDERBUTBELOWYEARSOFAGE
WHOWERESENTENCEDTOAPERIODOFUNSUSPENDEDIMPRISONMENTHAVEBEENFAIRLY
TRIEDANDJUSTLYSENTENCED NOMATTERWHICHLOWERCOURTIMPOSEDTHATSENTENCE
4HEMOSTEXPEDITIOUSWAYTOATTAINTHISISTOALLOWSUCHOFFENDERSDIRECTRECOURSE
TO THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE (IGH #OURT )N RESPECT OF APPEALS AGAINST A
DECISION BY THE (IGH #OURT THE SAME LOWER AGE CRITERIA FOR AUTOMATIC APPEAL
PROCEDURESAREAPPLICABLESEEPARABELOW4HECOURTSHAVETOINFORMTHECON
VICTEDJUVENILEOFHISORHERRIGHTSINRESPECTOFAPPEAL LEGALREPRESENTATION AND
THECORRECTPROCEDURESTOGIVEEFFECTTOTHESERIGHTS ANDBAILPENDINGTHEAPPEAL
SSANDREADWITHSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT .EVERTHELESS ASCONTEM

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PLATEDBYTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT CHILDOFFENDERSMUSTATALLTIMESBEREPRESENTEDIN
COURTBYLEGALCOUNSELSEESSANDOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT
XW\RIFRXUWLQUHODWLRQWRXQUHSUHVHQWHGDFFXVHGSHUVRQVUHJDUGLQJWKHLU
'
ULJKWV
!NACCUSEDASCONTEMPLATEDINS A EXCEPTFORTHECHILDOFFENDERASCON
TEMPLATEDBYTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTSEEABOVE WHOISUNREPRESENTEDATTHETIME
HEORSHEISCONVICTEDANDSENTENCED MUSTBEINFORMEDBYTHEPRESIDINGOFFICER
OFHISORHERRIGHTSINRESPECTOFAPPEALANDLEGALREPRESENTATIONANDOFTHECORRECT
PROCEDURESTOGIVEEFFECTTOTHESERIGHTSS$ A
)F AN UNREPRESENTED ACCUSED HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO ANY FORM
OFIMPRISONMENTTHATWASNOTWHOLLYSUSPENDED ORTOANYFORMOFPUNISHMENT
WHICHINTHEVIEWOFTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERMAYLEADTOSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEFORTHE
ACCUSED ANDHEORSHEINDICATESTOTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERHISORHERINTENTIONTO
APPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEALINTERMSOFS" A ORFORLEAVETOPETITIONINTERMS
OFS# A THEPRESIDINGOFFICERMUSTREFERTHEACCUSEDTOTHE,EGAL!ID"OARD
FORTHEPURPOSEOFALLOWINGHIMORHERANOPPORTUNITYTOREQUESTLEGALREPRESENTA
TIONTOASSISTSUCHACCUSEDINHISORHERAPPLICATIONS$
7HEN LEAVE TO APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED THE COURT MUST EXPLAIN TO SUCH AN
ACCUSEDANYFURTHERRECOURSEHEORSHEHASINTERMSOFANAPPEALTOAHIGHERCOURT
!
NAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALINALOWERCOURT
)N TERMS OF S " ANY CONVICTED ACCUSED OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED ABOVE
WHO WISHES TO NOTE AN APPEAL AGAINST ANY CONVICTION OR AGAINST ANY RESULTANT
SENTENCEORORDEROFALOWERCOURT MUSTAPPLYTOTHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCETRIAL
COURT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THAT CONVICTION SENTENCE OR ORDER 3UCH AN
APPLICATIONMUSTBEMADE
I WITHIN DAYS AFTER THE PASSING OF THE SENTENCE OR ORDER FOLLOWING ON THE
CONVICTIONOR
II WITHINSUCHEXTENDEDPERIODSASTHECOURTMAY ONAPPLICATIONANDFORGOOD
CAUSESHOWN ALLOW
!NYAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALMUSTBEHEARDBYTHEMAGISTRATEWHOSECON
VICTION SENTENCE OR ORDER IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PROSPECTIVE APPEAL HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS THE TRIAL MAGISTRATE OR IF THE TRIAL MAGISTRATE IS NOT AVAILABLE BY
ANYOTHERMAGISTRATEOFTHECOURTCONCERNED TOWHOMITISASSIGNEDFORHEARING
S " A )F THE APPLICATION IS TO BE HEARD BY A MAGISTRATE OTHER THAN THE
TRIALMAGISTRATE THECLERKOFTHECOURTMUSTSUBMITACOPYOFTHERECORDOFTHE
PROCEEDINGSBEFORETHETRIALMAGISTRATETOTHEMAGISTRATEHEARINGTHEAPPLICATION
0ROVIDEDTHATWHERETHEACCUSEDWASLEGALLYREPRESENTEDATATRIALINAREGIONAL
COURT THE CLERK OF THE COURT MUST ONLY SUBMIT A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
TRIALMAGISTRATE INCLUDINGTHEREASONSFORTHECONVICTION SENTENCEORORDERINRE
SPECTOFWHICHTHEAPPEALISSOUGHT UNLESSTHEMAGISTRATEHEARINGTHEAPPLICATION
DEEMSITNECESSARYINORDERTODECIDETHEAPPLICATIONTOREQUESTTHEFULLRECORDOF
THEPROCEEDINGSBEFORETHETRIALMAGISTRATE

#(!04%2r !00%!,
.OTICEOFTHEDATEFIXEDFORTHEHEARINGOFTHEAPPLICATIONMUSTBEGIVENTOTHE
DIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSCONCERNED ORTOAPERSONDESIGNATEDTHERETOBY
HIMORHER ANDTOTHEACCUSEDS" D
*URXQGVRIDSSHDO
%VERYAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALMUSTSETFORTHCLEARLYANDSPECIFICALLYTHE
GROUNDSUPONWHICHTHEACCUSEDDESIRESTOAPPEALS" A )FTHEACCUSED
APPLIES ORALLY FOR SUCH LEAVE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PASSING OF THE SENTENCE OR
ORDER HEORSHEMUSTSTATESUCHGROUNDS WHICHMUSTBERECORDEDANDFORMPART
OFTHERECORD
7HATAREREGARDEDASCLEARANDSPECIFICGROUNDS)TWASHELDIN(ORNE
3!# ATn ACASECONTAININGSEVERALISSUESANDCONFLICTSOFFACT THATON
THISISSUETHEGOVERNINGPRINCIPLESARE
I 4HEMAGISTRATEMUSTKNOWWHATTHEISSUESAREWHICHARECHALLENGED SOTHAT
HEORSHECANDEALWITHTHEMINHISORHERREASONSFORJUDGMENT
II #OUNSELFORTHE3TATEMUSTBEDULYINFORMEDSOTHATHEORSHECANPREPAREAND
PRESENTARGUMENTWHICHWILLASSISTTHECOURTOFAPPEALINITSDELIBERATIONS
III 4HE COURT OF APPEAL ITSELF SHOULD BE APPRISED OF THE GROUNDS SO THAT IT CAN
KNOWWHATPORTIONSOFTHERECORDTOCONCENTRATEONANDWHATPREPARATION IF
ANY ITSHOULDMAKEINORDERTOGUIDEANDSTIMULATEARGUMENTINCOURT
IV 'ROUNDSOFAPPEALSHOULDNOTEMBODYARGUMENTSORCONCLUSIONSREACHEDBY
ANAPPELLANT
4HESEGUIDELINESARESTILLSOUND EVENTHOUGH(ORNEWASDECIDEDINAPRE CONSTITU
TIONALPHASEWHENTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTOFAPPEALTOAHIGHERCOURTWASUNLIMITED
3EEALSO-C+ENZIE 3!#2#
0ROSPECTSOFSUCCESSONAPPEAL
4HEMAINTHRESHOLDINRESPECTOFANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL IRRESPECTIVEOF
WHETHERTHEAPPLICATIONISMADEINTHE(IGH#OURTORINALOWERCOURT ISWHETHER
THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THAT HE OR SHE HAS REASONABLE PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS ON
APPEAL!MEREPOSSIBILITYOFSUCCESSISCLEARLYNOTENOUGHSEEALSO2ADEBE
3!#23#! 7HATTHETESTOFREASONABLEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSSUGGESTSISAN
OBJECTIVEANDDISPASSIONATEDECISION BASEDONTHEFACTSANDTHELAWONWHICHTHE
COURTOFAPPEALCOULDREASONABLYARRIVEATACONCLUSIONDIFFERENTFROMTHATOFTHE
TRIALCOURT-ABENA 3!#23#! AT;=ALSO+HOASASA 3!
3#! 4HEKISO;=:!3#!)NORDERTOSUCCEED THEREFORE THEAPPELLANT
MUSTCONVINCETHECOURTTHATTHEREARESOUND RATIONALGROUNDSFORCONCLUDING
THATTHEREAREPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSONAPPEAL2ATIONALITYREQUIRESTHATTHOSEPROS
PECTSARENOTREMOTEBUTTHATTHEAPPEALHASAREALISTICCHANCEOFSUCCEEDING!N
ARGUMENTWHICHSUGGESTSTHATTHEREISA@MEREPOSSIBILITYOFSUCCESS ORTHAT@THE
CASEISARGUABLEONAPPEAL ORTHAT@THECASECANNOTBECATEGORISEDASHOPELESS IS
NOTENOUGH3MITH 3!#23#! AT;=-ATSHONA 3!#2
3#!

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
$PHQGPHQWRIJURXQGVRIDSSHDO
!CONVICTEDPERSONMAYAMENDHISORHERAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALWITHIN
THE PRESCRIBED TIME !NY AMENDMENT BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD IS ALLOWED
WITHLEAVEOFTHETRIALMAGISTRATEONAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATIONS )TIS
WITHINTHECOURTSDISCRETIONTOGRANTORREFUSESUCHAPPLICATION)TWILLBEGRANTED
MOREREADILYIFTHEAPPELLANTDOESNOTPUTOFFMAKINGHISORHERAPPLICATIONUNTIL
THELASTMINUTE7HENANAMENDMENTISMADE NOTICEMUSTBEGIVENTOTHEPROSE
CUTORRULE OFTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS2ULES /NREFUSALOFSUCHAMENDMENT
CONDONATIONANDLEAVETOAMENDMAYBESOUGHTONAPETITIONFROMTHEDIVISION
OFTHE(IGH#OURTWITHJURISDICTIONS# A I
7HERE THE ACCUSED HAS APPEALED AGAINST THE SENTENCE AND RECEIVED LEAVE TO
APPEAL THECOURTDOESNOTHAVETHEPOWERTOORDERANAMENDMENTOFTHEGROUNDS
OFAPPEALTOINCLUDEANAPPEALAGAINSTTHECONVICTION4HEONLYREMEDYINSUCH
ACASEISTOAPPLYFORCONDONATIONFORLATEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL:ULU
3!#23#!
3URFHGXUHDIWHUOHDYHWRDSSHDOLVJUDQWHGRUGHQLHG
)F AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS GRANTED THE CLERK OF THE COURT MUST IN
ACCORDANCEWITHTHERULESOFTHECOURT TRANSMITCOPIESOFTHERECORDANDOFALL
RELEVANTDOCUMENTSTOTHEREGISTRAROFTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTCONCERNED
0ROVIDEDTHATINSTEADOFTHEWHOLERECORD WITHTHECONSENTOFTHEACCUSEDAND
THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS COPIESONEOFWHICHMUSTBECERTIFIED MAY
BETRANSMITTEDOFSUCHPARTSOFTHERECORDASMAYBEAGREEDBYTHEDIRECTOROFPUB
LICPROSECUTIONSANDTHEACCUSEDTOBESUFFICIENT INWHICHEVENTTHEDIVISIONOF
THE(IGH#OURTCONCERNEDMAYNEVERTHELESSCALLFORTHEPRODUCTIONOFTHEWHOLE
RECORDS" A
)FLEAVETOAPPEALORANYOTHERAPPLICATIONIEFORCONDONATIONFORLATEAPPLICA
TIONORTOADDUCEFURTHEREVIDENCE ISDENIED THEMAGISTRATEMUSTIMMEDIATELY
RECORD HIS OR HER REASONS FOR SUCH REFUSAL !N ACCUSED IN RESPECT OF WHOM AN
APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALISREFUSEDMUSTBEINFORMEDBYTHEPRESIDINGOFFI
CEROFHISORHERRIGHTSINRESPECTOFTHEPROCEEDINGSCONTEMPLATEDINS#AND
LEGALREPRESENTATION ANDOFTHECORRECTPROCEDURESTOBEFOLLOWEDINORDERTOGIVE
EFFECTTOTHESERIGHTSS$
!
NAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATION
4HE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT READWITHTHE-AGISTRATES#OURTS2ULES PRESCRIBES
CERTAIN TIME LIMITS WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL SHOULD BE NOTED LEAVE TO APPEAL
APPLIED FOR AND PROSECUTED )F AN APPEAL IS NOT NOTED WITHIN THESE TIME LIMITS
CONDONATIONFORLATENOTINGSHOULDBEAPPLIEDFORSEES ANDS" B
4HEGROUNDSONWHICHTHECOURTSWILLCONDONETHELATENOTINGAREINTHEDIS
CRETIONOFTHECOURT)N2HEEDERSV*ACOBSZ!$ THECOURTEXPRESSEDITS
APPROVALOFTHEVIEW@THATTHE#OURTWILLTAKEALIBERALVIEWOFTHEMATTERBUTMUST
BECAREFULTOSEEINEACHINSTANCETHATTHEREISSOMEREASONABLEGROUNDFORTHE
EXERCISEOFITSDISCRETIONINFAVOUROFTHEAPPLICANT
)NCRIMINALCASESTHECOURTSAREMOREACCOMMODATINGABOUTGRANTINGCONDO
NATIONTHANINCIVILCASESBECAUSEITISDESIRABLETHATANACCUSEDSHOULDBEGIVEN

#(!04%2r !00%!,
EVERYREASONABLEOPPORTUNITYTOPRESENTHISORHERCASEASFULLYASHEORSHEWISHES
TOTHECOURTOFAPPEAL$E6OS 3!/ !BDOOL,ATIEB#OV*ONES
40$AT)N-OHLATHE 3!#23#! THECOURTSETOUTTHECRITERIA
TO BE APPLIED WHEN CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION )T CONFIRMED
ON THE STRENGTH OF A NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED IN THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL
ONTHISPOINT THATWHETHERANEXPLANATIONISACCEPTABLEORNOTFORTHEPURPOSE
OF GRANTING CONDONATION IS ESSENTIALLY A MATTER FOR THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT
TOBEEXERCISEDJUDICIALLY3UCHDISCRETIONISEXERCISEDINTHELIGHTOFALLTHECIR
CUMSTANCESOFTHECASEINCLUDINGTHEMERITSOFTHECASEANDALSOTAKINGINTO
ACCOUNTCONSIDERATIONSSUCHASTHEDEGREEOFLATENESS THEEXPLANATIONFORIT THE
PROSPECTSOFSUCCESSANDTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHECASE(OWEVER ALLFACTORSAREINTER
RELATEDANDNOTDECISIVEONTHEIROWN4HECOURTALSOHELDTHATALTHOUGHTHEREIS
ALIMITBEYONDWHICHALITIGANTCANNOTESCAPETHERESULTSOFTHEATTORNEYSLACKOF
DILIGENCE THEDILATORINESSOFTHEPRACTITIONERCANNOTBEVISITEDONTHECLIENTWHEN
THELATTERKEPTAKEENANDACTIVEINTERESTINTHEPROSECUTIONOFTHEAPPEALANDKEPT
ABREASTOFTHEDEVELOPMENTSOFTHEAPPEAL3EEALSO6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN
3!#23#!
4HE UNYIELDING APPROACH BY COURTS IN RESPECT OF THE GRANTING OR DENIAL OF
CONDONATIONRAISESACONSTITUTIONALLEGALQUESTIONBASEDMAINLYONTHECONSTITU
TIONALRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL!LTHOUGHTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHISRIGHTWEIGHSHEAVILY
INFAVOUROFCONDONATIONBEINGGRANTED THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTIN'ROOTBOOM
V.ATIONAL0ROSECUTING!UTHORITY;=:!## 3!## AT;=HELD
THATTHEGRANTINGOFCONDONATIONISNOTAGIVENBUTREQUIREDAREASONABLEEXPLA
NATIONFORINDULGENCEBYTHECOURT)THELDASFOLLOWS
)TISNOWTRITETHATCONDONATIONCANNOTBEHADFORTHEMEREASKING!PARTY
SEEKINGCONDONATIONMUSTMAKEOUTACASEENTITLINGITTOTHECOURTSINDULGENCE
)TMUSTSHOWSUFFICIENTCAUSE4HISREQUIRESAPARTYTOGIVEAFULLEXPLANATIONOF
THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES /F GREAT SIGNIFICANCE THE EXPLANATION
MUSTBEREASONABLEENOUGHTOEXCUSETHEDEFAULT
3EEALSO3AYED 3!#23#! AT;= ;= WHERETHECOURTRESTATEDTHE
REQUIREMENTSTHATMUSTBEFURNISHEDINANAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATIONINORDER
TOENABLETHECOURTTOCOMPREHENDUNMISTAKABLYTHEREASONSFORTHEAPPLICATION
TOASSESSTHEAPPLICANTSRESPONSIBILITY DILIGENCEORTHESUFFICIENCYOFTHEEXPLANA
TIONINORDERFORTHECOURTTOEXERCISEITSJUDICIALDISCRETIONWHETHERTOGRANTOR
DENYSUCHANAPPLICATION4HEREQUIREMENTSARE
!FULL DETAILEDANDACCURATEACCOUNTOFTHECAUSESOFTHEDELAYANDTHEIREF
FECTSINRESPECTOFREASONABLENESSOFTHEEXCUSEANDPROSPECTSOFSUCCESS
4HEDEGREEOFNON COMPLIANCEWITHTHERULESANDANEXPLANATIONFORIT
)FNON COMPLIANCEOFTHERULESOFTHECOURTISTIME RELATED ADETAILEDACCOUNT
OFTHEDATE DURATIONANDEXTENTOFANYOBSTACLEONWHICHRELIANCEISPLACED
4HEIMPORTANCEOFTHECASE
4HERESPONDENTSINTERESTINTHEFINALITYOFTHEJUDGMENTOFTHECOURTBELOW
SUCHASTHESERIOUSNESSOFTHECRIMINALCHARGESFACINGTHEACCUSED
4HE CONVENIENCE OF THE COURT THEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEANDTHEAVOIDANCEOF
UNNECESSARYDELAYINTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
!NAPPLICATIONTOADDUCEFURTHEREVIDENCE
)NTERMSOFS" ANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALMAYBEACCOMPANIEDBY
ANAPPLICATIONTOADDUCEFURTHEREVIDENCEHEREAFTERREFERREDTOASANAPPLICATION
FORFURTHEREVIDENCE RELATINGTOTHECONVICTION SENTENCEORORDERINRESPECTOF
WHICHTHEAPPEALISSOUGHTTOBENOTED
!NAPPLICATIONFORFURTHEREVIDENCEMUSTBESUPPORTEDBYANAFFIDAVITSTATING
THAT
I FURTHEREVIDENCE WHICHWOULDPRESUMABLYBEACCEPTEDASTRUE ISAVAILABLE
II IFACCEPTED THEEVIDENCECOULDREASONABLYLEADTOADIFFERENTDECISIONOROR
DERAND
III THERE IS A REASONABLY ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE
EVIDENCEBEFORETHECLOSEOFTHETRIAL
4HECOURTGRANTINGANAPPLICATIONFORFURTHEREVIDENCEMUSTRECEIVETHATEVIDENCE
AND ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RENDERED NECESSARILY THEREBY INCLUDING EVIDENCE
CALLEDINREBUTTALBYTHEPROSECUTORANDEVIDENCECALLEDBYTHECOURT4HECOURT
MUSTRECORDITSFINDINGSORVIEWSWITHREGARDTOTHATEVIDENCE INCLUDINGITSFIND
INGSONTHECOGENCYANDTHESUFFICIENCYOFTHATEVIDENCEANDTHEDEMEANOURAND
CREDIBILITY OF SUCH WITNESS 3UCH FURTHER EVIDENCE SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN
APPEALBEDEEMEDTOBEEVIDENCETAKENORADMITTEDATTHETRIAL
2EFUSALOFAPPLICATION0ETITIONPROCEDURE
)FANYAPPLICATION
I FORCONDONATION
II FORFURTHEREVIDENCEOR
III FORLEAVETOAPPEAL
ISREFUSEDBYALOWERCOURT THEACCUSEDMAYBYPETITIONAPPLYTOTHEJUDGEPRESI
DENTOFTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVINGJURISDICTIONTOGRANTANYONEOR
MORE OF THE APPLICATIONS IN QUESTIONS # A !NY SUCH PETITION MUST BE
MADE WITHIN DAYS AFTER THE APPLICATION IN QUESTION WAS REFUSED OR WITHIN
SUCHEXTENDEDPERIODSASMAYBEALLOWEDONGOODCAUSESHOWNONANAPPLICA
TIONFORCONDONATIONACCOMPANYINGTHATPETITIONS# B !NACCUSEDWHO
SUBMITSAPETITIONMUSTATTHESAMETIMEGIVENOTICETHEREOFTOTHECLERKOFTHE
LOWERCOURT
7HENRECEIVINGTHENOTICE THECLERKOFTHECOURTMUSTWITHOUTDELAYSUBMITTO
THEREGISTRAROFTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTCONCERNEDCOPIESOF
A THEAPPLICATIONTHATWASREFUSED
B THEMAGISTRATESREASONSFORREFUSALOFTHEAPPLICATIONAND
C THERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSINTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTINRESPECTOFWHICHTHE
APPLICATIONWASREFUSEDS#
3RZHUVDQGGXWLHVRIDFRXUWFRQVLGHULQJDSHWLWLRQ
!PETITIONCONTEMPLATEDINTHISSECTIONMUSTBECONSIDEREDINCHAMBERSBYTWO
JUDGESDESIGNATEDBYTHEJUDGEPRESIDENT)FTHESETWOJUDGESDIFFERINOPINIONTHE

#(!04%2r !00%!,
PETITIONMUSTALSOBECONSIDEREDINCHAMBERSBYTHEJUDGEPRESIDENTORBYANY
OTHERJUDGEDESIGNATEDBYTHEJUDGEPRESIDENT ANDANYDECISIONOFTHEMAJORITY
OFTHEJUDGESCONSIDERINGTHEPETITIONSHALLBEDEEMEDTOBETHEDECISIONOFALL
THREEJUDGES
!LLAPPLICATIONSCONTAINEDINAPETITIONMUSTBEDISPOSEDOF ASFARASISPOSSIBLE
SIMULTANEOUSLYANDASAMATTEROFURGENCYWHERETHEACCUSEDWASSENTENCEDTO
ANYFORMOFIMPRISONMENTTHATWASNOTWHOLLYSUSPENDEDS#
*UDGESCONSIDERINGAPETITIONMAYINTERMSOFSS# n
CALLFORANYFURTHERINFORMATIONFROMTHEMAGISTRATEWHOREFUSEDTHEAPPLICA
TIONINQUESTION ORFROMTHEMAGISTRATEWHOPRESIDEDATTHETRIALTOWHICH
ANYSUCHAPPLICATIONRELATES ASTHECASEMAYBEOR
INEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES ORDERTHATTHEPETITIONORANYPARTTHEREOFBE
ARGUEDBEFORETHEMATATIMEANDPLACEDETERMINEDBYTHEM
GRANTORREFUSEANYAPPLICATION
IFANAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATIONISGRANTEDTHEYMAY
I DIRECTTHATANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALMUSTBEMADETOTHECOURT
OFFIRSTINSTANCEWITHINTHEPERIODFIXEDBYTHEMOR
II IFTHEYDEEMITEXPEDIENT DIRECTTHATANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ANY OTHER ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE OF THE COURT CON
CERNEDIFTHETRIALMAGISTRATEISNOTAVAILABLE
GRANTORREFUSETHEAPPLICATIONINTHECASEOFANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAP
PEAL ON A PETITION SUBJECT TO THEIR DECISION ON THE APPLICATION FOR FURTHER
EVIDENCE
INTHECASEOFANAPPLICATIONFORFURTHEREVIDENCE GRANTORREFUSETHEAPPLICA
TION AND IFTHEAPPLICATIONISGRANTED THEYTHEJUDGES MAY BEFOREDECIDING
THEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL REMITTHEMATTERTOTHEMAGISTRATESCOURT
CONCERNED IN ORDER FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE TO BE RECEIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
S"
4HE2EGISTRAROFTHERELEVANTDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTMUSTGIVENOTICEOFTHE
DATE FIXED FOR ANY HEARING OF A PETITION UNDER S # AND OF ANY PLACE DETER
MINED IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ANY HEARING TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS CONCERNED OR TO A PERSON DESIGNATED BY HIM OR HER AND TO THE
ACCUSEDS# 7HENAPETITIONISDENIEDBYTHE(IGH#OURT THEPETITIONER
MAYAPPROACHTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALOREVENTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTDE
PENDINGONTHEISSUESINVOLVEDANDDEPENDINGONLEAVETOAPPEALWITHDUEREGARD
TOTHEPROVISIONSSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
(EARINGOFAPPEALBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
!N APPEAL BROUGHT UNDER S MUST BE DISPOSED OF BY A DIVISION OF THE (IGH
#OURTWITHAPPEALJURISDICTIONANDTHEPARTIESORTHEIRLEGALREPRESENTATIVESMUST
BEALLOWEDTHEOPPORTUNITYTOPRESENTORALARGUMENTTOTHECOURTREGARDINGTHE
APPEALINOPENCOURT4HEFORMERPROVISIONSOFS! ALLOWINGTHEHEARINGOF
THEAPPEALINCHAMBERSONTHEWRITTENARGUMENTOFTHEPARTIESORTHEIRLEGALREPRE
SENTATIVESWASDECLAREDUNCONSTITUTIONALBYTHECOURTIN3HINGAV4HE3TATE3OCIETY
OF!DVOCATES0IETERMARITZBURG"AR )NTERVENINGAS!MICUS#URIAE/#ONNELL
3!#2## AT;=AND;=

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
7HENMAYTHEPROSECUTIONAPPEAL
$SSHDOE\WKHSURVHFXWLRQDJDLQVWDEDLOGHFLVLRQ
&OLLOWING%NGLISHLAW OURLAWISSLOWINALLOWINGTHEPROSECUTIONARIGHTOFAP
PEAL 4HE PROSECUTION MAY NOT APPEAL AGAINST AN ACQUITTAL ON THE FACTS OF THE
CASE"RASH!$'ASA!$!DECISIONTOGRANTANACCUSEDBAIL
ISGENERALLYAFACTUALONEANDCONSEQUENTLYANAPPEALAGAINSTSUCHDECISIONTURNS
ONTHEFACTS(OWEVER INBALANCINGTHEINTERESTSOFTHE3TATETOPROSECUTECRIME
AGAINST THE ACCUSEDS RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE THE
3TATEISALLOWEDTOAPPEALABAILDECISIONOFACOURTASANEXCEPTIONTOTHERULES
!ALLOWSTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTOAPPEALAGAINSTTHEDECISIONOFA
LOWERCOURTTORELEASEANACCUSEDONBAILORAGAINSTTHEIMPOSITIONOFACONDITION
OFBAILASCONTEMPLATEDBYS4HERIGHTTOAPPEALISSUBJECTTOLEAVETOAPPEAL
GRANTEDBYAJUDGEINCHAMBERSINTERMSOFS!4HEAPPEALMAYBEHEARDBY
ASINGLEJUDGEOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOROFALOCALSEATOFTHEDIVISIONOF
THE (IGH #OURTS B nC )F THE APPEAL IS REFUSED BY THE (IGH #OURT THE
3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL MAY BE APPROACHED ON PETITIONS ! A AND B
READWITHSS!AND A II OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
4HEPROSECUTIONMAY ASFARASLOWERCOURTSAND(IGH#OURTSPROCEEDINGSARE
CONCERNED EXCEPT FOR AN APPEAL AGAINST A BAIL DECISION WHICH RIGHT OF APPEAL
IS IN ANY EVENT ONLY AVAILABLE TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPEAL
AGAINSTQUESTIONSOFLAWDECIDEDBYACOURTANDAGAINSTASENTENCEIMPOSEDBYA
COURTONLY!SFARASTHERIGHTTOAPPEALAGAINSTADECISIONONASENTENCEISCON
CERNED SUCHRIGHTISOFLIMITEDAPPLICATIONSEEBELOW4HE3OUTH!FRICAN,AW
#OMMISSION IN 0ROJECT .OVEMBER 3IMPLIFICATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
THERIGHTOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTOAPPEALONQUESTIONSOFFACT RECOM
MENDEDTHATPROVISIONBEMADEFORTHEDIRECTOROFPROSECUTIONSTOAPPEALONFACTS
PATPARA )N-ABASA 3!#2.# ITWASSTATEDBY+GOMO
*THATTHEOBJECTIVEOFTHE,AW#OMMISSIONSRECOMMENDATIONWASNOTONLYTO
EFFECTSOMEEQUILIBRIUMTOTHESKEWEDSCALESOFJUSTICEBETWEENAPERPETRATORAND
AVICTIMAPARTFROMTHEBROADERCOMMUNITYINTERESTS BUTALSOTOSIMPLIFYTHIS
ASPECTOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE(EADDEDTHATTHEINORDINATEANDSOMETIMESFUTILE
DEBATEINAPPEALCOURTSASTOWHETHERTHEAPPEALISONAPOINTOFLAWORONTHE
MERITSORHASELEMENTSOFBOTHWOULDBERENDEREDLARGELYACADEMICORCOULDBE
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED /N POLICY ISSUES RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
3TATESHOULDBEALLOWEDTOAPPEALONTHEFACTS SEE6AN2OOYEN@!PPEALSBYTHE
STATEINCRIMINALCASESSOMEPOLICYCONSIDERATIONS#),3!2EPORTOFTHE
#OMMISSIONOF)NQUIRYINTO#RIMINAL0ROCEDUREAND%VIDENCEBY"OTHA*20
ANDFORACONTRARYOPINIONBYTHE3!,AW#OMMISSIONARGUINGFOR3TATEAPPEALS
ONFACTS ITS4HIRD)NTERIM2EPORT 0ROJECT ASINDICATEDABOVE
$SSHDOE\WKHSURVHFXWLRQUHVWULFWHGWRDTXHVWLRQRIODZ
4HE TERM @QUESTION OF LAW RELATES TO THE APPLICATION OF A LEGAL PRINCIPLE TO AN
ESTABLISHEDSETOFFACTSINTHEDETERMINATIONOFWHETHERORNOTACRIMEHASBEEN
COMMITTED7HENALOWERCOURTINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSHASGIVENADECISIONIN
FAVOUROFTHEACCUSEDONANYQUESTIONOFLAW THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
ORANYOTHERPROSECUTORMAYAPPEALAGAINSTSUCHDECISION4HISINCLUDESANORDER

#(!04%2r !00%!,
BYTHECOURTINFAVOUROFTHEACCUSEDTOEITHERAMENDORQUASHTHECHARGEORTO
DELIVERPARTICULARSTOTHECHARGESEES READWITHS ANDPARAGRAPH
BELOW &OREXAMPLESOFSUCHAPPEALSSEE6AN(EERDEN 3!. +UNGEKA
3!% # 3!4 :OKO 3!.
!N EXERCISE OF A JUDICIAL DISCRETION BASED ON A WRONG PRINCIPLE OR ERRONEOUS
VIEWOFTHELAWISCLEARLYAQUESTIONOFLAWDECIDEDINFAVOUROFACONVICTEDPER
SONSEE$00 'AUTENGV-' 3!#23#! AT;=
4HE LEGAL COMPETENCY OF A COURT IN TERMS OF S TO GRANT AN APPLICATION
FOR A DISCHARGE AT THE CLOSE OF THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION IS A LEGAL QUESTION
$IFFERENTLY STATED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT NAMELY THAT THERE IS NO EVI
DENCEUPONWHICHAREASONABLEPERSONCOULDCONVICTATTHECLOSEOFTHECASEFOR
THEPROSECUTION ISONEOFLAW4HISISSOBECAUSETHEFORMINGOFANOPINIONAS
ENVISAGEDBYSDOESNOTINVOLVETHEEXERCISEOFDISCRETIONINITSPROPERFORM
BUT MERELY AN EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE ESSENTIALS OF
THECRIMEWHICHTHEPROSECUTIONMUSTPROVE!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 6ENDAV-OLEPO
3!#26 FOLLOWING4HIELKE!$AT#FALSO!TTORNEY
'ENERAL :IMBABWEV-ZIZI 3!#2: ATCnD 3ECTIONPROVIDES
THATWHENALOWERCOURTHASINANYPROCEEDINGSGIVENADECISIONINFAVOUROFTHE
ACCUSEDONANYQUESTIONOFLAW THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSOROTHERPROS
ECUTORMAYREQUIRETHEJUDICIALOFFICERTOSTATEACASEFORTHECONSIDERATIONOFTHE
DIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTWITHJURISDICTION ANDTOFORMULATESUCHQUESTIONOF
LAWANDTHECOURTSDECISIONTHEREON)FEVIDENCEHASBEENHEARD THECOURTSFIND
INGSOFFACTINSOFARASTHEYAREMATERIALTOTHEQUESTIONOFLAWMUSTALSOBESTATED
)TISNOTSUFFICIENTFORTHECOURTMERELYTOSETFORTHTHEREASONSFORITSFINDING"UT
IFTHEREASONSWHICHITHASGIVENMAKEITQUITECLEARWHATTHEQUESTIONOFLAWIS
THISWILLBESUFFICIENT&OLEY 3!% 4HEDIRECTORORNATIONALDIREC
TOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSOROTHERPROSECUTORMAYTHENAPPEALAGAINSTTHELOWER
COURTSDECISION)TISNOTFORTHEDIRECTORHIMSELFORHERSELFTOSTATETHEQUESTION
OFLAW4HISMUSTBESETFORTHINTHECASESTATEDBYTHEMAGISTRATEORREGIONALMAG
ISTRATE3AIB 3!. 0ETRO,OUISE%NTERPRISES 3!4 4HE
PURPOSEOFANAPPEALBYTHEPROSECUTIONINTERMSOFSISNOTONLYTOCLARIFYA
LEGALQUESTIONBUTALSOTOENSURETHATJUSTICEISDONE,USU 3!! AT
&n(3ECTIONDOESNOTREFERTOTHEPROVISIONSOFS A OFTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CTANDISCONSEQUENTLYSILENTONTHEISSUEOFWHETHERTHESTATEMUST
SEEKLEAVETOAPPEALFROMALOWERCOURTASTHETRIALCOURTONALEGALQUESTION)T
ISSUBMITTEDTHATTHESTATEDOESNOTREQUIRELEAVETOAPPEALINVIEWOFTHESTATES
INHERENT ROLE IN THE PROTECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN LOWER COURTS
ANDTHESPECIFICOMISSIONOFTHISREQUIREMENTBYTHELEGISLATURE
)NANAPPEALINTERMSOFSANDSSEEBELOW THECOURTOFAPPEALWILL
AS A GENERAL RULE IN DECIDING THE APPEAL CONFINE ITSELF TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT
ASREFLECTEDINTHECASESTATEDBYTHEJUDICIALOFFICER BUTTHATISNOTAHARDAND
FAST RULE )N SOME CASES THE COURT OF APPEAL OR 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL MAY
HAVERECOURSETOTHEFACTSOFTHECASEASDISCLOSEDATTHETRIALCF!TTORNEY 'ENERAL
4RANSVAALV&LATS-ILLING#O0TY ,TD 3!!
4HEPROCEDUREREGARDINGTHENOTINGOFANAPPEALBYTHEPROSECUTIONANDRELATED
PROCEDURE IS SET OUT IN RULE n OF THE -AGISTRATES #OURTS 2ULES .ON
COMPLIANCEWITHTHE2ULESCOULDBECONDONEDCF(EYNS 3!% BUT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SEETHECOURTSREFUSALTOCONDONENON COMPLIANCEIN"ASSON 3!#2

3#!
4HEPROSECUTIONMAYNOTAPPEALINORDERTOOBTAINADECISIONONAPURELYACA
DEMICQUESTIONWHICHWILLNOTAFFECTTHEOUTCOMEOFTHECASE!TTORNEY 'ENERAL
4RANSVAALV2APHAELY 3!! !TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV&LATS-ILLING
#O0TY ,TDABOVE !TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV,UTCHMAN 3!!
3UID !FRIKAANSE5ITSAAIKORPORASIE 3!7 4ODISTINGUISHBETWEENA
QUESTIONOFLAWANDAQUESTIONOFFACTCANATTIMESBEDIFFICULT ASISBORNEOUTBY
THECASEOF!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV+ADER 3!!
4HEPROSECUTIONMAYAPPEALONALEGALQUESTIONWHERETHELOWERCOURTHASCON
VICTEDTHEACCUSEDOFALESSEROFFENCEWHICHISACOMPETENTVERDICTONTHEOFFENCE
ACTUALLY CHARGED:OKO 3! . AT %n( 4HE DECISION TO ACQUIT
THEACCUSEDONTHEOFFENCEACTUALLYCHARGEDISADECISIONINFAVOUROFTHEACCUSED
AS ENVISAGED BY S )N :OKOS CASE THE ACCUSED WAS CHARGED WITH CULPABLE
HOMICIDEBUTCONVICTEDOFASSAULTWITHINTENTTODOGRIEVOUSBODILYHARM4HE
EVIDENCESHOWEDTHATTHEKILLINGWASCOMMITTEDWITHTHEINTENTIONTOKILL4HE
REGIONALMAGISTRATEERRONEOUSLYFOUNDSEES THATTHEACCUSEDCOULDONLYBE
FOUNDGUILTYOFANOFFENCETHATREQUIRESMENSREAINTHEFORMOFINTENTIONANDNOT
OFANOFFENCEOFCULPABLEHOMICIDETHATREQUIRESNEGLIGENCEONLY
)FTHEAPPEALISALLOWED WHETHERWHOLLYORINPART THECOURTOFAPPEALMAYITSELF
IMPOSESUCHSENTENCEORMAKESUCHORDERASTHELOWERCOURTSHOULDHAVEIMPOSED
ORMADE4HECOURTOFAPPEALMAYALSOREMITTHECASEANDGIVECERTAINDIRECTIONS
)FTHECASEISREMITTED THEPRESIDINGOFFICERWHOGAVETHEDECISIONMUSTREOPEN
THECASEAFTERGIVINGNOTICETOBOTHPARTIES ANDDEALWITHITINTHESAMEMANNER
ASHEORSHESHOULDHAVEDEALTWITHITIFHEORSHEHADGIVENADECISIONINACCOR
DANCEWITHTHELAWLAIDDOWNBYTHECOURTOFAPPEALS AND
)F THE PROSECUTORS APPEAL IS NOT UPHELD AND THE DECISION IS IN FAVOUR OF THE
ACCUSEDONTHELEGALISSUE THEPROSECUTIONMAYWITHTHESPECIALLEAVEOFTHECOURT
APPROACHTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL.OTETHATS ISSILENTONTHEISSUE
OFLEAVEASAREQUIREMENT!TTONEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV.OKWE 3!4
ANDCONSEQUENTLYTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTAPPLIES ASS B DOESNOTDIFFERENTI
ATEBETWEENTHE3TATEORTHEACCUSEDASTHEAPPELLANTANDTHEREFORESPECIALLEAVE
MUSTBEOBTAINEDFROMTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALSEEPARAGRAPHBELOW
$SSHDOE\WKHSURVHFXWLRQDJDLQVWDVHQWHQFH
)N$007ESTERN#APEV+OCK 3!#23#! PARA THECOURTQUESTIONED
INPASSINGTHEPROSECUTIONSRIGHTTOAPPEALASENTENCEANDSTATEDASFOLLOWS@4HE
LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO APPEAL AGAINST BOTH CONVICTION AND SEN
TENCE IS UNDERPINNED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS )N THE FIRST
PLACE GRANTINGTHESTATETHEUNLIMITEDRIGHTTOAPPEALAGAINSTSENTENCETHROUGH
SEVERAL TIERS OF APPEAL MIGHT WELL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL 4HIS CONCERN NOTWITH
STANDING THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSMAYALSOAPPEALAGAINSTASENTENCE
IMPOSEDUPONANACCUSEDINACRIMINALCASEINALOWERCOURTS!#ONTRARY
TOS S!DOESNOTMENTIONANYOTHERPROSECUTORANDITHASTOBEINFERRED
THATTHERIGHTTOAPPEALASENTENCEISNOTAVAILABLETOAPRIVATEPROSECUTORORANY
OTHERPROSECUTORUNDERSTATUTORYRIGHT#OMPARETHEWORDINGOFSWITHTHAT
OFS! 3ECTION! PERMITSANAPPEALAGAINSTTHESENTENCEBYTHEPROSECU

#(!04%2r !00%!,
TOR PROVIDEDTHATANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALHASBEENGRANTEDBYAJUDGE
INCHAMBERSWHOMAYEITHERGRANTORDENYLEAVETOAPPEALS! !WRITTEN
NOTICEOFSUCHANAPPLICATION TOGETHERWITHTHEGROUNDSFORTHEAPPLICATION MUST
BELODGEDWITHTHEREGISTRAROFTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTWITHINDAYSOF
THE PASSING OF THE SENTENCE #ONDONATION MAY BE GRANTED ON JUST CAUSE IF THE
TIMELIMITSHAVENOTBEENCOMPLIEDWITH!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 6ENDAV-ARAGA
3!#26 ATFnI4HEACCUSEDMAYLODGEAWRITTENSUBMISSIONWITHTHE
JUDGEHEARINGTHEAPPLICATION
)THASBEENPOINTEDOUTTHATS!DOESNOTRESTRICTTHEPROSECUTIONSRIGHTTO
APPEALININSTANCESWHERETHESENTENCEIMPOSEDISUNFAIRTOTHE3TATE ANDTHAT
ITISALSOAPPROPRIATEWHEREANINCORRECTSENTENCEORASENTENCEAGAINSTBINDING
AUTHORITY HAS BEEN IMPOSED AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS WISHES TO
BRINGTHEMATTERTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT-ASETI 3!#2
# 7HETHERTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSORANACCUSEDAPPEALSAGAINSTA
SENTENCE THEPOWEROFACOURTOFAPPEALTOINTERFEREREMAINSTHESAME+GOSIMORE
3!#23#!
3ECTION!ISDESIGNEDTOWIDENTHEPOWERSOFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECU
TIONSINCONNECTIONWITHTHEINCREASEOFASENTENCEONAPPEALANDNOTTORESTRICT
THEM)NESSENCE HOWEVER S!REPEALEDANESTABLISHEDPRACTICEWHEREBYTHE
PROSECUTIONCOULDREQUESTANINCREASEOFTHESENTENCEWHENTHEACCUSEDBROUGHT
ANAPPEALAGAINSTTHESENTENCE7HENTHEACCUSEDAPPEALSTHESENTENCEIMPOSED
ANDTHE3TATEINTENDSTOASKFORANINCREASEOFTHESENTENCE THE3TATEHASTOASK
FORLEAVETOCROSS APPEALTHESENTENCE.ABOLISA 3!#2## AT;=
4HESEPROVISIONSOFS!AREPEREMPTORY ASARETHOSEOFS"3ECTION!IS
INALLMATERIALASPECTSIDENTICALTOS"BUTTHELATTERDEALSWITHAPPEALSBYTHE
3TATEAGAINSTSENTENCESIMPOSEDBYA(IGH#OURT
)N -ARAGA ABOVE THE COURT WARNED THAT AN APPEAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONSAGAINSTASENTENCESHOULDNOTBETOOREADILYINSTITUTED7HERETHE
APPEAL AGAINST A SENTENCE IS DISMISSED PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE TO ORDER THE
ACCUSEDSCOSTSTOBEBORNEBYTHE3TATES!
)NTHEABSENCEOFAPROVISIONSIMILARTOTHATOFS ITHASTOBECONCLUDEDTHAT
THELEGISLATUREDIDNOTINTENDTOGIVETHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTHERIGHT
TOAFURTHERAPPEALORAFURTHERAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALORSPECIALLEAVETO
APPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINSTASENTENCETOBEBROUGHTBEFORE
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALONCETHEAPPEALAGAINSTASENTENCEHASBEENDIS
MISSEDBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTORLEAVETOAPPEALHASBEENREFUSEDBYTHE
JUDGE4HEDECISIONOFTHECOURTOFTHEDIVISIONSITTINGASACOURTOFAPPEALWOULD
THENBEFINALSEE$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 7ESTERN#APEV+OCK 3!#2
3#! AT ;= AND ;= $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENG V -PHAPHAMA
3!#23#! )FANINCOMPETENTSENTENCEWERETOBEUPHELDBYTHE
APPEALCOURT THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSWOULDHAVENOFURTHERREDRESS
$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSV/LIVIER 3!#23#!
0OWERSOFCOURTOFAPPEAL
4HE POWERS OF THE DIVISIONS OF THE (IGH #OURT SITTING AS COURTS OF APPEAL ARE
REGULATEDBYS READWITHS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTANDSOF
THE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT WHERESA EVENALLOWSTHE(IGH#OURTTODISPOSEOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ANAPPEALWITHOUTTHEHEARINGOFORALARGUMENTSEEALSOPARAGRAPHBELOW
4HEPOWERSOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTARETHE
FOLLOWING
4HE COURT MAY HEAR FURTHER EVIDENCE 4HE POWER TO HEAR FURTHER EVIDENCE IS
DERIVEDFROMS B ANDTHEAMENDEDSS" AND# D OFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTPROVIDEFORTHEHEARINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCE!COURT
OF APPEAL MAY EXERCISE THIS POWER ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE MERO MOTU OR ON
APPLICATION BY THE APPELLANT ! REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE
MUST BE MADE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE APPEALS A 4HE COURT WILL
NOTCONSIDERAREQUESTFORLEAVETOLEADFURTHEREVIDENCEAFTERTHEAPPEALHAS
BEENDISMISSED$ 3!! AT3ECTION B READWITH
S PROVIDESTHATTHECOURTOFAPPEALMAYSUMMONANYPERSONTOAPPEAR
ANDTOGIVEEVIDENCEORTOPRODUCEANYDOCUMENTOROTHERARTICLE4HECOURT
DOES NOT HAVE TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE ITSELF BUT MAY REMIT THE MATTER TO THE
COURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEWITHINSTRUCTIONSASTOTHEHEARINGOFNEWEVIDENCECF
S# D .ORMALLYTHEREMITTALFORTHEHEARINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCEWILL
ONLYBEORDEREDWHERETHEDESIREDEVIDENCEISOFAMERELYFORMALORTECHNI
CALCHARACTERORWHERETHEEVIDENCEISSUCHASWOULDPROVETHECASEWITHOUT
DELAYANDWITHOUTREALDISPUTEORWHEREITHASBEENOMITTEDATTHETRIALNOT
DELIBERATELY BUT BY OVERSIGHTAND IN ADDITION A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION
ISFURNISHEDASTOWHYTHEDESIREDEVIDENCEWASNOTADDUCEDINTHEFIRSTIN
STANCE-OKGELEDI 3!! AT'UMEDE 3!#2.
4HEFUNDAMENTALENQUIRYINVOLVEDINWHETHERTOALLOWTHEHEARINGOFFUR
THEREVIDENCEISWHETHERTHETRUEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEREQUIREACASEWHICHHAS
BEENCOMPLETEDTOBEREOPENEDFORTHEHEARINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCE BECAUSE
ITISINTHEINTERESTOFJUSTICETHATFINALITYSHOULDBEREACHEDINCRIMINALCASES
SEE2OUX 3!. AT( )TISNOTINTHEINTERESTSOFTHEADMINIS
TRATIONOFJUSTICETOALLOWFURTHEREVIDENCEONAPPEALWHENTHEONLYEVIDENCE
SOUGHTTOBEADDUCEDISTHATCONTAINEDINAFFIDAVITSMADEBYPERSONSRECANT
INGTHEIREVIDENCEATTRIAL( 3!#23#!
4HECOURTMAYCONFIRM ALTERORQUASHTHECONVICTION)FTHEACCUSEDWASCON
VICTEDONONEOFTWOORMOREALTERNATIVECOUNTS THECOURTMAY ONQUASHING
THATCONVICTION CONVICTTHEACCUSEDONTHEALTERNATIVECOUNTORONONEOFTHE
ALTERNATIVECOUNTS(OWEVER WHERETHEPROSECUTORHASWITHDRAWNALTERNATIVE
CHARGES AFTER CONVICTION ON THE MAIN CHARGE THE COURT ON QUASHING THAT
CONVICTION MAYNOTCONSIDERTHEALTERNATIVECHARGES#ONRADIE 0(
(4
4HECOURTMAYCONFIRM REDUCE ALTERORSETASIDETHESENTENCEORORDER)FTHEAP
PEALISNOTEDAGAINSTTHESENTENCEONLY THECOURTOFAPPEALHASNOJURISDIC
TIONTOEXTENDTHEAMBITOFTHENOTICEOFAPPEALTOINCLUDEANAPPEALAGAINST
CONVICTION-ATSHOBA 3!! AT$!BRAHAMS 3!#2
!
4HECOURTMAYCORRECTTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHELOWERCOURT
4HECOURTMAYGENERALLYGIVESUCHJUDGMENTORIMPOSESUCHSENTENCEORMAKE
SUCH ORDER AS THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN IMPOSED OR MADEONANY
MATTERWHICHWASBEFOREITATTHETRIALOFTHECASEINQUESTION)FPUNISHMENT
TEMPERINGPROVISIONSAREENACTEDBYANAMENDMENT!CTAFTERTHEIMPOSITION

#(!04%2r !00%!,
OFASENTENCEANDBEFORETHEHEARINGOFTHEACCUSEDSAPPEALAGAINSTHISORHER
SENTENCE THECOURTOFAPPEALWOULDBEENTITLEDTOIMPOSEASENTENCEACCORD
INGTOTHENEWPUNISHMENTMEASURES4HERATIOBEHINDTHISISTHATWHENAN
ORIGINALSENTENCEISSETASIDEBYACOURTOFAPPEAL THESTATUSOFTHEACCUSED
ATTHATSTAGEISJURIDICALLYTHESAMEASTHATOFANACCUSEDWHOHASNOTBEEN
SENTENCED0ROKUREUR'ENERAAL .OORD +AAPV(ART 3!!
4HECOURTMAYREMITTHECASETOTHEMAGISTRATESCOURTWITHINSTRUCTIONSTO
DEALWITHANYMATTERINSUCHMANNERASTHECOURTOFAPPEALMAYTHINKFIT
7HENACONVICTIONANDSENTENCEHAVEBEENSETASIDEDUETONON COMPLIANCE
WITHTHEPROVISIONSOFS B OR ORONTHEGROUNDTHATSSHOULD
HAVEBEENAPPLIED THECOURTOFAPPEALISINTERMSOFSOBLIGEDTOREMITTHE
CASETOTHECOURTBYWHICHTHESENTENCEWASIMPOSEDANDDIRECTTHATCOURT
TOCOMPLYWITHTHEPROVISIONSINQUESTIONORTOACTINTERMSOFS ASTHE
CASEMAYBES 3ECTION OBLIGESACOURTOFAPPEALTOSETASIDETHE
CONVICTIONANDSENTENCEANDREMITTHEMATTERTOTHECOURTAQUOINCIRCUM
STANCESWHERETHETRIALCOURTDIDNOTQUESTIONTHEACCUSEDORDIDNOTQUESTION
THEACCUSEDPROPERLYINORDERTOSATISFYITSELFTHATTHEACCUSEDHADADMITTED
THEALLEGATIONSINTHECHARGEORWHERETHETRIALCOURTERRONEOUSLYDIDNOTAP
PLYTHEPROVISIONSOFSWHEREITWASCLEARTHATTHECOURTSHOULDHAVEHAD
DOUBTSASTOTHEACCUSEDSPLEAOFGUILTY
4HECOURTMAYMAKEANORDERAFFECTINGTHESUSPENSIONOFTHEEXECUTIONOFA
SENTENCEAGAINSTTHEPERSONCONVICTEDORHISORHERADMISSIONTOJAILOR GEN
ERALLY AFFECTINGANYRELEVANTMATTERORPROCEEDINGWHICHTHECOURTOFAPPEAL
DEEMSCALCULATEDTOPROMOTETHEENDSOFJUSTICE
3ENTENCESMAYBEINCREASEDONAPPEAL)NADDITIONTOTHEPOWERSOFTHECOURT
OFAPPEALTOSETASIDETHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCE ORTOREDUCETHESENTENCE
THECOURTALSOHASTHEPOWERTOINCREASETHEIMPOSEDSENTENCEORTOIMPOSE
ANOTHERFORMOFSENTENCEINLIEUOFORINADDITIONTOSUCHSENTENCES
"UTTHECOURTOFAPPEALMAYNOTEXERCISEITSPOWERTOINCREASETHESENTENCE
OFALOWERCOURTORTOIMPOSEANOTHERFORMOFASENTENCEINLIEUOFORINAD
DITION TO SUCH SENTENCE WHERE THE APPEAL IS BASED SOLELY UPON A QUESTION OF
LAWS 4HE PRACTICE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPENSATION BASED ON SUB
STANTIVEFAIRNESSNOWREQUIRESTHATTHECOURTMUSTNOTIFYTHEAPPELLANTTHAT
ANINCREASEOFTHESENTENCEWILLBECONSIDEREDBYTHECOURTMEROMOTUIFTHE
APPEALFAILS"OGAARDS 3!#2## ANDIN.ABOLISA 3!#2
## THECOURTHELDTHATWHERETHE3TATE BEINGAWAREOFTHEAPPELLANTS
APPEAL AGAINST THE SENTENCE HAD FAILED TO BRING A CROSS APPEAL IN TERMS OF
S! THECOURTOFAPPEALLACKEDJURISDICTIONTOINCREASETHESENTENCEONAP
PEAL.OTIFICATIONOFINTENTIONTOASKFORANINCREASEOFSENTENCEINTHESTATES
HEADSOFARGUMENTDOESNOTAMOUNTTOACROSS APPEALBYTHEPROSECUTION
4HEAPPROACHOFACOURTOFAPPEAL WHENCONSIDERINGWHETHERASENTENCE
SHOULDBEINCREASED ISTOCOMPARETHESENTENCEITWOULDHAVEIMPOSEDWITH
THAT ACTUALLY IMPOSED BY THE COURTAQUO)FINSUCHCOMPARISONITAPPEARS
THATTHEDIFFERENCEISSUBSTANTIAL THECOURTHASADUTYTOINTERFEREWITHTHE
SENTENCE$E6OS 3!# (UMAN 3!% $U4OIT
3!! !COURTOFAPPEALDOESNOTHAVETHEJURISDICTIONTOINCREASE
ONAPPEAL ASENTENCEBEYONDTHEPENALJURISDICTIONOFTHETRIALCOURT,OUW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3!! AT"0ETER 3!#K! 4HEPOWEROFTHECOURT

OFAPPEALTOINCREASETHESENTENCEMAYBEEXERCISEDALSOWHERETHEAPPEALIS
AGAINSTTHECONVICTIONONLYANDNOTAGAINSTTHESENTENCEASWELL ORAGAINST
THESENTENCEONLY CF$EETLEFS 3!! & 3!/ /N
ANAPPEALAGAINSTTHESENTENCEONLY ACOURTOFAPPEALHASNOPOWERTOSUBSTI
TUTEACONVICTIONOFAMORESERIOUSCRIME4LADI 3!"
4HECOURTOFAPPEALHASTHEPOWERTOGIVEANYJUDGMENTORMAKEANYORDER
WHICH THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY REQUIRE AND SEE ALSO S D OF THE 3UPERIOR
#OURTS!CT #ONSEQUENTLY THECOURTMAYGIVESUCHJUDGMENTORIMPOSESUCH
SENTENCE AS THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN OR IMPOSED S IV READ
WITH S 4HE COURT OF APPEAL MAY SUBSTITUTE A MORE SERIOUS OFFENCE
FORTHEOFFENCEOFWHICHTHEACCUSEDWASCONVICTEDINTHECOURTAQUO4HIS
POWERIS HOWEVER LIMITED-ORGAN 3!#2! ATCG/N
CONVICTION ON APPEAL OF THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENCE THE SENTENCE MAY BE IN
CREASEDORTHEMATTERMAYBEREMITTEDTOTHETRIALCOURTFORTHEIMPOSITIONOF
APROPERSENTENCECF% 3!! AT$n%)N6 3!
! THEACCUSEDWASCHARGEDINTHEALTERNATIVEANDFOUNDNOTGUILTYONTHE
MAINCHARGEBUTGUILTYONTHEALTERNATIVECHARGE/NAPPEALTHECOURTHELD
THATTHECONVICTIONSHOULDBESETASIDE THATTHEACCUSEDWASGUILTYONTHE
MAINCHARGEANDTHATTHECOURTOFAPPEALWASENTITLEDTOCONVICTTHEACCUSED
APPELLANT ONTHEMAINCHARGE4HECOURTOFAPPEALREMITTEDTHECASETOTHE
MAGISTRATEFORSENTENCE3EEALSO$U4OIT 3!! (OWEVER WHERE
ANACCUSEDISCONVICTEDONONECHARGEANDACQUITTEDONANOTHERSUBSTANTIVE
CHARGEANDHEORSHEAPPEALSAGAINSTHISORHERCONVICTION THECOURTOFAPPEAL
HASNOPOWERTOALTERTHEVERDICTOFNOTGUILTYTOONEOFGUILTY0HEWA
3!. -OTHA 3!4 4HISISNOTACASEOFAMAINAND
ALTERNATIVECHARGEASIN6SCASE BUTOFTWOSUBSTANTIVEINDEPENDENTCHARGES
4HEEXECUTIONOFANYSENTENCEISNOTSUSPENDEDPENDINGAPPEALUNLESSTHECOURT
WHICH IMPOSED THE SENTENCE SEES FIT TO ORDER THAT THE CONVICTED PERSON BE RE
LEASEDONBAILSEES READWITHS 0RIORTO ACONVICTEDPERSON
WASENTITLEDTOBAILASOFRIGHT3ISULU 3!7 4HECOURTNOWHASA
DISCRETIONWHETHERTOGRANTBAILORNOT3TEPSMAYBETAKENTOCANCELBAILWHERE
THECONVICTEDPERSONISABOUTTOABSCOND!LLIEV$E6RIES./ 3!4
!LTHOUGHTHEEXECUTIONOFASENTENCEISNOTSUSPENDED ANAPPEALSUSPENDSTHE
OPERATIONOFANORDERAS FOREXAMPLE ANORDERWHICHAUTHORISESTHESUSPENSION
OFADRIVERSLICENCES OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT!BRAHAM 3!
4
2EMISSIONFORANEWSENTENCE
7HENACASEISREMITTEDONAPPEALTOTHATLOWERCOURTWHICHORIGINALLYTRIEDTHE
MATTER FORANALTEREDSENTENCEORANADDITIONTOASENTENCE SUCHSENTENCESNEED
NOTBEPASSEDBYTHEJUDICIALOFFICERWHOORIGINALLYPASSEDTHESENTENCES

#(!04%2r !00%!,
&RESHTRIAL
)N TERMS OF S ON WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF S APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INSTITUTED AGAIN WHEN A CONVICTION OF A LOWER COURT IS SET
ASIDEONANYOFTHEFOLLOWINGGROUNDS
THECOURTWASNOTCOMPETENTTOCONVICTOR
THECHARGESHEETWASINVALIDORDEFECTIVEOR
THEREWASATECHNICALIRREGULARITYINTHEPROCEEDINGS
7HENATRIALISINSTITUTEDAFRESHONANYOFTHEABOVEGROUNDS APLEAOFAUTREFOIS
ACQUITWILLBEOFNOAVAILTOANACCUSEDIFHEORSHEISPROSECUTEDAGAINONTHESAME
CHARGE (OWEVER S MUST BE INTERPRETED IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES
REGARDINGTHECONSTITUTIONALPROTECTIONAGAINSTDOUBLEJEOPARDY INTHEINTERESTS
OFFAIRNESSANDPUBLICINTERESTINTHEFINALITYOFPROCEEDINGS3EE"ASSON
3!#2## 4HEDISCUSSIONINPARA@3ETTINGASIDEORALTERATIONOFCONVIC
TIONONGROUNDOFIRREGULARITYBELOWAPPLIESMUTATISMUTANDIS
4HE PROVISO IN S RESTRICTS THE INSTITUTING OF FRESH PROCEEDINGS ON THE
GROUNDS OF IRREGULARITIES )T PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE COURT IS OF
OPINIONTHATAPOINTMAYBEDECIDEDINFAVOUROFTHEAPPELLANT NOCONVICTION
ORSENTENCEMAYBEREVERSEDORALTEREDBYREASONOFANYIRREGULARITYORDEFECTIN
THERECORDORPROCEEDINGS UNLESSITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTOFAPPEALTHATAFAILURE
OFJUSTICEHASINFACTRESULTED4HEPROVISOCONTAINEDINS MUSTBEREADIN
THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMAND FOR A FAIR TRIAL )N OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
ERAITISTHEFUNCTIONOFACOURTOFAPPEALTOENQUIREINTOTHEFAIRNESSOFTHETRIAL
ANDTOENSURETHATTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALISFULFILLED PARTICULARLYWHERE
ANIRREGULARITYAPPEARSEXFACIETHERECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGS#HABEDI
3!#27 (OWEVER WHEREPROCEEDINGSAREVOIDABINITIO ACOURTOFAPPEAL
WILLNOTHESITATETOINTERVENEMEROMOTUANDSETTHEPROCEEDINGSASIDE0RINSLOO
3!/ 3EEALSOTHEDISCUSSIONRELATINGTOTHEPROVISOCONTAINEDIN
SINPARABELOW
!
00%!,34/!&5,,#/524/&!$)6)3)/./&4(%()'(#/524!.$
4/4(%3502%-%#/524/&!00%!,
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISTHECOURTOFAPPEALTHATDECIDESQUESTIONSOFLAW
RESERVED SPECIALENTRIESOFIRREGULARITIESANDAPPEALSINCONNECTIONWITHCRIMINAL
CASESHEARDBYDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURT EXCEPTINCASESWHEREADIVISIONOF
THE(IGH#OURTINGRANTINGLEAVETOAPPEALISSATISFIEDTHATTHEAPPEALDOESNOT
REQUIRE THE ATTENTION OF THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL )N SUCH CASES IT DIRECTS
THAT THE APPEAL BE HEARD BY A FULL COURT )N RELATION TO APPEALS FROM DIVISIONS
OFTHE(IGH#OURTASCOURTSOFFIRSTINSTANCE THEWORDS@COURTOFAPPEALMEANS
EITHER A FULL COURT OR THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEALS A !PPEALS TO THE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORTOAFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONARENOTASOFRIGHTBUT
ALLOWEDONLYIFLEAVETOAPPEALHASBEENGRANTEDBYTHE(IGH#OURTOR INCASE
OFAREFUSAL WITHLEAVETOAPPEALGRANTEDONAPETITIONORONAPPLICATIONTOTHE
3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL (OWEVER AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF APPEAL IS AVAILABLE TO
CERTAINYOUNGOFFENDERS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
*URISDICTIONAND#ONSTITUTION
7
KH6XSUHPH&RXUWRI$SSHDO
4HECOMPOSITIONANDJURISDICTIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALARESETOUTIN
GENERALTERMSINSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION!CCORDINGLY THECOURTCONSISTSOFA
0RESIDENTFORMERLY#HIEF*USTICE $EPUTY0RESIDENTANDANUMBEROFJUDGESOFAP
PEALANDACTINGJUDGESOFAPPEALDETERMINEDBYLEGISLATION4HE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEALMAYDECIDEANYAPPEALOFWHATEVERMATTER EVENCONSTITUTIONALMATTERS)T
ISTHESECONDHIGHESTCOURTOFAPPEALANDMAYDECIDE
A APPEALS
B ISSUESCONNECTEDWITHAPPEALSAND
C ANYOTHERMATTERTHATMAYBEREFERREDTOITINCIRCUMSTANCESDEFINEDBYAN
!CTOF0ARLIAMENT
4HE#OURTGENERALLYSITSINPANELSOFTHREEORFIVEJUDGES DEPENDINGONTHENATURE
OFTHEAPPEAL4HE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALFORMERLYCALLEDTHE
@#HIEF*USTICE OR INHISABSENCE THESENIORAVAILABLEJUDGEOFTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEAL MAYDIRECTTHATACRIMINALAPPEALBEHEARDBEFOREACOURTCONSISTINGOF
THREEJUDGESSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT OF(OWEVER INDECIDING
CONSTITUTIONALISSUESOROTHERMATTERSOFPUBLICIMPORTANCE THEQUORUMSHALLBE
FIVEJUDGES0RINCEV0RESIDENT ,AW3OCIETY #APEOF'OOD(OPE 3!#2
## BUTSEES B OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASJURISDICTIONTOHEARANDDETERMINEANAPPEAL
AGAINSTANYDECISIONOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT)NRESPECTOFAPPEALSAND
QUESTIONS OF LAW RESERVED IN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL CASES HEARD BY A SINGLE
JUDGEOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT THECOURTOFAPPEALSHALLBETHE3UPREME
#OURT OF !PPEAL EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE PROVISIONS REGARDING APPEALS TO A FULL
COURTOFADIVISIONPROVIDEOTHERWISES A )FTHECOURTWHERETHEAPPEAL
ISEMANATINGFROMCONSISTEDOFMORETHANONEJUDGE THEAPPEALWILLBEHEARDBY
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALS A II OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOF
$
IXOOFRXUW
)NTERMSOFSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT A@FULLCOURTMEANS INRELATIONTOANY
DIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT ACOURTCONSISTINGOFTHREEJUDGES)NTERMSOFS
B OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT A@FULLCOURTMEANSTHECOURTOFADIVISIONOF
THE (IGH #OURT OR THE 'AUTENG (IGH #OURT *OHANNESBURG A LOCAL SEAT OF THE
'AUTENG $IVISION 0RETORIA SITTING AS A COURT OF APPEAL AND CONSTITUTED BEFORE
THREE JUDGES )N TERMS OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT A FULL COURT IS A COURT OF
APPEALANDNOTACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEANDCONSEQUENTLYACRIMINALTRIALCANNOT
BE CONDUCTED BEFORE SUCH A COURT )N RELATION TO APPEALS FROM DIVISIONS OF THE
(IGH#OURTASCOURTSOFFIRSTINSTANCE THEWORDS@COURTOFAPPEALMEANSEITHERA
FULLCOURTORTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALS A 3ECTION A I OFTHE
3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTPROVIDESTHAT@xANAPPEALAGAINSTANYDECISIONOFA$IVISION
ASACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCELIES UPONLEAVEHAVINGBEENGRANTEDI IFTHECOURT
CONSISTEDOFASINGLEJUDGE EITHERTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORTOAFULLCOURT
OFTHAT$IVISION DEPENDINGONTHEDIRECTIONISSUEDINTERMSOFSECTION

#(!04%2r !00%!,
4HEDECISIONOFTHEMAJORITYOFTHEJUDGESOFAFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONISTHEDECI
SIONOFTHECOURT7HERETHEMAJORITYOFTHEJUDGESOFANYSUCHCOURTARENOTIN
AGREEMENT THEHEARINGMUSTBEADJOURNEDANDCOMMENCEDDENOVOBEFOREACOURT
CONSISTINGOFTHREEOTHERJUDGESS OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
4HEPOWERSOFAFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONARETHOSEOFADIVISIONSITTINGASACOURT
OFAPPEAL!NAPPEALWHICHISTOBEHEARDBYAFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONSHALL IN
TERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT BEHEARD
A INTHECASEOFANAPPEALINACRIMINALCASEHEARDBYASINGLEJUDGEOFAPROVINCIAL
DIVISION BYTHEFULLCOURTOFTHEPROVINCIALDIVISIONCONCERNED
B INTHECASEOFANAPPEALINACRIMINALCASEHEARDBYASINGLEJUDGEOFALOCALDIVISION
OTHERTHANTHE7ITWATERSRAND,OCAL$IVISION;NOW'AUTENG$IVISIONOFTHE(IGH
#OURT *OHANNESBURG= BYTHEFULLCOURTOFTHEPROVINCIALDIVISIONWHICHEXERCISES
CONCURRENTJURISDICTIONINTHEAREAOFJURISDICTIONOFTHELOCALDIVISIONCONCERNED
C IN THE CASE OF AN APPEAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE HEARD BY A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE
7ITWATERSRAND,OCAL$IVISION
I BYTHEFULLCOURTOFTHE4RANSVAAL0ROVINCIAL$IVISION;NOW'AUTENG$IVISION
OFTHE(IGH#OURT 0RETORIA= UNLESSADIRECTIONBYTHEJUDGEPRESIDENTOFTHAT
PROVINCIALDIVISIONUNDERSUBPARAGRAPHII APPLIESTOITOR
II BYTHEFULLCOURTOFTHESAIDLOCALDIVISIONIFTHESAIDJUDGEPRESIDENTHASSO
DIRECTEDINTHEPARTICULARINSTANCE
)NTERMSOFS A OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT WHEREADIVISIONHASONEORMORE

LOCALSEATS THISSECTIONPROVIDESFURTHERTHATWHEREA$IVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
HASONEORMORELOCALSEATS
THEMAINSEATOFTHAT$IVISIONHASCONCURRENTAPPEALJURISDICTIONOVERTHEAREA
OFJURISDICTIONOFANYLOCALSEATOFTHAT$IVISION ANDTHE*UDGE0RESIDENTOFTHE
$IVISION MAY DIRECT THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE OR OF A
-AGISTRATES#OURTWITHINTHATAREAOFJURISDICTIONMAYBEHEARDATTHEMAINSEAT
OFTHE$IVISION;%MPHASISADDED=
4HIS SECTION AND ESPECIALLY THE REFERENCE TO CONCURRENT @APPEAL JURISDICTION
OVER@ANYLOCALSEATOFTHATDIVISION CREATESTHEIMPRESSIONTHATALLLOCALSEATSARE
NOWEMPOWEREDWITHAPPEALJURISDICTIONANDNOTONLYTHE'AUTENG(IGH#OURT
*OHANNESBURGFORMERLYTHE@7ITWATERSRAND,OCAL$IVISIONUNTILTHERENAMINGOF
THE(IGH#OURTSBY!CTOF 4HISUNCERTAINTYISUNDERPINNEDBYTHEFACT
THATS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTTODATE UNAMENDED DISTINGUISHES
THE LOCAL DIVISION OF THE @7ITWATERSRAND FROM OTHER LOCAL DIVISIONS WHEN DES
IGNATINGFULLCOURTS ASTHEFORMERCOURTUSEDTOBETHEONLYLOCALDIVISIONWITH
APPEAL JURISDICTION 4HE CONFUSION IS HEIGHTENED BY THE DECISION IN -OHOMED
(ASSIM )SMAIL V %DITH .OMAFUSI ;= :!+:$(# WHERE THE +WA:ULU .ATAL
$IVISION HELD THAT THE LOCAL SEAT OF $URBAN DOES NOT HAVE APPEAL JURISDICTION
(OWEVER INPRACTICEALLLOCALSEATSNOWHEARAPPEALS
7HENWILLAFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONHEARANAPPEAL
4HEPRINCIPLEINRESPECTOFGRANTINGLEAVETOAPPEALTOAFULLCOURTISASFOLLOWS
7HENANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALINACRIMINALCASEISHEARDBYASINGLE
JUDGE OF A DIVISION IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE JUDGE SAT WITH OR WITHOUT
ASSESSORS ANDGRANTEDUNDERSSEEBELOW THECOURTORJUDGEORJUDGES
GRANTINGTHEAPPLICATIONSHALL IFTHEYARESATISFIEDTHATTHEQUESTIONSOFLAW
ANDOFFACTANDTHEOTHERCONSIDERATIONSINVOLVEDINTHEAPPEALSUCHASPUB

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
LICIMPORTANCE AREOFSUCHANATURETHATTHEAPPEALDOESNOTREQUIRETHEAT
TENTIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL DIRECTTHATTHEAPPEALBEHEARDBYA
FULLCOURTS A 4HECRITERIONFORALLOWINGANAPPEALTOTHEFULLCOURTIS
LARGELYWHETHERTHEAPPEALISWITHOUTOBVIOUSDIFFICULTIESSEE3INAMA
3!#23#!
!NYSUCHDIRECTIONBYTHECOURTORAJUDGEOFTHEDIVISIONMAYBESETASIDE
BY THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL ON APPLICATION BY WAY OF A PETITION AD
DRESSEDTOTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL BYTHEACCUSEDOR
THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSOROTHERPROSECUTORWITHINDAYSNOW
DAYS BYVIRTUEOFA3UPREME#OURTDIRECTIVE AFTERTHEDIRECTIONWASGIVEN
ORSUCHLONGERPERIODSASMAYONAPPLICATIONTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
ONGOODCAUSEBEALLOWED S B 4HEFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONHEARING
ANAPPEALHASTHESAMEJURISDICTIONASTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALINRELA
TIONTOTHEPOWERSPROVIDEDINSS E 3ECTIONPRESCRIBESTHE
POWERSOFTHECOURTOFAPPEAL
!PPEALSHANDEDDOWNFROMADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTSITTINGASACOURTOF
APPEAL!NAPPEALAGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTORORDEROFAFULLCOURTOFADIVISION
GIVENONAPPEALINTERMSOFS SHALLBEALLOWEDONLYWITHTHESPECIAL
LEAVEOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALONAPPLICATIONEITHERBYTHEACCUSEDOR
BYTHEPROSECUTION
/NLYMATTERSHEARDBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTASACOURTOFFIRSTIN
STANCEMAYBEADJUDICATEDBYAFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONASACOURTOFAPPEAL
!FULLCOURTOFADIVISIONDOESNOTHAVEJURISDICTIONTOHEARUNSUCCESSFULAP
PEALS THAT ORIGINATED FROM LOWER COURTS AND WERE HEARD BY A DIVISION OF A
(IGH#OURTASACOURTOFAPPEAL3EEALSO-C-ILLAN 3!#27
!FULLCOURTOFADIVISIONHASNOJURISDICTIONTOHEARANAPPEALINTHEFOLLOWING
INSTANCES
I 7HEREITHASBEENDIRECTEDBYTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHEARINGTHE
APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALTHATTHEQUESTIONSOFLAWOROFFACTOROTHER
CONSIDERATIONSREQUIRETHEATTENTIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
II 7HERE LEAVE TO APPEAL ON A SPECIAL ENTRY OF IRREGULARITY OR ILLEGALITY
AGAINSTTHEPROCEEDINGSOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTHASBEENGRANTED
III 7HERE A QUESTION OF LAW HAS BEEN RESERVED BY A DIVISION OF THE (IGH
#OURT UNLESS THE COURT HAS DIRECTED THAT THE QUESTION OF LAW SHALL BE
HEARDBYTHEFULLCOURTOFADIVISION
IV 7HEREANAPPEALISBROUGHTAGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTORORDEROFADIVISIONOF
THE(IGH#OURTGIVENONAPPEALINMATTERSEMANATINGFROMLOWERCOURTS
2IGHTOFAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORTOAFULLCOURTOFA
DIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
3ECTION PROVIDES THAT APPEALS WITH REGARD TO PROCEEDINGS IN DIVISIONS OR
LOCALSEATSOFDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH#OURTASCOURTSOFFIRSTINSTANCESHALLLIEONLY
ASPROVIDEDINSSnANDSHALLNOTBEASOFRIGHT THATIS LEAVETOAPPEALMUST
FIRSTBEOBTAINED4HEGRANTINGOFLEAVETOAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFADIVISION
OFTHE(IGH#OURT ORCOURTOFSIMILARSTATUS TOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISA
PREREQUISITEINTERMSOFSS A B ANDC OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT3ECTION
C PROVIDESFORLEAVETOAPPEALINRESPECTOFCOURTSOFASTATUSSIMILARTOTHAT

#(!04%2r !00%!,
OFTHE(IGH#OURT 3ECTION A OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTPROVIDESTHATAN

APPEAL AGAINST ANY DECISION OF A DIVISION AS A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE LIES UPON
LEAVEHAVINGBEENGRANTED
I IFTHECOURTCONSISTEDOFASINGLEJUDGE WITHTHELEAVEOFTHETRIALCOURT EITHER
TOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORTOAFULLCOURTOFTHATDIVISION DEPENDING
ONTHEDIRECTIONBYTHECOURTOR
II IFTHECOURTCONSISTEDOFMORETHANONEJUDGE WITHTHELEAVEOFTHETRIALCOURT
TOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
3ECTION B PROVIDES THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST ANY DECISION OF A DIVISION ON
APPEALTOIT LIESTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALUPONSPECIALLEAVEHAVINGBEEN
GRANTEDBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL4HEPURPOSEOFAPARTYHAVINGTOAPPLY
FORLEAVETOAPPEALISTOLIMITAPPEALSTOTHOSEWHICHHAVEREASONABLEPROSPECTS
OFSUCCESS)NADDITIONTOREASONABLEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESS ANAPPLICANTREQUEST
INGSPECIALLEAVETOAPPEALMUSTSHOWTHATTHEREARESPECIALCIRCUMSTANCESWHICH
MERITAFURTHERAPPEALTOTHISCOURT4HEWORD@SPECIALDENOTESTHATSOMEADDI
TIONALFACTORORCRITERIONISTOPLAYAPARTINTHEGRANTINGOFLEAVE SUCHASI WHERE
THEAPPEALRAISESASUBSTANTIALPOINTOFLAWII WHERETHEMATTERTURNSONFACTUAL
ISSUES BUTTHEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSARESOSTRONGTHATTHEREFUSALOFLEAVEWOULD
RESULTINAMANIFESTDENIALOFJUSTICEIII WHERETHEMATTERISOFVERYGREATIMPOR
TANCETOTHEPARTIESORTOTHEPUBLICANDORIV THATTHEREARECOMPELLINGREASONS
WHICHJUSTIFYTHEHEARINGOFTHEAPPEAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS'AUTENG
$IVISION 0RETORIAV-OABI 3!#23#! 'LUHFWRURI3XEOLF3URVHFXWLRQV
*DXWHQJY*UREOHU 3!#23#!
!NAUTOMATICRIGHTOFAPPEALTOTHEFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONORTOTHE3UPREME
#OURT OF !PPEAL EXISTS ONLY IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES )F AN ACCUSED WAS CON
VICTEDOFANYOFFENCEBYTHE(IGH#OURTANDTHATACCUSEDWAS ATTHETIMEOFTHE
COMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCE
I BELOWTHEAGEOFYEARSOR
II ATLEASTYEARSOFAGEBUTBELOWTHEAGEOFYEARSANDWASSENTENCEDTO
IMPRISONMENTTHATWASNOTWHOLLYSUSPENDED
HEORSHEMAYNOTESUCHANAPPEALWITHOUTHAVINGTOAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEALCF
SOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTANDS A OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
)NSUMMARY ACRIMINALMATTERMAYBETAKENONAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEALINTHEFOLLOWINGMANNER
)NCRIMINALCASESTRIEDINLOWERCOURTSANDTAKENONAPPEALBYTHEPROSECUTION
ORTHEACCUSEDTOADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTWITHAPPEALJURISDICTION AFUR
THERAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISPOSSIBLEONLYWITHTHESPECIAL
LEAVEOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALITSELF3PECIALLEAVETOAPPEALISALSOAP
PLICABLEINRESPECTOFANAPPEALBROUGHTBYTHE3TATEINTERMSOFSOFTHE
)NCRIMINALCASESTRIEDINTHE(IGH#OURTS APPEALSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!P
PEALAREPOSSIBLEINTHEFOLLOWINGCIRCUMSTANCESONLY
A 7HERELEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTACONVICTIONANDORSENTENCEORORDERFOL
LOWINGTHEREONISGRANTEDBYTHETRIALJUDGEORANYOTHERJUDGEOFTHAT
DIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTIFTHETRIALJUDGEISNOTAVAILABLEORINTHECASE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
OFACONVICTIONBEFOREACIRCUITCOURTWHERETHATCOURTISNOTINSESSION
S AND A 7HERELEAVETOAPPEALISREFUSED THE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEALMAYBEAPPROACHEDBYWAYOFPETITIONADDRESSEDTOTHE0RESIDENT
OFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
B 7HEREANAPPLICATIONFORAPPEALONGROUNDSOFASPECIALENTRYISGRANTED
BY THE TRIAL COURT BASED ON AN ALLEGED IRREGULARITY OR ILLEGALITYSS
AND7HEREANAPPLICATIONFORASPECIALENTRYISREFUSED THE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALMAYBEAPPROACHEDBYWAYOFPETITIONADDRESSEDTOTHE
0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
C 7HEREAQUESTIONOFLAWISRESERVEDBYTHETRIALCOURTEITHERMEROMOTU
ORATTHEREQUESTOFTHEPROSECUTIONORTHEACCUSEDS(ERE TOO A
FURTHERREMEDYTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISAVAILABLEONAPETITION
IFTHETRIALCOURTREFUSESTORESERVEAQUESTIONOFLAW
D 7HERETHE3TATEHASBEENGIVENLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTTHESENTENCES
"
E 7HEREAMATTERISBROUGHTTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALBYTHEMIN
ISTERFORDECISIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALCONCERNINGAQUESTION
OFLAW WHERETHEMINISTERISDOUBTFULASTOTHECORRECTNESSOFANYDECI
SIONGIVENBYANY(IGH#OURTINANYCRIMINALCASE ORWHERECONFLICTING
DECISIONSONAQUESTIONOFLAWINCRIMINALMATTERSHAVEBEENGIVENBY
DIFFERENT DIVISIONSS 4HERE ARE NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR AN AC
CUSEDASARESULTOFTHISPROCEDURE3EE#HAPTERFORADISCUSSION
F )FTHEMATTERWASTRIEDBEFORETHREEJUDGES ANAPPEALLIESWITHLEAVETO
APPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
-ATTERSDECIDEDONAPPEALBYAFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONMAYONLYBEBROUGHTTO
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALWITHTHESPECIALLEAVEFROMTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALS A "ANGER 3!#23#!
!
PPEALSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALREGARDINGAPPEALSINCRIMINAL
CASESORIGINATINGINLOWERCOURTS
!NAPPEALAGAINSTAJUDGMENTORORDEROFTHE(IGH#OURTHAVINGAPPEALJURISDIC
TIONINAMATTERWHICHORIGINATEDINALOWERCOURT ANDWHICHWASBROUGHTBEFORE
ADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTONAPPEAL ISREGULATEDBYS B OFTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS!CT4HISSECTIONPROVIDESTHATTHEREISNOAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALONADECISIONGIVENBYANYDIVISIONONANAPPEALTOSUCHDIVISION UN
LESS WITH THE SPECIAL LEAVE OF THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEALSEE ALSO S OF
THE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT WHICHPRESCRIBESTHATSPECIALLEAVEMUSTBEAPPLIEDFOR
WITHINDAYSAFTERTHEDECISIONSOUGHTTOAPPEALAGAINST WASDELIVERED4HEDI
VISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTAGAINSTWHOSEDECISIONANAPPEALISBROUGHTMAYGRANT
ORREFUSETHEAPPELLANTBAILS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
%VERY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WHETHER ORAL OR FORMAL MUST SET OUT
CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE ACCUSED DESIRES TO APPEAL
4HEGROUNDSOFAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALNEEDNOTCOINCIDEWITH
THEGROUNDSOFAPPEALFROMTHELOWERCOURTTOTHE(IGH#OURT!TTORNEY 'ENERAL
4RANSVAAL V &LATS -ILLING #O 0TY ,TD 3! ! .OTE THAT AN APPLICA
TION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL MUST SHOW IN
ADDITION TO THE ORDINARY REQUIREMENT OF @REASONABLE PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS THAT

#(!04%2r !00%!,
THEREARE@SPECIALCIRCUMSTANCESWHICHMERITAFURTHERAPPEALTOTHISCOURT SUCH
ASTHATTHEAPPEALRAISESASUBSTANTIALPOINTOFLAW ORTHATTHEMATTERISOFVERY
GREATIMPORTANCETOTHEPUBLICORAPPELLANTORTHATTHEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSARE
SOSTRONGTHATTHEREFUSALOFLEAVETOAPPEALWOULDPROBABLYRESULTINADENIALOF
JUSTICE6AN 7YK 3!#2 3#! AT PARAGRAPH 3EE ALSO THE CASES
REFERRED TO IN THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER RELATING TO SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL 3ECTION
A II OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTALSOPROVIDESFORSPECIALLEAVEWHERETHERE
ARECOMPELLINGREASONSWHYTHEAPPEALSHOULDBEHEARD SUCHASCONFLICTINGJUDG
MENTSONTHEMATTERUNDERCONSIDERATION
)F LEAVE TO APPEAL IS NOT APPLIED FOR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME CONDONATION
COULDBEAPPLIEDFORSIMULTANEOUSLYWITHTHEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL4HE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES BYVIRTUEOFS F
OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT APPLYFORCONDONATIONINRESPECTOFTHEDELAYINBRING
INGTHEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL.TLANYENI 3!#23#! 4HE
0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISNOTTIME BOUNDANDHASSUCHAUTHOR
ITYWHENADDRESSEDBYWAYOFPETITION
4HE.ATIONAL$IRECTORORADIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSOROTHERPROSECUTOR
MAYAPPEALAGAINSTADECISIONGIVENONAPPEALBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTIN
AMATTERARISINGINALOWERCOURT IFSUCHDIVISIONHASGIVENADECISIONINFAVOUROF
ACONVICTEDACCUSEDONAMATTEROFLAW AFTERHAVINGOBTAINEDTHENECESSARYSPECIAL
LEAVETOAPPEAL3UCHLEAVEMUST ASPREVIOUSLYINDICATED BEOBTAINEDFROMTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL)FLEAVEISREFUSED THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
MAYPETITIONTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTFORLEAVE3EES READWITHSS F
OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV.OKWE 3!
4 CONTRA$AVE 3!! 3EEALSO@!PPEALBYPROSECUTIONTOTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALBELOW
!
PPEALAGAINSTDECISIONSOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTTOHIGHER
COURTS
$SSOLFDWLRQIRUOHDYHWRDSSHDO
!PPEALAGAINSTDECISIONSBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTASATRIALCOURT
!NYACCUSED OTHERTHANTHOSEJUVENILEOFFENDERSMENTIONEDABOVE CONVICT
EDBEFOREAHIGHERCOURTOFANYOFFENCEMAY WITHINAPERIODOFDAYSOFTHE
PASSINGOFTHESENTENCEORORDERASARESULTOFSUCHCONVICTION APPLYTOTHE
TRIALCOURTFORLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTSUCHCONVICTION SENTENCEORORDERS
B 4HEPERIODMAYBEEXTENDEDONGOODCAUSESHOWN3EEALSOS
A OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
4HE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS MAY WITHIN A PERIOD OF DAYS OF THE
PASSING OF THE DECISION APPLY FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF A
(IGH #OURT TO RELEASE AN ACCUSED ON BAILS ! 4HE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONSMAYNOTAPPEALTHEIMPOSITIONOFANYCONDITIONOFBAILASCON
TEMPLATEDINSS A n! A CFS! A )FLEAVETOAPPEALISSOUGHT
AGAINSTADECISIONTORELEASEANACCUSEDONBAIL THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROS
ECUTIONSMAYAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEALTOTHECOURTTHATGAVETHEDECISIONIN
THESAMEMANNERASANACCUSEDCONVICTEDBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
S! B READWITHS ANDSEE"ANGER 3!#23#! AT;=

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN APPEAL BY AN ACCUSED
PERSONAGAINSTTHEREFUSALOFBAILBYTHE(IGH#OURTSITTINGASACOURTOFFIRST
INSTANCECONSEQUENTLYSUCHAPPEALISREGULATEDBYTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
4HEREFORE IN THE CASE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF BAIL BY THE (IGH
#OURTSITTINGASACOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALMUST
BEMADETOTHATCOURT)FTHEAPPLICATIONISREFUSED LEAVEMAYBEGRANTEDBY
THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL IN TERMS OF S B OF THE 3UPERIOR #OURTS
!CT )F THE (IGH #OURT CONSISTED OF A SINGLE JUDGE THE APPEAL LIES TO A FULL
COURT UNLESSADIRECTIONISGIVENINTERMSOFS THATTHEMATTERREQUIRES
THEATTENTIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL)FTHE(IGH#OURTCONSISTEDOF
MORETHANONEJUDGE THEAPPEALLIESDIRECTLYTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
"ANGER 3!#23#! AT;=
!PPEALAGAINSTDECISIONSBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTASACOURTOF
APPEAL
,EAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTAJUDGMENTORORDERGIVENONAPPEALBYADIVISIONOFTHE
(IGH#OURTMUSTBEAPPLIEDFORBYTHEAPPELLANTWITHINDAYSAFTERTHEDATEON
WHICHTHEJUDGMENTORORDERWASGIVENSEERULE A ANDB OFTHE3UPREME
#OURT2ULES3EEALSOS B OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
4OWHOMMUSTTHEAPPLICATIONBEMADE
!PPLICATIONISMADETOTHEJUDGEWHOPRESIDEDATTHETRIAL)FHEORSHEISNOT
AVAILABLE APPLICATIONISMADETOANOTHERJUDGEOFTHEDIVISIONCONCERNED)N
THECASEOFCONVICTIONBEFOREACIRCUITCOURT APPLICATIONISMADETOTHATCOURT
BUTIFITISNOTINSESSION ITMAYBEMADETOAJUDGEOFTHATDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH
#OURTS A S A OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
)FLEAVETOAPPEALISSOUGHTAGAINSTANYJUDGMENTORORDEROFADIVISIONGIVEN
ONAPPEAL APPLICATIONFORSPECIALLEAVETOAPPEALISTOBEMADETOTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALS OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
'ROUNDSOFAPPEAL
!N APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL MUST SET FORTH CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY THE
GROUNDSUPONWHICHTHEACCUSEDWISHESTOAPPEAL4HISALSOAPPLIESTOANAPPLICA
TIONBROUGHTBYADIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS)FTHEPARTYAPPLIESVERBALLYFOR
LEAVEIMMEDIATELYAFTERTHEPASSINGOFTHESENTENCEBYAHIGHERCOURT HEORSHE
MUSTSTATETHEGROUNDSANDTHEYMUSTBETAKENDOWNINWRITINGANDFORMPARTOF
THERECORDS ANDSEERULE A ANDB OFTHE3UPREME#OURT2ULESSEE
ALSO(LATSWAYO 3!! 'ROUNDSRELATINGTOSPECIALLEAVETOAPPEALARE
DISCUSSEDINPARAGRAPHSAND
7HENLEAVETOAPPEALISGRANTED THELEAVEMAYBELIMITEDTOPARTICULARGROUNDSOF
APPEAL"UTIFLEAVETOAPPEALISGRANTEDGENERALLY WITHOUTRESTRICTINGTHEGROUNDS
ALLISSUESMAYBECANVASSEDONAPPEAL*ANTJIES 3!! 7HERELEAVE
TOAPPEALHASBEENGRANTEDONLIMITEDGROUNDS THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAY
BEAPPROACHEDFORANEXTENSIONOFSUCHGROUNDS4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
HASTHEPOWERTOGRANTLEAVETOAPPEALONWIDERGROUNDSTHANTHOSEALLOWEDBY
THETRIALJUDGE-POMPOTSHE 3!! AT!DIVISIONDOESNOT HOW

#(!04%2r !00%!,
EVER HAVETHEPOWERTOGRANTLEAVEFORTHEEXTENSIONOFGROUNDSOFAPPEALAFTER
LEAVETOAPPEALHASBEENGRANTEDONPARTICULARGROUNDSBYTHATDIVISION6AN(
3!4
4HEQUESTIONWHETHERTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYALLOWANAPPELLANTTO
APPEALAGAINSTHISORHERCONVICTION ALTHOUGHHEORSHEAPPEALEDONLYAGAINST
THESENTENCEIMPOSEDBYALOWERCOURT WASRAISEDIN, 3!! BUT
LEFT UNDECIDED )F THE ACCUSED APPLIES TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ONLY
AGAINSTHISORHERSENTENCEANDTHATISREFUSED THEACCUSEDCANNOTLATERAPPLYTO
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALFORLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTHISORHERCONVICTION
#ASSIDY 3!! )N!BRAHAMS 3!#2! ITWASAGAINHELD
THATTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALCANNOTASSUMEJURISDICTIONTOSETASIDEACON
VICTIONWHERETHEREISANAPPEALAGAINSTTHESENTENCEONLY7HERETHETRIALCOURT
HASGRANTEDLEAVETOAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINSTTHECONVIC
TION THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL MAY INTERFERE WITH THE SENTENCE-AZIBUKO
3!! AT
7HENLEAVETOAPPEALSHOULDBEGRANTED
7HEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
THEDOMINANTCRITERIONISWHETHERORNOTTHEAPPLICANTHASAREASONABLEPROSPECT
OFSUCCESSONAPPEALORWHETHERTHEREISSOMECOMPELLINGREASONWHYTHEAPPEAL
SHOULDBEHEARD INCLUDINGCONFLICTINGJUDGMENTSONTHEMATTERUNDERCONSIDER
ATIONS A OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT 4HEMERECIRCUMSTANCETHATACASEIS
@ARGUABLEISINSUFFICIENT UNLESSTHETERM@ARGUABLEISUSEDINTHESENSETHATTHERE
IS SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT )N THE
NATUREOFTHINGS ITISALWAYSASOMEWHATUNENVIABLESITUATIONFORAJUDGETOHAVE
TODETERMINEWHETHERAJUDGMENTWHICHHEHIMSELFORSHEHERSELFHASGIVENMAY
BECONSIDEREDBYAHIGHERCOURTTOBEWRONG4HATIS HOWEVER ADUTYIMPOSED
UPONJUDGESBYTHELEGISLATURE4HEPRIMARYCONSIDERATIONINANAPPLICATIONFOR
LEAVETOAPPEALISTHEREFOREWHETHERORNOTBOTHINRELATIONTOQUESTIONSOFFACT
ANDOFLAW THEREISAREASONABLEPROSPECTOFSUCCESSCF"ALOI 3!!
+UZWAYO 3!! AT3HAFFEE 3!! !CKERMAN
3!! ORACOMPELLINGREASONOFPUBLICIMPORTANCE4HEJUDGEISTHUSFACED
WITH NO EASY TASK BUT HE OR SHE MUST EXERCISE HIS OR HER POWER JUDICIALLY AND
OBJECTIVELY ANDASKHIMSELFORHERSELFWHETHERTHEREISAREASONABLEPROSPECTTHAT
ANOTHERCOURTMIGHTCOMETOADIFFERENTCONCLUSION3IKOSANA 3!!
4HEMEREPOSSIBILITYTHATANOTHERCOURTMIGHTCOMETOADIFFERENTCONCLUSIONIS
NOTSUFFICIENTTOJUSTIFYTHEGRANTINGOFLEAVETOAPPEAL#EASER 3!
! AT.EVERTHELESS IN-ILNEAND%RLEIGH 3!! THECOURTTOOK
INTO CONSIDERATION THAT A NUMBER OF DIFFICULT AND NOVEL QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE
INVOLVED3EEALSO-ULLER 3!!
,EAVETOAPPEALMAY HOWEVER BEGRANTEDEVENIFTHEREISNOPROSPECTOFSUCCESS
ONTHEEXISTINGRECORD IFTHEREISAREASONABLEPROSPECTTHATLEAVETOADDUCEFUR
THEREVIDENCEWILLBEGRANTEDANDTHAT IFITIS THERESULTMAYBEDIFFERENT*ANTJIES
3!!
)FTHEAPPLICATIONISREFUSED THEJUDGEMUSTFURNISHREASONSFORTHEREFUSALS
3IKOSANAABOVE ANDSEE7HITE 3!! 4HEFACTTHATANACCUSED
PLEADEDGUILTYBEFORETHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEDOESNOTMEANTHATLEAVETOAPPEAL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
WILLNEVERBEGRANTED3EE)NRE#LARK 3!! -AVHUNGU 3!

! 4HEMEREFACTTHATTHE3TATEDOESNOTOPPOSEANAPPLICATIONISNOTAPROPER
GROUNDFORGRANTINGLEAVETOAPPEAL-OSIA 0((!
3ECTION OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTOFPROVIDESTHATLEAVETOAPPEAL
MAY ONLY BE GRANTED WHERE THE JUDGE OR JUDGES CONCERNED ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT
A I THEAPPEALWOULDHAVEAREASONABLEPROSPECTOFSUCCESSOR
II THERE IS SOME OTHER COMPELLING REASON WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD IN
CLUDINGCONFLICTINGJUDGMENTSONTHEMATTERUNDERCONSIDERATION
B THE DECISION SOUGHT ON APPEAL DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION A
;WHICHPROVIDESTHATWHERETHEHEARINGOFTHEAPPEALWILLNOTHAVEANYPRACTICAL
EFFECT THEAPPEALMAYBEDISMISSED=AND
C WHERETHEDECISIONSOUGHTTOBEAPPEALEDDOESNOTDISPOSEOFALLTHEISSUESINTHE
CASE THEAPPEALWOULDLEADTOAJUSTANDPROMPTRESOLUTIONOFTHEREALISSUESBE
TWEENTHEPARTIES
$SSOLFDWLRQIRUOHDYHWRDGGXFHIXUWKHUHYLGHQFH
7HENAPPLYINGTOTHETRIALCOURTORANOTHERJUDGEOFADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT
FORLEAVETOAPPEAL ACONVICTEDPERSONMAYALSOAPPLYFORLEAVETOLEADFURTHER
EVIDENCES A )T IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT FINALITY BE REACHED IN
CRIMINALCASES/NCETHEFACTSHAVEBEENDECIDEDUPON THECASEWILLNOTLIGHTLY
BEREOPENEDCF$E*AGER 3!! 9USUF 3!! "ECAUSE
OF THE FINALITY PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL MATTERS IT IS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE
REGARDINGFURTHEREVIDENCETHATSUCHEVIDENCESHOULDBEALLOWEDINEXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCESONLY ALTHOUGHACERTAINMEASUREOFLENIENCYTOWARDSAPPLICATIONS
FORTHEHEARINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCEISAPPARENTINCERTAINCASES)NEXCEPTIONAL
CASESTHECOURTMIGHTCOMETOTHERELIEFOFTHEACCUSEDIFITISSATISFIEDTHATTHERE
IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT HE OR SHE WOULD NOT BE CONVICTED IF GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITYOFAFURTHERHEARING-YENDE 3!! .DWENI
3!#23#! /NTHISASPECT SEETHEDISCUSSIONBELOWUNDER@0OWERSOFTHE
!NAPPLICATIONFORFURTHEREVIDENCEMUSTBESUPPORTEDBYANAFFIDAVITSTATING
THAT
I FURTHEREVIDENCEWHICHWOULDPRESUMABLYBEACCEPTEDASTRUEISAVAILABLE
II IFACCEPTEDTHEEVIDENCECOULDREASONABLYLEADTOADIFFERENTVERDICTORSEN
TENCEAND
III THERE IS A REASONABLY ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE TRIAL CF S B 4HE FAILURE OF A LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVETOCALLAVAILABLEWITNESSESISNOTANACCEPTABLEEXPLANATION.
3!! 6ENTER 3!#2.#
4HEONUSOFSATISFYINGTHESEREQUIREMENTSRESTSUPONTHEAPPELLANT)TISNOTINTHE
INTERESTSOFTHEPROPERADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICETHATFURTHEREVIDENCESHOULDBE
ALLOWEDONAPPEAL ORTHATTHERESHOULDBEARETRIALFORTHEPURPOSEOFHEARINGTHAT
FURTHEREVIDENCE WHENTHEONLYFURTHEREVIDENCEWASTHATCONTAINEDINAFFIDAVITS
MADEAFTERTRIALANDCONVICTION BYPERSONSWHORECANTEDTHEEVIDENCETHEYGAVE
ATTHETRIAL3OMEGOODREASONHASTOBESHOWNWHYALIEWASTOLDINTHEFIRSTIN

#(!04%2r !00%!,
STANCE ANDAGOODREASONHASTOBEGIVENFORTHINKINGTHATTHEWITNESSWOULDTELL
THETRUTHONTHESECONDOCCASION( 3!#23#!
.ORMALLYTHECOURTSDEMANDTHATALLTHREEREQUIREMENTSBEFULFILLED!LTHOUGH
AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE MAY BE BROUGHT IN TERMS OF
S IT CAN BE MADE ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPETENT APPLICATION FOR
LEAVETOAPPEAL)FLEAVETOAPPEALHASBEENREFUSEDWITHFINALEFFECT ANAPPLICA
TION FOR LEAVE TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE IS INCOMPETENT%BRAHIM 3!
# 'AVANOZIS 3!7 &URTHERMORE THETRIALJUDGEISEMPOWERED
TOHEARSUCHEVIDENCEONLYANDNOTTOSETASIDETHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEEVEN
IFITISCLEARTHATTHECONVICTIONCANNOTSTAND-ASINDA 3!! AT
".EVERTHELESS THECOURTISENTITLEDTOEXPRESSANOPINIONONISSUESAFFECTED
BYTHENEWEVIDENCEANDTOFURNISHTHECOURTOFAPPEALWITHTHEREASONSFORSUCH
ANOPINION4SAWANE 3!!
4HECOURTGRANTINGANAPPLICATIONFORFURTHEREVIDENCEMUST
I RECEIVE THAT EVIDENCE AND FURTHER EVIDENCE RENDERED NECESSARY THEREBY IN
CLUDINGEVIDENCEINREBUTTALCALLEDBYTHEPROSECUTORANDEVIDENCECALLEDBY
THECOURTAND
II RECORDITSFINDINGSORVIEWSWITHREGARDTOTHATEVIDENCE INCLUDINGTHECO
GENCYANDTHESUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE ANDTHEDEMEANOURANDCREDIBILITY
OFANYWITNESSS C
!NY EVIDENCE RECEIVED UNDER S SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN APPEAL BE
DEEMEDTOBEEVIDENCETAKENORADMITTEDATTHETRIALINQUESTIONS )FAN
APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOCALLFURTHEREVIDENCEISREFUSED THEACCUSEDMAYJUSTAS
INTHECASEOFCONDONATIONORLEAVETOAPPEAL PETITIONTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3U
PREME#OURTOF!PPEALS
)FANACCUSEDDISCOVERSFURTHEREVIDENCEAFTERTHETRIALCOURTHASALREADYREFUSED
AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL THE REMEDY OF FURTHER EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF
S ISEXHAUSTED)FLEAVETOAPPEALWASGRANTEDBUTLEAVETOLEADFURTHEREVI
DENCEREFUSED ANACCUSEDMAYAPPROACHTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALINTERMS
OFS ANDTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYGRANTLEAVETOLEADFURTHEREVI
DENCE)F HOWEVER THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASALREADYREFUSEDAPETITIONFOR
LEAVETOLEADFURTHEREVIDENCEINTERMSOFS THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
HASNOJURISDICTIONTOACTANDTHEONLYREMEDYAVAILABLETOTHEACCUSEDISTHAT
CONTEMPLATEDBYS
$SSOLFDWLRQIRUFRQGRQDWLRQ
,EAVE TO APPEAL MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMITS UNLESS
CONDONATIONISOBTAINEDFORTHELATEFILINGOFNOTICEOFAPPEAL3ECTION PRO
VIDESFORANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALWITHINSUCHEXTENDEDPERIODSASMAY
ONGOODCAUSEBEALLOWED3EEALSOPARAGRAPHREGARDINGCONDONATIONANDTHE
REFERENCETOTHECASELAWMENTIONEDTHERE
)N 4SEDI 3! ! THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL THEN CALLED THE
!PPELLATE$IVISION TOOKINTOCONSIDERATIONTHEABSENCEOFANYPROSPECTOFSUCCESS
INREJECTINGTHEAPPELLANTSAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATION4HETESTOFWHETHERTHERE
AREREASONABLEPROSPECTSOFSUCCESSONAPPEALISALESSERONETHANTHATWHICHHAS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TOBEAPPLIEDINDECIDINGWHETHERTHEAPPEALOUGHTTOSUCCEEDORNOT.
3!#2! ATB nC +GOLANE 3!!
)FANAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATIONISREFUSED THEACCUSEDMAY WITHINAPERIOD
OFDAYSOFSUCHREFUSAL ORWITHINSUCHEXTENDEDPERIODSASMAYONGOODCAUSE
BEALLOWED BYPETITIONADDRESSEDTOTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
SUBMITHISORHERAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATIONS
5HIXVDORIDSSOLFDWLRQIRUOHDYHWRDSSHDO
0ETITIONPROCEDUREINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTAFTERREFUSALOFAP
PLICATION
7HEREANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTAJUDGMENT SENTENCEOROR
DERHANDEDDOWNBYAHIGHERCOURTANDORTOADDUCEFURTHEREVIDENCEAND
ORFORCONDONATION ISREFUSED THEACCUSEDHASANOTHERLEGALREMEDY NAMELY
TOAPPLYTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALFORLEAVETOAPPEAL3UCHAPPLICATION
MUSTBEMADEWITHINDAYSAFTERREFUSALBYTHE(IGH#OURT ANDISMADEBY
PETITIONADDRESSEDTOTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL)FTHEAC
CUSEDHASNOTAPPLIEDWITHINDAYS HEORSHEMAYONGOODCAUSEBEALLOWED
TOAPPLYLATERS
!PETITIONREFERREDTOINS INCLUDINGANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAP
PEAL MUSTBECONSIDEREDINCHAMBERSBYTWOJUDGESOFTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF !PPEAL DESIGNATED BY THE 0RESIDENT OF THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL )N
THECASEOFADIFFERENCEOFOPINION THEPETITIONSHALLALSOBECONSIDEREDBY
THE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORBYANYOTHERJUDGEOFTHE
3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL TO WHOM IT HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE PRESIDENT
S !NYDECISIONOFTHEMAJORITYOFTHEJUDGESCONSIDERINGTHEPETITION
SHALLBEDEEMEDTOBETHEDECISIONOFALLTHREEJUDGES
!LL APPLICATIONS CONTAINED IN A PETITION MUST BE DISPOSED OF AS FAR AS IS
POSSIBLE SIMULTANEOUSLY AND AS A MATTER OF URGENCY WHERE THE ACCUSED WAS
SENTENCED TO ANY FORM OF IMPRISONMENT THAT WAS NOT WHOLLY SUSPENDED
S
4HEJUDGESCONSIDERINGAPETITIONMAY INTERMSOFS
A CALL FOR ANY FURTHER INFORMATION INCLUDING A COPY OF THE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGSTHATWASLEGALLYNOTREQUIREDTOBESUBMITTEDSEES
C FROMTHEJUDGEWHOREFUSEDTHEAPPLICATIONINQUESTION ORFROMTHE
JUDGEWHOPRESIDEDATTHETRIALTOWHICHANYSUCHAPPLICATIONRELATES AS
THECASEMAYBEOR
B INEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES ORDERTHATTHEAPPLICATIONORAPPLICATIONS
INQUESTIONORANYOFTHEMBEARGUEDBEFORETHEMATATIMEANDPLACE
DETERMINEDBYTHEM
4HEJUDGESCONSIDERINGAPETITIONMAY
A INTHECASEOFANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL GRANTORREFUSETHEAP
PLICATIONAND
B IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION GRANT OR REFUSE THE
APPLICATION ANDIFTHEAPPLICATIONISGRANTED
I DIRECTTHATANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALMUSTBEMADE WITHIN
THEPERIODFIXEDBYTHEM TOTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOR

#(!04%2r !00%!,
II IFTHEYDEEMITEXPEDIENT DIRECTTHATANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAP

PEALMUSTBESUBMITTEDWITHINTHEPERIODFIXEDBYTHEMASIFITHAD
BEENREFUSEDBYTHESAIDDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTAND
C INTHECASEOFANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL SUBJECTTOPARAGRAPHD
GRANTORREFUSETHEAPPLICATIONAND
D IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE GRANT OR REFUSE THE
APPLICATION AND IFTHEAPPLICATIONISGRANTED THEJUDGESMAY BEFOREDE
CIDINGTHEAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL REMITTHEMATTERTOTHEDIVISION
OFTHE(IGH#OURTCONCERNEDINORDERTHATFURTHEREVIDENCEMAYBERE
CEIVEDOR
E INEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES REFERTHEPETITIONTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEALFORCONSIDERATION WHETHERUPONARGUMENTOROTHERWISE ANDTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYTHEREUPONDEALWITHTHEPETITIONINANY
MANNERREFERREDTOABOVE
.OTICEOFTHEDATEFIXEDFORTHEHEARINGOFANYAPPLICATIONUNDERTHISSEC
TION ANDOFANYTIMEANDPLACEDETERMINEDFORANYHEARING MUSTBEGIVENTO
THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSCONCERNEDANDTOTHEACCUSEDS
!PPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALINTERMSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTAFTERRE
FUSAL
3ECTION B OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTPROVIDESFORTHOSEINSTANCESWHERE
THEAPPLICANTHASTORELYONTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTIFLEAVE
TOAPPEALHASBEENREFUSED)FLEAVETOAPPEALINTERMSOFPARAGRAPH A
ISREFUSED ITMAYBEGRANTEDBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALONAPPLICATION
FILEDWITHTHEREGISTRAROFTHATCOURTWITHINONEMONTHAFTERSUCHREFUSAL OR
SUCHLONGERPERIODASMAYONGOODCAUSEBEALLOWED ANDTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALMAYVARYANYORDERASTOCOSTSMADEBYTHEJUDGEORJUDGESCON
CERNEDINREFUSINGLEAVE!NAPPLICATIONREFERREDTOABOVEMUSTBECONSIDERED
BYTWOJUDGESOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALDESIGNATEDBYTHE0RESIDENTOF
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAND INTHECASEOFADIFFERENCEOFOPINION ALSO
BYTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORANYOTHERJUDGEOFTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALLIKEWISEDESIGNATED
!PPEALONSPECIALENTRYOFIRREGULARITYORILLEGALITYTOTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEAL
)RREGULARPROCEEDINGSORPROCEEDINGSNOTACCORDINGTOLAWINALOWERCOURTMAYBE
TAKENONREVIEWBEFORETHE(IGH#OURT(OWEVER THEREISNOREVIEWPROCEDUREFOR
IRREGULARPROCEEDINGSOCCURRINGINATRIALBYAHIGHERCOURT4HISDOESNOTLEAVE
THEACCUSEDWITHOUTAREMEDYTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTMAKESPROVISIONFOR
ASO CALLEDSPECIALENTRYWHEREBYTHEACCUSEDMAY IFCONVICTED TAKEHISORHER
CASETOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL4HISPROCEDUREISNECESSARYBECAUSEANIR
REGULARITYWILLOFTENNOTAPPEARFROMTHERECORD ANDTHEACCUSEDWILLTHEREFORE
NOTBEABLETORELYONITIFHEORSHETAKESTHECASEONAPPEAL7ITHASPECIALENTRY
THEACCUSEDMAYREQUESTDURINGORAFTERTHETRIALTHATTHEIRREGULARITYBEENTERED
ONTHERECORD.ATURALLY THETRIALJUDGEHIMSELFORHERSELFWILLHAVETOCONSIDER
THEAPPLICATIONBASEDONTHEALLEGEDIRREGULARITYANDTHISMAYINFLUENCEHIMOR
HERINHISORHERDECISION)N6ANDER7ESTHUIZEN 3!#23#! THECOURT
HELDTHATWHEREASPECIALENTRYINTERMSOFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ISSOUGHTONTHEBASISTHATTHECROSS EXAMINATIONOFA3TATEWITNESSWASUNJUSTIFI
ABLYCURTAILED THECOURTCANAVOIDMAKINGASPECIALENTRYBYRECALLINGTHEWITNESS
FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION )N $E 6RIES 3!#2 3#! AT ;= THE
COURTREITERATEDTHATTHEPURPOSEOFASPECIALENTRYISTHERECORDINGOFIRREGULARI
TIESAFFECTINGTHETRIALBUTNOTAPPEARINGFROMTHERECORD!NATTACKONTHERULING
OFACOURTDOESNOTQUALIFYASSUCH
4WOTYPESOFIRREGULARITYAREPOSSIBLETHOSERELATINGTOTHETRIAL ANDTHOSETHAT
ARISE DURING THE TRIAL &OR EXAMPLE THE FIRST TYPE OF IRREGULARITY FOR EXAMPLE IS
WHERE AN ASSESSOR GAINED EXTRA CURIAL INFORMATION DETRIMENTAL TO THE ACCUSED
WHICHWILLHAVETOBEPROVEDBYEVIDENCE-ATSEGO 3!! 3EEALSO
3ULIMAN 3!! )NTHELATTERTYPEOFIRREGULARITY WHICHAROSEDURING
THETRIAL AREFUSALOFTHEJUDGETOALLOWPROPERCROSS EXAMINATION ASINTHECASEOF
(ESLOP 3!#23#! COULDJUSTIFYASPECIALENTRY BUTALSOANORDINARY
APPEALONGROUNDSOFINFRINGEMENTOFANACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL7HERETHE
PROSECUTIONFAILSTODISCLOSEAMATERIALDIVERGENCEFROMTHEWITNESSESSTATEMENTS
ITISANIRREGULARITYINTHEPROCEEDINGSFORTHEPURPOSESOFS 8ABA
3!! 7HERETHEIRREGULARITYINQUESTIONCLEARLYAPPEARSEXFACIETHERECORD
ANDAGENERALANDUNQUALIFIEDLEAVETOAPPEALHASBEENGRANTED ITISUNNECESSARY
FORASPECIALENTRYTOBEMADEINTHATRESPECT.CAPHAYI 3!#2!
8ABAABOVE
3ECTION PROVIDESTHATIFANACCUSEDISOFTHEVIEWTHATANYOFTHEPRO
CEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH OR DURING HIS OR HER TRIAL BEFORE THE (IGH #OURT
WEREIRREGULARORNOTACCORDINGTOLAWHEORSHEMAY DURINGTHETRIALORWITHIN
APERIODOFDAYSAFTERTHECONVICTION APPLYFORASPECIALENTRYTOBEMADEON
THERECORDSTATINGINWHATRESPECTTHEPROCEEDINGSAREALLEGEDTOBEIRREGULAROR
NOTACCORDINGTOLAW4HECOURTISBOUNDTOMAKESUCHASPECIALENTRYUPONSUCH
APPLICATION UNLESSTHECOURTORJUDGETOWHOMTHEAPPLICATIONISMADEISOFTHE
OPINIONTHATTHEAPPLICATIONISNOTMADEBONAFIDEORTHATITISFRIVOLOUSORABSURD
ORTHATTHEGRANTINGOFTHEAPPLICATIONWOULDBEANABUSEOFTHEPROCESSOFTHE
COURTS 3EFATSAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL 3!4 3ECTION
ISCONCERNEDWITHIRREGULARITIESORILLEGALITIESINRESPECTOFPROCEDURE1UESTIONS
OFLAWCANNOT THEREFORE FORMTHESUBJECTOFASPECIALENTRY
)FASPECIALENTRYISMADEONTHERECORD THEACCUSEDMAY IFCONVICTED APPEALTO
THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINSTCONVICTIONONTHEGROUNDOFTHEIRREGULARITY
ORILLEGALITY4HEACCUSEDMUST WITHINDAYSAFTERTHEENTRYISMADEORWITHIN
SUCHEXTENDEDPERIODSASMAYONGOODCAUSESHOWNBEALLOWED GIVENOTICEOF
APPEALTOTHEREGISTRAROFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALANDTOTHEREGISTRAROFTHE
APPROPRIATEDIVISIONS
)FTHEACCUSEDFAILSTOMAKETHEAPPLICATIONWITHINTHEPRESCRIBEDPERIODOF
DAYS HEORSHEMAYONGOODCAUSESHOWNBEALLOWEDTOAPPLYFORCONDONATION
ANDTOMAKETHEAPPLICATIONLATERS 5SUALLYANAPPLICATIONFORASPECIAL
ENTRYISMADETOTHEJUDGEWHOPRESIDEDATTHETRIAL BUTITMAYALSOBEMADETO
ANOTHERJUDGEOFTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOFWHICHTHEPRESIDINGJUDGEWAS
AMEMBERS 4HETERMSOFASPECIALENTRYARESETTLEDBYTHECOURTWHICHOR
THEJUDGEWHOGRANTSTHEAPPLICATIONS )NRESPECTOFTHEFORMALREQUIRE
MENTS CONCERNING THE WORDING OF A SPECIAL ENTRY SEE +ROON 3!#2
3#!

#(!04%2r !00%!,
)FANAPPLICATIONFORASPECIALENTRYISREFUSED THEACCUSEDMAY WITHINAPERIOD

OFDAYSOFSUCHREFUSALORWITHINSUCHEXTENDEDPERIODSASMAYONGOODCAUSE
SHOWNBEALLOWED BYPETITIONADDRESSEDTOTHEPRESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEAL APPLYTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALFORASPECIALENTRYTOBEMADE
ONTHERECORD4HESAMEAPPLIESTOAREFUSALOFANAPPLICATIONFORCONDONATIONS
4HEPETITIONPROCEDUREDISCUSSEDABOVEAPPLIESMUTATISMUTANDIS7HERE
ANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALHASBEENREFUSEDBYTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEAL THEACCUSEDMAYNOT ONTHESAMEGROUNDS APPLYFORASPECIAL
ENTRYTOBEMADE3ERUMULA 3!! 3EEALSO3WANEPOEL 3!
!
)NCONSIDERINGTHEAPPEALONASPECIALENTRYTHECOURTMUSTHEEDTHEPROVISO
TOS INTERMSOFWHICHTHEACCUSEDSCONVICTIONANDSENTENCEARENOTTOBE
SETASIDEBYREASONOFTHEIRREGULARITYUNLESSITAPPEARSTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEALTHATAFAILUREOFJUSTICEHASINFACTRESULTEDFROMTHEIRREGULARITY4HEQUES
TIONWOULDTHENBEWHETHERTHEIRREGULARITYINQUESTIONISOFTHEKINDTHATPERSE
VITIATESTHEPROCEEDINGSASIN-OODIE 3!! ORWHETHERITISOFTHE
KIND ASIN.AIDOO 3!! WHICHREQUIRESCONSIDERATIONOFWHETHER
ON THE EVIDENCE AND CREDIBILITY FINDINGS UNAFFECTED BY THE IRREGULARITY THERE
WASPROOFOFTHEACCUSEDSGUILTBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT8ABAABOVE n
.CAPHAYI ABOVE 4HE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISO CONTAINED IN S IS
DISCUSSEDBELOWINPARA
2ESERVATIONOFQUESTIONSOFLAW
)TOFTENHAPPENSTHATINTHECOURSEOFATRIALINADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTA
QUESTION OF LAW RELATIVE TO THAT PARTICULAR CASE MAY ARISE 4HE COURT ITSELF MAY
BE UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE LAW REGARDING A PARTICULAR POINT FOR EXAMPLE WHETHER
SPECIFICEVIDENCEISADMISSIBLE ORWHETHERCERTAINACTIONSCONSTITUTEACRIMECF
#OETZEE 3!! 3EEALSO'OLIATH 3!! WHERETHEQUESTION
OFLAW ASTOWHETHERTHEDEFENCEOFCOMPULSIONCOULDEVERINLAWCONSTITUTESUCH
ACOMPLETEDEFENCETOACHARGEOFMURDERASTOENTITLEANACCUSEDTOANACQUITTAL
WASRESERVED)FSUCHAQUESTIONOFLAWARISESDURINGATRIALINTHE(IGH#OURT
THE COURT MAY OF ITS OWN MOTION OR AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER THE PROSECUTOR OR
THEACCUSED RESERVETHATQUESTIONFORTHECONSIDERATIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEAL4HECOURTTHENSTATESTHEQUESTIONRESERVED ANDDIRECTSTHATITBESPECIAL
LYENTEREDINTHERECORDANDTHATACOPYOFITBETRANSMITTEDTOTHEREGISTRAROFTHE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALS 4HEPRIMARYBENEFITTODAYOFTHISPROCEDURE
WHEREBYAQUESTIONOFLAWISRESERVED ISTHATITPROVIDESTHE3TATEWITHTHESAME
OPPORTUNITYTOAPPEALONAPOINTOFLAWASITHASWHENITAPPEALSADECISIONOFA
LOWERCOURTONAPOINTOFLAWINTERMSOFS4HESECTIONISOFLITTLEUSETOTHE
ACCUSED ASHEORSHEMAYRAISETHESAMEPOINTSINANORDINARYAPPEALINTERMS
OFS
4HEGROUNDSUPONWHICHANYEXCEPTIONOROBJECTIONTOANINDICTMENTISTAKEN
AREDEEMEDTOBEQUESTIONSOFLAWWHICHMAYBERESERVEDS 4HEINTER
PRETATIONOFSRAISESACONSTITUTIONALMATTER"ASSON 3!#2##
AT;=4HEREFUSALOFATRIALJUDGETORECUSEHIMSELFORHERSELFFROMTHETRIALISA
QUESTIONOFLAWBECAUSEITISTHESOCIALJUDGMENTOFTHECOURTOR DIFFERENTLYPUT A
JURISTICNORMATIVEEVALUATIONONTHEPARTOFTHECOURTAPPLYINGCOMMONMORALITY

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ANDCOMMONSENSE INDECIDINGWHETHERTHEREASONABLEPERSONWOULDREASONABLY
HAVEAPPREHENDEDTHATTHETRIALJUDGEWOULDBEPARTIALINHISORHERADJUDICATION
OFTHECASE4HECORRECTNESSOFSUCHANEVALUATIONMUSTRAISEAQUESTIONOFLAW
"ASSONABOVE AT;=n;=4HEREFUSALOFTHETRIALCOURTTOPERMITABAILRECORDTO
BEADMITTEDASEVIDENCEISALSOAQUESTIONOFLAW ASTHEADMISSIBILITYCHALLENGE
REQUIRESTHATTHEFACTSBEDETERMINEDFIRSTANDTHENBEMEASUREDAGAINSTTHETEST
OFFAIRNESSINORDERTODETERMINEADMISSIBILITY4HESECONDENQUIRYISAQUESTION
OFLAW"ASSON 3!#2## AT;=n;=
4HEREQUIREMENTSFORRESERVINGAQUESTIONOFLAWINTERMSOFTHISSECTIONWERE
AGAINEMPHASISEDIN$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS .ATALV-AGIDELA 3!#2
3#! 4HEYARETHEFOLLOWING
/NLYAQUESTIONOFLAWMAYBERESERVED7HETHERFACTSASFOUNDBYTHECOURT
OR FACTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND GIVE RISE TO AN OFFENCE HAVING BEEN
COMMITTED ISAQUESTIONOFLAW(OWEVER THEREMUSTBECERTAINTYCONCERNING
THEFACTSONWHICHTHELEGALPOINTSAREINTENDEDTOHINGE4HISREQUIRESTHE
COURTTORECORDTHEFACTUALFINDINGSONWHICHTHEPOINTOFLAWISDEPENDENT
4HE QUESTION OF LAW MUST ACCORDING TO S ARISE DURING OR @ON TRIAL IN A
DIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT4HISMEANSTHATTHELEGALPOINTMUSTBEAPPARENT
FROMTHERECORD FORIFITISNOT ITCANNOTBESAIDTHATTHEQUESTIONHASARISEN
FROMTHERECORDCFALSO-ULAYO 3!! !CCORDINGLY THE3TATE
WOULDNOTBEABLETORESERVEAQUESTIONOFLAWINRELATIONTOADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS FOREXAMPLE WHENAFORFEITUREORDERISMADEANDTHE3TATEISDISSATIS
FIEDWITHTHEORDER0INEIRO 3!#2.M
4HEQUESTIONMUSTBERAISEDBYTHECOURTOFITSOWNACCORDORATTHEREQUEST
OFTHEPROSECUTORORTHEACCUSED INWHICHEVENTTHECOURTSHOULD@STATETHE
QUESTIONRESERVEDANDDIRECTSTHATITBEENTEREDINTHERECORD7HERETHETRIAL
COURTREFUSESTORESERVEAQUESTIONOFLAW THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAY
IFTHEREISAREASONABLEPROSPECTTHATANERRORINLAWWASMADE RESERVEAQUES
TIONOFLAWFORCONSIDERATIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALONAPPLICATION
BYTHE3TATE!NAPPLICATIONWHICHISOFMEREACADEMICINTERESTANDWHICH
WILLBRINGNORELIEFFORTHE3TATEIFITISFOUNDTHATALEGALERRORHASBEENMADE
WILLNOTRECEIVESUCHCONSIDERATIONBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL"ASSON
3!#23#!
4HEJUDGEMUSTACCURATELYEXPRESSTHELEGALPOINTHEORSHEHADINMIND ES
PECIALLYIFTHEQUESTIONSOFLAWARERESERVEDONTHEMOTIONOFTHEJUDGE
!REQUESTFORTHERESERVATIONOFAQUESTIONOFLAWMUSTBEMADEAFTERCONCLU
SIONOFTHETRIALIE AFTERTHECONVICTIONORTHEACQUITTAL !DAMS 3!
! -ENE 3!! (OWEVER THE!DAMSRULEDOESNOTBARTHE
PROSECUTIONORTHEACCUSEDFROMREQUESTINGARESERVATIONOFAQUESTIONOFLAW
RELATINGTOTHEQUASHINGOFCHARGESORTHETRIALCOURTSDECISIONTOUPHOLDOR
TODISMISSANOBJECTIONTOACHARGE"ASSON 3!#2## AT;=
ORFROMRESERVINGAQUESTIONOFLAWONTHECOURTSJURISDICTIONINRESPECTOF
ASPECIFICMATTER"OEKHOUD 3!#23#! ACASETHATDEALTWITH
EXTRATERRITORIALJURISDICTIONOFACOURT !QUESTIONOFLAWCANBEBROUGHTBY
THE ACCUSED ONLY IF CONVICTED AND SINCE A VERDICT IN TERMS OF S THAT
THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE OFFENCE CHARGED BUT WAS MENTALLY DISORDERED
AMOUNTSTOANACQUITTAL AQUESTIONOFLAWCANNOTBERESERVEDBYTHEACCUSED
WHERESUCHAVERDICTHASBEENMADE.GEMA#ELE 3!!

#(!04%2r !00%!,
4HEREMUSTHAVEBEENANACTUALTRIAL)N4UCKER 3!! ITWASDE

CIDEDTHATEVENWITHAPLEAOFGUILTYATRIALTAKESPLACEWITHINTHEMEANINGOF
THESECTION
3ECTIONDOESNOTMAKEPROVISIONFORANYPERIODOFTIMEWITHINWHICHTHE
APPLICATIONMUSTBEBROUGHT4HEFURTHERPROCEDURETOBEFOLLOWEDWHENAQUES
TIONOFLAWISRESERVEDFORTHEMATTERTOBESETDOWNFORHEARINGINTHE3UPREME
#OURT OF !PPEAL IS THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF A SPECIAL ENTRY 7HEN THE TRIAL
COURTREFUSESTORESERVEAQUESTIONOFLAWATTHEREQUESTOFTHEACCUSEDORTHE
3TATE THEACCUSEDORTHE3TATEMAY BYPETITIONTOTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME
#OURT OF !PPEAL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEALS
READWITHS
7HERETHEACCUSEDWASCONVICTED AQUESTIONOFLAWMAYNOTBERESERVEDTHAT
COULDHAVEANADVERSEEFFECTUPONTHEACCUSEDINRESPECTOFSUCHCONVICTION
!QUESTIONOFLAWCANTHUSBERESERVEDONTHEAPPLICATIONOFTHEPROSECUTORIN
THEFOLLOWINGINSTANCESONLY
7HERETHEREHASBEENANACQUITTAL4HERESTRICTIONTOAFINDINGOFANACQUIT
TALISTOBEFOUNDINTHEWORDINGOFS "Y@ACQUITTALISMEANTACOM
PLETEACQUITTAL WHICHISAFINDINGWHEREBYTHEACCUSEDISSETFREECOMPLETELY
! QUESTION OF LAW CANNOT BE RESERVED WHERE AN ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY IN
TERMSOFACOMPETENTVERDICT3EEKOEI 3!! (OWEVER THECOURT
IN3EEKOEIDIDNOTDECIDETHEISSUEWHETHERANACQUITTALONTHEMAINCHARGE
ANDACONVICTIONONANALTERNATIVECHARGECOULDBECONSIDEREDASACOMPLETE
ACQUITTAL)N$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS 'AUTENGV0ISTORIUS 3!#2
3#! THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALQUESTIONEDTHECORRECTNESSOF3EEKOEI
ABOVE ANDHELDTHATACONVICTIONONACOMPETENTVERDICTISTOBEREGARDED
ASANACQUITTALONTHEMAINCOUNT)TDOESNOTPROHIBITANAPPEALBYTHE3TATE
ONAQUESTIONOFLAWRESERVED ASITISALEGALQUESTION4HECOURTALSOHELDTHAT
THETRIALCOURTSINCORRECTAPPLICATIONOFTHELEGALPRINCIPLESOFDOLUSEVENTUA
LISCONSTITUTEDANERROROFLAW)FTHEPROSECUTIONSUCCEEDSONAPPEALONAN
ACQUITTAL THEPROVISIONSOFS WILLAPPLY4HISMEANSTHATTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALMAYALLOWTHEACCUSEDTOBERE INDICTEDINTERMSOFSOR
INTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE MAKENOORDER ASWASDONEINTHECASEOF-AGMOED
V*ANSE6AN2ENSBURG 3!#2# AND ONAPPEAL -AGMOEDV*ANSE
6AN 2ENSBURG 3!#2 ! ABOVE 4HE QUESTION OF LAW MAY NOT BE
ACADEMICBUTMUSTHAVEAPRACTICALEFFECTINTHATTHEREMUSTBEAREASONABLE
PROSPECTOFTHEACCUSEDBEINGCONVICTEDWEREITNOTFORTHEMISTAKEOFLAW
-AGMOED
7HERE A COURT QUASHES AN INDICTMENT ALLOWING THE 3TATE A RIGHT OF APPEAL
PURSUANTTOITSDUTYTOPROSECUTE"ASSON 3!#2## 3EEALSO
0ILLAY 3!#23#!
7HERE THERE HAS BEEN A CONVICTION AND THE QUESTION OF LAW MAY BE TO THE
ADVANTAGEOFTHEACCUSED3OLOMONS 3!! !DAMS 3!
! AT'n(
7HERETHEQUESTIONOFLAWMAYHAVEABEARINGUPONTHEVALIDITYOFTHESEN
TENCE IMPOSED )N .TULI 3! ! THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
SANCTIONEDTHERIGHTOFTHE3TATETOASKFORARESERVATIONOFAQUESTIONOFLAW
ADVERSETOTHEACCUSED INRELATIONTOASENTENCEWHICHWASINCOMPETENT
!
PPEALBYTHEPROSECUTIONTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
$SSHDODJDLQVWDGHFLVLRQE\DGLYLVLRQRIWKH+LJK&RXUWRQEDLO
'ENERALLY THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTDOESNOTALLOWTHEPROSECUTION INRESPECT
OFACRIMINALTRIALHELDINA(IGH#OURTORINALOWERCOURT TOAPPEALAGAINSTA
DECISIONONTHEMERITSORFACTSOFACASE ANDCONSEQUENTLYNOPROVISIONISMADE
FORANAPPLICATIONBYTHEPROSECUTIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALONTHEFACTS/NLYTHE
ACCUSED PERSON MAY APPEAL ON THE MERITS OF A CASE AND SIMILARLY ONLY AN AC
CUSED MAY APPLY FOR A SPECIAL ENTRY (OWEVER THE POSITION HAS BEEN CHANGED
BYTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE3ECOND!MENDMENT!CTOF WHICHINSERTED
S ! INTO THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT )N TERMS OF THIS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONSMAYAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINSTTHEDECISIONOF
ADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTTORELEASEANACCUSEDONBAIL!DECISIONOFACOURT
TO GRANT BAIL IS BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS AND AN APPEAL AGAINST SUCH A DECISION IS
CONSEQUENTLY INHERENTLY ANAPPEALONTHEFACTS4HEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECU
TIONSHASTOAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEALINTERMSOFSANDALLTHEPROVISIONSOF
SAPPLYMUTATISMUTANDIS)TISSUGGESTEDTHATTHISRIGHTOFTHEPROSECUTIONTO
APPEALAGAINSTAFACTUALDECISIONISSUIGENERISANDISNOTTOBESEENASAPROCESSOF
EROSIONOFDUEPROCESSOFLAWINOURADVERSARIALSYSTEM4HECOURTMAYORDERTHE
PROSECUTIONTOPAYTHEACCUSEDSCOSTTODEFENDSUCHANAPPEALORTHEAPPLICATION
FORLEAVETOAPPEALS! C
$SSHDOVOLPLWHGWRTXHVWLRQVRIODZ
)N RESPECT OF LEGAL ISSUES THE PROSECUTION MAY LIKE AN ACCUSED APPLY FOR THE
RESERVATION OF A QUESTION OF LAW FOR DECISION BY THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL
0REVIOUSLYAQUESTIONOFLAWCOULDBERESERVEDONLYWHENITMIGHTRESULTINADECI
SIONINFAVOUROFTHEACCUSEDSEE(ERBST!$ BUTSINCEITHASALSO
BEENPOSSIBLETORESERVEAQUESTIONOFLAWWHERETHEFINALDECISIONOFTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALMAYBEINTHEPROSECUTIONSFAVOUR3EE'ANI 3!!
3HOULDADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTGIVEADECISIONINFAVOUROFANACCUSEDON
THEFACTSANDNOTONTHELAW THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALWILLSTRIKETHEAPPEAL
OFFTHEROLLONTHEGROUNDTHATITWASINCOMPETENTFORTHEPROSECUTIONTOAPPEAL
(OWEVER SHOULDITAPPEARFROMTHERECORDTHATTHECOURTGAVEADECISIONINFAVOUR
OFTHEACCUSEDONAMATTEROFLAW ITISTHEDUTYOFTHEDIRECTORORTHENATIONAL
DIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSTOCONSIDERWHETHERORNOTTHECOURTERREDINLAW
SEE!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAALV-OORES3! 0TY ,TD 3!!
4HEDIRECTOROROTHERPROSECUTOR MAYINTERMSOFSAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALONAPOINTOFLAWAGAINSTADECISIONGIVENINFAVOUROFACONVICTED
ACCUSEDONANAPPEALORIGINATINGFROMALOWERCOURT4ODECIDEWHETHERAQUES
TIONOFLAWWASDECIDEDINTHEACCUSEDSFAVOUR THEJUDGMENTOFTHEDIVISIONOF
THE(IGH#OURTCONCERNEDISRELIEDUPON3PECIALLEAVETOAPPEALWILLFIRSTHAVE
TOBEOBTAINEDFROMTHEAPPROPRIATECOURT)NORDERFORTHECOURTTOGRANTLEAVETO
APPEALTOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL ACASEMUSTBEMADEOUTBASEDONLEGAL
ARGUMENTSOFWHATTHELEGALQUESTIONSARECF-OSTERD 3!#24

#(!04%2r !00%!,
7HERETHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALDECIDESINFAVOUROFTHEPROSECUTION ITMAY
ORDERTHATAPROSECUTIONBEINSTITUTEDDENOVOAGAINSTTHEACCUSED4HE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALCANNOTSUBSTITUTEACONVICTIONFORANACQUITTAL3EES READ
WITHS7HENTHEAPPEALISBROUGHTBEFORETHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALIN
TERMS OF S THE POWERS THAT THIS COURT EXERCISES IN DECIDING THE MATTER IN
FAVOUROFTHEAPPELLANT DEPENDUPONWHETHERITWASTHEDIRECTOROROTHERPROS
ECUTOR ORTHEACCUSEDWHOORIGINALLYAPPEALEDAGAINSTTHEDECISIONOFTHELOWER
COURT)FTHEACCUSEDHADSUCCESSFULLYAPPEALEDAGAINSTTHELOWERCOURTSDECISION
AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN TURN HAD SUCCEEDED WITH AN APPEAL
TOTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALINTERMSOFS ITMAYRESTORETHECONVICTION
SENTENCEORORDEROFTHELOWERCOURTWHETHERINITSORIGINALFORMORINAMENDED
FORMS A (OWEVER IFTHEDIRECTORORIGINALLYAPPEALEDTOTHEDIVISIONAND
THEAPPEALWASNOTUPHELD BUTSUCCEEDEDONASUBSEQUENTAPPEALTOTHE3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEAL THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMUSTGIVESUCHDECISIONORTAKE
SUCHSTEPSASTHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTOUGHTTOHAVETAKEN S B
4HE PROSECUTION AUTHORITY MAY APPROACH THE -INISTER OF *USTICE TO INVOKE
THEDECISIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALINTERMSOFS!LTHOUGHS
DOESNOTALLOWTHEPROSECUTIONAREMEDY BUTALLOWSTHEMINISTERTOINVOKETHE
3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEALS DECISION SEE DISCUSSION OF S IN #HAPTER THE
MINISTERWOULDBEWILLINGTOEXERCISEHISORHERRIGHTSINTERMSOFTHESAIDSECTION
ESPECIALLY WHERE THE PROSECUTION HAS EXHAUSTED ITS REMEDIES AND LEGAL UNCER
TAINTYEXISTSREGARDINGTHECORRECTNESSOFACERTAINDECISION)N%XPARTE-INISTER
VAN *USTISIE )N RE 3 V 3UID !FRIKAANSE 5ITSAAIKORPORASIE 3!#2 ! THE
3TATEHADTOAPPROACHTHEMINISTERREGARDINGANUNCERTAINTYINTHELAWCONCERN
INGADECISIONOFADIVISIONINRESPECTOFTHELIABILITYOFACOMPANYFORACRIME
THATREQUIRESPROOFOFNEGLIGENCEONLY4HEACCUSEDWASFOUNDNOTGUILTYINTHE
LOWERCOURTANDTHEPROSECUTIONSAPPEALWASDISMISSED$UETOTHEREQUIREMENT
INS THATADECISIONMUSTHAVEBEENGIVENINFAVOUROFACONVICTEDACCUSED
THE3TATESREMEDIESWEREEXHAUSTEDANDAPPROACHINGTHEMINISTERWASTHEONLY
ALTERNATIVELEFT#ONFLICTINGJUDGMENTSINTHECOURTSMAYINTERMSOFS A II
OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTBEACOMPELLINGREASONFORALLOWINGLEAVETOAPPEAL
$SSHDODJDLQVWDVHQWHQFHLPSRVHGE\DGLYLVLRQRIWKH+LJK&RXUW
4HEPROSECUTIONMAYALSOAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEALAGAINSTASENTENCEIMPOSEDBY
ADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT INRESPECTOFWHICHS"PROVIDESTHATTHEDIREC
TOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS MAY APPEAL TO THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL AGAINST
ASENTENCEIMPOSEDUPONANACCUSEDINACRIMINALCASEINA(IGH#OURT,EAVE
TO APPEAL MUST BE OBTAINED AND THE PROVISIONS OF S ARE APPLICABLE MUTATIS
MUTANDIS4HE3TATEMAYBEORDEREDTOPAYTHECOSTSOFTHEACCUSEDS"
4HE3TATEMAYNOTARGUEFORANINCREASEOFSENTENCEINTERMSOFTHECOMMON LAW
RULEOFPRACTICETHATALLOWEDTHE3TATETOGIVENOTICEOFITSINTENTIONTOINCREASE
THESENTENCEINITSHEADSOFARGUMENT7HERETHEACCUSEDINITIATEDTHEAPPEAL
THE3TATEMUSTINTERMSOFS"OR!ASKFORLEAVETOCROSS APPEALTHESEN
TENCE.ABOLISA 3!#2## ATPARAGRAPH;=BUTSEETHECONTRARY
VIEWPOINTINTHEMINORITYJUDGMENTBY3KWEYIYA*

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
0OWERSOFCOURTONHEARINGOFAPPEALS
)NTERMSSOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALORA
DIVISIONEXERCISINGAPPEALJURISDICTIONMAY INADDITIONTOANYPOWERITMAY
SPECIFICALLYBEPROVIDEDWITHBYANYOTHERLAWSUCHASTHOSEPRESCRIBEDBY
THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
A DISPOSEOFANAPPEALWITHOUTTHEHEARINGOFORALARGUMENT
B RECEIVEFURTHEREVIDENCE
C REMITTHECASETOTHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE ORTOTHECOURTWHOSEDECISION
ISTHESUBJECTOFTHEAPPEAL FORFURTHERHEARING WITHSUCHINSTRUCTIONSAS
REGARDSTHETAKINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCEOROTHERWISEASTHE3UPREME#OURT
OF!PPEALORTHEDIVISIONDEEMSNECESSARYOR
D CONFIRM AMENDORSETASIDETHEDECISIONWHICHISTHESUBJECTOFTHEAP
PEALANDRENDERANYDECISIONWHICHTHECIRCUMSTANCESMAYREQUIRE
4HECOURTSPOWERSINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTARESUBJECTTOTHE
PROVISOINSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTINTHAT EVENIFTHECOURTOF
APPEALISOFTHEOPINIONTHATANYPOINTRAISEDMIGHTBEDECIDEDINFAVOUROF
THEACCUSED NOCONVICTIONORSENTENCESHALLBESETASIDEORALTEREDBYREASON
OFANYIRREGULARITYORDEFECTINTHERECORDORPROCEEDINGS UNLESSITAPPEARSTOTHE
COURTOFAPPEALTHATAFAILUREOFJUSTICEHASINFACTRESULTEDFROMSUCHIRREGU
LARITYORDEFECTS 4HEPROVISORELATESTOANIRREGULARITYINTHERECORD
ORTHEPROCEEDINGS3UCHANIRREGULARITYISOFTHEKINDSETOUTINS )R
REGULARITIESORDEFECTSRESULTINGFROMINFRINGEMENTSOFCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS
SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISO AS THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS PER SE A
FAILUREOFJUSTICEVIOLATINGAFAIRTRIAL#OMPARE0RETORIUS 3!#2
! WHERETHETRIALCOURTMISDIRECTEDITSELFINDISALLOWINGCERTAINCROSS EXAM
INATION4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHELD BASEDONTHEEVIDENCE THATSUCH
AMISDIRECTIONISNOTAN@IRREGULARITYORDEFECTINTHERECORDORPROCEEDINGS
ASINTENDEDINTHEPROVISOTOS 4HEPROVISORELATESONLYTOIRREGULAROR
ILLEGAL DEPARTURES FROM THOSE FORMALITIES RULES OR PROCEDURE IN ACCORDANCE
WITHWHICHTHELAWREQUIRESACRIMINALTRIALTOBEINITIATEDORCONDUCTED
-OFOKENG 3!! AT'!LEXANDER 3!! AT
3EEALSOPARABELOW @3ETTINGASIDEORALTERATIONOFCONVICTIONONGROUND
OFIRREGULARITY
4HECOURTOFAPPEALHASTHEPOWERINTERMSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTTO
IMPOSEAPUNISHMENTMORESEVERETHANTHATIMPOSEDBYTHECOURTAQUO
S 0RIOR TO THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL COULD NOT INCREASE A
SENTENCEIMPOSEDBYA(IGH#OURT ALTHOUGHITHADTHEPOWERTOINCREASEA
SENTENCE IN A CASE WHICH ORIGINATED IN A LOWER COURTSEE $EETLEFS
3!! 4HEUNISSEN 3!! -OFOKENG 3!! 4HE
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISSTILLVESTEDWITHTHEPOWERTOINCREASEASENTENCE
ONAPPEAL EVENWHERENOAPPEALAGAINSTSENTENCEHASBEENLODGED#ITIZEN
.EWSPAPERS0TY ,TD 3!! 4HEPRINCIPLESRELEVANTTOANINCREASE
OFASENTENCEARETHESAMEASTHOSEMENTIONEDUNDERTHEPOWERSOFTHE(IGH
#OURT.OTICEMUSTBEGIVENTOTHEAPPELLANTIFANINCREASEISCONTEMPLATED
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASNOJURISDICTIONTOCONSIDERASENTENCEIM
POSEDBYALOWERCOURTIFANAPPEALAGAINSTTHESENTENCEWASNOTLODGEDWITH
THE(IGH#OURT4HEREASONISSIMPLYTHATTHEREWASNODECISIONONAPPEAL

#(!04%2r !00%!,
BYA(IGH#OURTINRESPECTOFTHESENTENCEANDTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
MAYNOTBEAPPROACHEDDIRECTLYFROMTHELOWERCOURT-AEPA 3!
!
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALHASTHEPOWERTOREMITTHECASEFORTHEHEAR
INGOFFURTHEREVIDENCEORTOHEARFURTHEREVIDENCEITSELF'ENERALLYSPEAKING
THEREMUSTBEAPOSSIBILITY AMOUNTINGALMOSTTOAPROBABILITY THATAMISCAR
RIAGE OF JUSTICE WILL TAKE PLACE UNLESS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS LED3ITTIG
40$AT&AIRNESSDICTATESTHATALLRELEVANTINFORMATIONBEARING
ONTHEAPPLICANTSGUILTORINNOCENCESHOULDBEBEFORETHETRIALCOURTTOEN
ABLEITTODETERMINETHETRUEFACTS TOPREVENTANINJUSTICEEITHERTOTHEAP
PLICANTSORTHE3TATE.DWENI 3!#23#! )N$E*AGER
3!! THEREQUIREMENTSREGARDINGTHEHEARINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCEWERE
SUMMARISEDASFOLLOWS SIMILARTOTHOSEEMBODIEDINS
I 4HERESHOULDBESOMEREASONABLYSUFFICIENTEXPLANATION BASEDONALLEGA
TIONSWHICHMAYBETRUE WHYTHEEVIDENCEWHICHITISSOUGHTTOLEADWAS
NOTLEDATTHETRIAL
II 4HERESHOULDBEAPRIMAFACIELIKELIHOODOFTHETRUTHOFTHEEVIDENCE
III 4HEEVIDENCESHOULDBEMATERIALLYRELEVANTTOTHEOUTCOMEOFTHETRIAL
IV )N APPROPRIATE CASES THE 3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALNEVERTHELESSHASTHE
POWERTORELAXSTRICTCOMPLIANCEWITHTHEFIRSTREQUISITEMENTIONEDABOVE
BUTITWILLONLYINRAREINSTANCESEXERCISETHATPOWER.JABA 3!
! ABOVEANDSEE,EHNBERG 3!#
!NAPPLICATIONFORTHEHEARINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCEINTERMSOFSOFTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS!CTDIFFERSFROMANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOLEADFURTHEREVIDENCEINTERMS
OFS OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT)NTERMSOFS LEAVETOLEADFURTHER
EVIDENCEMAYBEAPPLIEDFORINCOMBINATIONWITHANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAP
PEALONLY)NTERMSOFTHISSECTION APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOHEARFURTHEREVIDENCE
MAYNOTBEBROUGHTONITSOWN)FLEAVETOAPPEALANDTOLEADFURTHEREVIDENCE
HASBEENREFUSED THE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALMAYBEAPPROACHEDONAPETITION
INTERMSOFS 3ECTIONOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTDOESNOTSPECIFICALLY
REQUIRE A SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE 3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL MAY BE
APPROACHED IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE LEAVE TO APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED
BEFORETHEFURTHEREVIDENCECAMETOLIGHT)TISSUBMITTEDTHATSOFTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS !CT DOES HOWEVER REQUIRE THAT THE APPEAL MUST BE BEFORE THE 3UPREME
#OURTOF!PPEALINORDERFORTHISCOURTTOHEARFURTHEREVIDENCE,EAVETOAPPEAL
MUSTTHEREFOREHAVEBEENGRANTEDORATLEASTHAVEBEENPETITIONEDFORINORDERFOR
THEAPPEALTOBEBEFORETHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL4HISCOURTHASNOPOWER
TOORDERFURTHEREVIDENCETOBEHEARDIFLEAVETOAPPEALHASALREADYBEENREFUSED
WITHFINALEFFECTBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL3EEALSO3IBANDE 3!
! -AHARAJ 3!!
3TATUTORYOROTHERLIMITATIONSONTHEPOWERSOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF
!PPEAL
6HWWLQJDVLGHRUDOWHUDWLRQRIFRQYLFWLRQRQJURXQGRILUUHJXODULW\
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISNOTBOUNDORCOMPETENTSIMPLYTOSETASIDEOR
ALTERACONVICTIONORSENTENCEBYREASONOFANYIRREGULARITYORDEFECTINTHERECORD

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
ORPROCEEDINGS4HISMAYBEDONEONLYWHEREITAPPEARSTOTHECOURTOFAPPEAL
THATAFAILUREOFJUSTICEHAS INFACT RESULTEDFROMSUCHIRREGULARITYORDEFECTS
)N-OODIE 3!! THEFOLLOWINGRULESWEREFORMULATEDINRE
SPECTOFIRREGULARITIESANDTHEPROVISOINS COMPARETHEPROVISOINS
WHICHISIDENTICAL
4HEGENERALRULEWITHREGARDTOIRREGULARITIESISTHATTHECOURTWILLBESATISFIED
THATTHEREHASINFACTBEENAFAILUREOFJUSTICEIFITCANNOTHOLDTHATAREASON
ABLETRIALCOURTWOULDINEVITABLYHAVECONVICTEDHADTHEREBEENNOIRREGULAR
ITY
)N AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE WHERE THE IRREGULARITY CONSISTS OF SUCH A GROSS DE
PARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN
PROPERLYTRIED THISISPERSEAFAILUREOFJUSTICE ANDITISUNNECESSARYTOAPPLY
THETESTOFENQUIRINGWHETHERAREASONABLETRIALCOURTWOULDINEVITABLYHAVE
CONVICTEDHADTHEREBEENNOIRREGULARITY
7HETHERACASEFALLSWITHIN OR DEPENDSUPONTHENATUREANDDEGREEOF
THEIRREGULARITY
!CCORDINGLY ITAMOUNTSTOTHISTHATADISTINCTIONSHOULDBEDRAWNBETWEENIR
REGULARITIESTHATAREPERSEAFAILUREOFJUSTICETHATVITIATESATRIALWITHOUTREFERENCE
TOTHEMERITSOFTHATCASE ANDOTHERLESSSERIOUSANDLESSFUNDAMENTALIRREGULARI
TIES)NTHECASEOFTHELATTER THEREMAININGEVIDENCEISCONSIDEREDANDWEIGHED
BYTHEAPPEALCOURT WHILEINTHECASEOFTHEIRREGULARITIESWHICHAREFATALPERSE
THE CONVICTION IS SET ASIDE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
PROSECUTIONCF0ONYANA 3!43# )NTHECOLLECTIVELYDECIDEDCASES
OF-KHISE-OSIA*ONES,E2OUX 3!! AT'+UMLEBEN!*!HELD
WITHREGARDTOWHATTHELEARNEDJUDGEOFAPPEALTERMED@FATALIRREGULARITIES THAT
JUDICIALDECISIONSONTHENATUREOFIRREGULARITIESINDICATETHATTHEENQUIRYINEACH
CASEISWHETHERTHEIRREGULARITYISOFSOFUNDAMENTALANDSERIOUSANATURETHATTHE
PROPERADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEANDTHEDICTATESOFPUBLICPOLICYREQUIREITTOBE
REGARDEDASFATALTOTHEPROCEEDINGSINWHICHITOCCURRED4HEPRESENCEORABSENCE
OFPREJUDICEINAPARTICULARCASEISNOTARELEVANTCONSIDERATIONINDECIDINGINTHE
FIRSTPLACEONTHEFUNDAMENTALSIGNIFICANCEOFTHEIRREGULARITY
7HERE THE IRREGULARITY IS NOT FATAL PER SE THE APPEAL COURT WILL THUS CONSIDER
WHETHER APARTFROMTHEEVIDENCEWHICHISAFFECTEDBYTHEIRREGULARITYORDEFECT
THERE IS STILL SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT 3EE
.AIDOO 3!! "ERNARDUS 3!! 4UGE 3!!
9USUF 3!! 2ALL 3!! #OMPAREALSOTHEDISCUSSIONIN
#HAPTERUNDERTHEHEADINGAUTREFOISACQUITANDTHEDISCUSSIONOFS BELOW
7HEREACONVICTIONANDSENTENCEARESETASIDEBYTHECOURTOFAPPEALONTHE
GROUNDTHATAFAILUREOFJUSTICEHASINFACTRESULTEDFROMTHEADMISSIONAGAINSTTHE
ACCUSEDOFEVIDENCEOTHERWISEADMISSIBLEBUTNOTPROPERLYPLACEDBEFORETHETRIAL
COURTBYREASONOFSOMEDEFECTINTHEPROCEEDINGS THECOURTOFAPPEALMAYREMIT
THECASETOTHETRIALCOURTWITHINSTRUCTIONSTODEALWITHANYMATTER INCLUDING
THEHEARINGOFSUCHEVIDENCE INSUCHMANNERASTHECOURTOFAPPEALMAYTHINK
FITS
4HEEFFECTOFTHEPROVISOINS COULDHAVECONSTITUTIONALIMPLICATIONSIN
THATITCOULDBEPERCEIVEDASALIMITATIONOFANACCUSEDSCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTO

#(!04%2r !00%!,
AFAIRTRIAL/NTHESTRENGTHOFSUCHANINTERPRETATION S WILLHAVETOBEAR

THESCRUTINYOFTHEREQUIREMENTSOFTHELIMITATIONCLAUSEEMBODIEDINS OF
THE#ONSTITUTION)N+LEINV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 3!#27 ATCAND
ATHECOURTASSUMED WITHOUTDECIDINGTHEREON THATS ISAJUSTIFIABLE
LIMITATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL )N THIS CASE AN APPLICATION
FORANORDERSTAYINGACRIMINALPROSECUTIONINAREGIONALCOURTWASBROUGHTAFTER
THE ACCUSED HAD BEEN ARRAIGNED ON SEVERAL CHARGES 4HE ORDER WAS SOUGHT ON
THEBASISTHATTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALWASMADEIMPOSSIBLEBYTHEFACT
THATTHEPROSECUTIONHADOBTAINEDINFORMATIONOFACONFIDENTIALANDPRIVILEGED
NATUREANDTHEREFOREHADKNOWLEDGEOFTHEDEFENCETHEACCUSEDINTENDEDTORAISE
DURINGTHETRIAL4HECOURTHELDTHATTHEREHASNEVERBEENAPRINCIPLETHATAVIOLA
TIONOFANYOFTHESPECIFICRIGHTSENCOMPASSEDBYTHERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALWOULD
AUTOMATICALLYPRECLUDETHETRIAL3UCHARIGIDPRINCIPLEWOULDOPERATETOTHEDIS
ADVANTAGEOFLAWENFORCEMENTANDTOTHEPREJUDICEOFTHESOCIETYWHICHTHELAW
ANDTHE#ONSTITUTIONAREINTENDEDTOSERVE"EFOREANYREMEDYCANBEENFORCED
THENATUREANDEXTENTOFTHEVIOLATIONOFTHERIGHTMUSTBEPROPERLYCONSIDEREDIN
ACCORDANCEWITHTHERULESENUNCIATEDPER(OLMES*!INTHE-OODIESCASEABOVE
! LESS COMPROMISING APPROACH WAS ADOPTED IN 3OLO 3!#2 % AT
AC WHERE%RASMUS*WASOFTHEOPINIONTHATIRREGULARITIESOCCURRINGDURING
CRIMINALPROCEEDINGSINTHISCASETHEREFUSALOFTHEPRESIDINGOFFICERINTHECOURT
AQUOTOGRANTTHEACCUSEDAPOSTPONEMENTINORDERTOOBTAINLEGALCOUNSEL ARE
SINCE THE COMING INTO OPERATION OF THE INTERIM #ONSTITUTION NO LONGER ADJU
DICATED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF S OR S WITH A SIMILAR
EFFECTBUTACCORDINGTOTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDMOREPARTICULARLY
SS ANDOFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTION4HECOURTHELDTHATANAPPEALMUST
SUCCEEDIFTHEACCUSEDSRIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALHASBEENINFRINGED UNLESSTHECOURT
FINDSTHATSUCHRIGHTHASBEENLIMITEDBYLAWOFGENERALAPPLICATIONASINTENDED
BYS OFTHEINTERIMSOFTHEFINAL #ONSTITUTION3UPPORTFORTHEAPPROACH
ADOPTEDIN3OLOABOVE COULDBEFOUNDINTHEREMARKSMADEBY+ENTRIDGE!*IN
:UMA 3!#2## ATH THATS OFTHEINTERIMS OFTHE
FINAL #ONSTITUTIONREQUIRESCRIMINALTRIALSTOBECONDUCTEDINACCORDANCEWITH
NOTIONSOFBASICFAIRNESSANDJUSTICE)TISTHETASKOFALLCOURTSHEARINGCRIMINAL
TRIALS OR CRIMINAL APPEALS TO GIVE CONTENT TO THOSE NOTIONS AND NOT SIMPLY TO
ENQUIRE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN AN IRREGULARITY OR ILLEGALITY THAT IS A DEPARTURE
FROM THE FORMALITIES RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO WHICH THE
LAWREQUIRESACRIMINALTRIALTOBEINITIATEDORCONDUCTED ASTHELAWWASBEFORE
!PRIL
)T IS SUBMITTED THAT WHICHEVER WAY ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN PROCEEDINGS ARE
VIEWED THEEFFECTWOULDBETHESAME!GROSSIRREGULARITYWILLINVARIABLYCAUSEAN
INJUSTICEWHICHINANYEVENTSUGGESTSACONSTITUTIONALINFRINGEMENTANDREFLECTS
NEGATIVELY ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL )N -VELASE 3!#2 . THE
COURT HELD THAT AN INFRINGEMENT DURING TRIAL OF ANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
EMBODIEDINS OFTHEINTERIMS OFTHEFINAL #ONSTITUTIONHASTHESAME
EFFECTASAFATALIRREGULARITYVITIATINGTHETRIALASAWHOLE(OWEVER IN3MILE
3!#23#! THECOURTHELDTHATITISNOTEVERYCONSTITUTIONALIRREGULARITY
COMMITTEDBYTHETRIALCOURTTHATJUSTIFIESTHECOURTINSETTINGASIDETHECONVIC

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
TION ON APPEAL 7HETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR TRIAL MUST ULTIMATELY BE
ANSWEREDHAVINGREGARDTOTHEPARTICULARCIRCUMSTANCESOFEACHCASE
7KHLQKHUHQWMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWRI$SSHDO
4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALISACREATUREOFSTATUTEANDITUSEDTOHAVENOINHER
ENTORCOMMON LAWJURISDICTIONINCRIMINALMATTERSBEYONDTHEPROVISIONSOFTHE
#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTCF3EFATSAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL 3!
! !BRAHAMS 3!#2! -AMKELI 3!#2! 4HISPOSITION
HASCHANGEDANDINTERMSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION THISCOURTSJURISDICTION LIKETHAT
OFOTHERSUPERIORCOURTS ISNOLONGERSTRICTLYLIMITEDTOSTATUTORYLAW ASITHASAN
INHERENTJURISDICTIONTOPROTECTANDREGULATEITSOWNPROCESS ANDTODEVELOPTHE
COMMONLAW WHENTHISLAWISPERTINENTTOANISSUE!COURTOFAPPEALSINHER
ENTPOWERTOREGULATEITSPROCEDUREINTHEINTERESTSOFTHEPROPERADMINISTRATION
OFJUSTICEDOESNOTEXTENDTOANASSUMPTIONOFJURISDICTIONTHATISNOTCONFERRED
UPON IT BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE 7HERE ANAPPEALISHEARDWHERE NO AUTOMATIC
RIGHTOFAPPEALEXISTSANDLEAVETOAPPEALISNOTGRANTED ACOURTOFAPPEALMAYNOT
IGNORETHEPROVISIONSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTORTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
PRESCRIBINGAPARTICULARPROCEDURETOBEFOLLOWED:ULU 3!#23#!
NORDOESITINCLUDETHEPOWERTOHEARAMATTERWHICHISNOTTHEPROPERSUBJECTOF
ANAPPEAL BECAUSETHIS#OURTSAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONISNOTANINHERENTJURISDIC
TION&OURIE 3!#23#! AT
7HENDEVELOPINGTHECOMMONLAW ASUPERIORCOURTSPOWERISALSOLIMITEDTO
THEFOLLOWINGEXTENTFIRSTITNEEDSTOASCERTAINTHATTHERIGHTRELIEDUPONISAPPLI
CABLETOTHELAWORCONDUCTTHATHASGIVENRISETOTHEDISPUTE4HENTHECOURTMUST
DETERMINEWHETHERTHECOMMONLAWISDEFICIENTINFAILINGADEQUATELYTOPROTECT
THERIGHT+HUMALOV(OLOMISA 3!## AT;=)FTHEREISNOLEGISLA
TIONORCOMMON LAWRULEGIVINGEFFECTTOTHERIGHT ACOURTISENJOINEDTODEVELOP
THECOMMONLAWINORDERTODOSO"OGAARDS 3!#2## AT;=
%
XECUTIONOFASENTENCEPENDINGAPPEAL
4HEEXECUTIONOFASENTENCEIMPOSEDBYADIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURTISNOTSUS
PENDEDBYREASONOFANAPPEALAGAINSTACONVICTIONORBYREASONOFAQUESTION
HAVINGBEENRESERVEDFORCONSIDERATIONOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL EXCEPT
WHERETHEDIVISIONOFTHE(IGH#OURT ONAPPEAL THINKSITFITTOORDERTHATTHEAC
CUSEDBERELEASEDONBAIL ORTHATHEORSHEBETREATEDASANUN CONVICTEDPRISONER
UNTILTHEAPPEALHASBEENHEARDANDDECIDEDSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT7ITHREGARDTOTHEEFFECTOFTHESUSPENSIONOFTHEEXECUTIONOFTHESENTENCE
ONTHEULTIMATECALCULATIONOFTHETERMOFSENTENCETOBESERVED SEETHEPROVISO
INS (OWEVER SOFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CTPROVIDESTHATTHEOPERATIONS
ANDEXECUTIONOFADECISIONWHICHISTHESUBJECTOFANAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAP
PEALORANAPPEALISSUSPENDEDPENDINGTHEDECISIONOFTHEAPPEAL)NTERLOCUTORY
DECISIONSARENOTSUSPENDEDUNLESSTHECOURTDECIDESOTHERWISE

#(!04%2r !00%!,
0ROCEEDINGSDENOVOWHENCONVICTIONISSETASIDEONAPPEAL
3ECTION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT PROVIDES THAT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE
INSTITUTEDDENOVOWHENACONVICTIONISSETASIDEBYTHECOURTOFAPPEALONONEOF
THEFOLLOWINGGROUNDS
4HECOURTWHICHCONVICTEDTHEACCUSEDWASNOTCOMPETENTTODOSO
4HEINDICTMENTONWHICHTHEACCUSEDWASCONVICTEDWASINVALIDORDEFECTIVE
OR
4HEREWASSOMEOTHERTECHNICALIRREGULARITYORDEFECTINTHEPROCEDURE
)FANEWTRIALISINSTITUTED THEJUDGEORASSESSORBEFOREWHOMTHEORIGINALTRIAL
TOOKPLACEMAYNOTTAKEPARTINTHENEWTRIAL4HISSECTIONISINTERPRETEDINCON
SONANCEWITHTHECOMMON LAWRULESREGARDINGAUTREFOISACQUIT.AIDOO
3!!

#(!04%2
#LEMENCYANDOTHERRELEVANT
ASPECTS
*03WANEPOEL
3DJH
02%3)$%.4)!,0/7%23
%805.'%-%.4/&#%24!).#2)-).!,2%#/2$32%,!4).'4/
30%#)&)##/.6)#4)/.3!.$3%.4%.#%3
%XPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDSOFCHILDRENCONVICTEDBEFORE
THE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFCAMEINTOOPERATION
%XPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDSOFCHILDRENCONVICTEDAFTER
THE#HILD*USTICE!CTCAMEINTOOPERATION
%XPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDSOFCONVICTEDADULTSINTERMS
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
2EMOVALANDEXPUNGEMENTOFCERTAINCRIMINALRECORDSUNDER
THE3EXUAL/FFENCES!CT ANDTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL
/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT!MENDMENT
!CTOF
2%/0%.).'/&#!3%!.$0/7%23/&4(%02%3)$%.4
0!2/,%$)34).'5)3(%$&2/-#,%-%.#9
3ECTIONr0OWERSANDFUNCTIONSOF0RESIDENT
4HE0RESIDENTHASTHEPOWERSENTRUSTEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDLEGISLATION INCLUD
ING THOSE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF (EAD OF 3TATE AND HEAD OF THE
NATIONALEXECUTIVE
4HE0RESIDENTISRESPONSIBLEFORr
«
M PARDONINGORREPRIEVINGOFFENDERSANDREMITTINGANYFINES PENALTIESORFORFEI
TURESc
3EEBELOW


#(!04%2r #,%-%.#9!.$/4(%22%,%6!.4!30%#43
3ECTIONr%XPUNGEMENTOFRECORDSOFCERTAINCONVICTIONSANDDIVERSIONORDERS
D 7
HEREACOURTHASCONVICTEDACHILDOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOR
THECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEINQUESTIONFALLAWAYASAPREVIOUSCONVICTION
ANDTHECRIMINALRECORDOFTHATCHILDMUST SUBJECTTOSUBSECTIONS AND
ONTHEWRITTENAPPLICATIONOFTHECHILD HISORHERPARENT APPROPRIATEADULT
ORGUARDIANHEREAFTERREFERREDTOASTHEAPPLICANT INTHEPRESCRIBEDFORM BE
EXPUNGEDAFTERAPERIODOFr
I FIVEYEARSHASELAPSEDAFTERTHEDATEOFCONVICTIONINTHECASEOFANOFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOR
II YEARSHASELAPSEDAFTERTHEDATEOFCONVICTIONINTHECASEOFANOFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE UNLESSDURINGTHATPERIODTHECHILDISCONVICTED
OFASIMILARORMORESERIOUSOFFENCE
E )NTHECASEOFADISPUTEORUNCERTAINTYASTOWHETHERANOTHEROFFENCEOFWHICH
ACHILDISCONVICTEDDURINGTHEPERIODISSIMILARTOORMORESERIOUSTHANTHEOF
FENCEINRESPECTOFWHICHARECORDEXISTS THEOPINIONOFTHE#ABINETMEMBER
RESPONSIBLEFORTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEPREVAILS
4HE$IRECTOR 'ENERAL*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTMUST ONRECEIPTOF
THE WRITTEN APPLICATION OF AN APPLICANT REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION ISSUE A PRE
SCRIBEDCERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENT DIRECTINGTHATTHECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEOF
THECHILDBEEXPUNGED IFTHE$IRECTOR 'ENERALISSATISFIEDTHATTHECHILDCOMPLIES
WITHTHECRITERIASETOUTINSUBSECTION
.OTWITHSTANDINGTHEPROVISIONSOFSUBSECTION THE#ABINETMEMBERRESPONSIBLE
FORTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEMAY ONRECEIPTOFANAPPLICANTmSWRITTENAPPLICATION
INTHEPRESCRIBEDFORM ISSUEAPRESCRIBEDCERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENT DIRECTINGTHAT
THECONVICTIONANDSENTENCEOFTHECHILDBEEXPUNGED IFHEORSHEISSATISFIEDTHAT
EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESEXISTWHICHJUSTIFYEXPUNGEMENT WHERE INTHECASEOF
THECHILDr
D THEPERIODOFFIVEYEARS REFERREDTOINSUBSECTION A I OR
E THEPERIODOFYEARS REFERREDTOINSUBSECTION A II
HAS NOT YET ELAPSED IF THE #ABINET MEMBER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICEISSATISFIEDTHATTHECHILDOTHERWISECOMPLIESWITHTHECRITERIASETOUTINSUB
SECTION
!NAPPLICANTTOWHOMACERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENTHASBEENISSUEDASPROVIDEDFOR
INSUBSECTION OR MUST INTHEPRESCRIBEDMANNER SUBMITTHECERTIFICATETOTHE
HEADOFTHE#RIMINAL2ECORD#ENTREOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE TOBEDEALT
WITHINACCORDANCEWITHSUBSECTION
D 4
HEHEADOFTHE#RIMINAL2ECORD#ENTREOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICEOR
ASENIORPERSONORPERSONSATTHERANKOF$IRECTORORABOVE EMPLOYEDATTHE
#ENTRE WHOHASORHAVEBEENAUTHORISED INWRITING BYTHEHEADOFTHE#ENTRE
TODOSO MUSTEXPUNGETHECRIMINALRECORDOFACHILDIFHEORSHEISFURNISHEDBY
THEAPPLICANTWITHACERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENTASPROVIDEDFORINSUBSECTION
OR
E 4HE HEAD OF THE #RIMINAL 2ECORD #ENTRE OF THE 3OUTH !FRICAN 0OLICE 3ERVICE
MUST ONTHEWRITTENREQUESTOFANAPPLICANT INWRITING CONFIRMTHATTHECRIMI
NALRECORDOFTHECHILDHASBEENEXPUNGED
F !NYPERSONWHOr
I WITHOUTTHEAUTHORITYOFACERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENTASPROVIDEDFORIN
THISSECTIONOR
II INTENTIONALLYORINAGROSSLYNEGLIGENTMANNER

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
EXPUNGESTHECRIMINALRECORDOFANYCHILD ISGUILTYOFANOFFENCEANDIS IFCONVICTED LI

ABLETOAFINEORTOASENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTFORAPERIODNOTEXCEEDINGYEARSORTO
BOTHAFINEANDTHEIMPRISONMENT
4HE $IRECTOR 'ENERAL 3OCIAL $EVELOPMENT MUST IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER EX
PUNGETHERECORDOFANYDIVERSIONORDERMADEINRESPECTOFACHILDINTERMSOFTHIS
!CTONTHEDATEONWHICHTHATCHILDTURNSYEARSOFAGE UNLESSTHECHILDHASBEEN
CONVICTED OF ANY OTHER OFFENCE BEFORE THAT DATE OR HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
DIVERSIONORDERINQUESTION
7HERE THE $IRECTOR 'ENERAL *USTICE AND #ONSTITUTIONAL $EVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF
SUBSECTION ORTHE-INISTER INTERMSOFSUBSECTION HASISSUEDACERTIFICATEOF
EXPUNGEMENTANDITSUBSEQUENTLYAPPEARSTHATTHEAPPLICANTDIDNOTQUALIFYFORTHE
EXPUNGEMENTOFHISORHERCRIMINALRECORD THE$IRECTOR 'ENERALMUSTr
D INFORMTHEAPPLICANTINWRITINGOFTHEINFORMATIONTHATHASCOMETOHISORHER
ATTENTIONANDTHATHEORSHEORTHE-INISTERINTENDSTOREVOKETHECERTIFICATEOF
EXPUNGEMENT
E AFFORD THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH COMPELLING WRITTEN REASONS TO
HIMORHERORTHE-INISTERWITHINWORKINGDAYSAFTERHEORSHEISINFORMEDOF
THEINTENTIONTOREVOKE WHYHISORHERRECORDSHOULDREMAINEXPUNGED
F INFORMTHEAPPLICANTINWRITINGWITHINWORKINGDAYSAFTERADECISIONISMADE
OFr
I HISORHERORTHE-INISTERmSDECISIONAND
II THEREASONSFORREVOKINGTHECERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENTAND
G INFORMTHEHEADOFTHE#RIMINAL2ECORD#ENTREOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ER
VICE INWRITINGWITHINWORKINGDAYSAFTERTHEDECISIONWASMADE TOREVOKE
THECERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENTANDTOREINSTATETHECONVICTIONSANDSENTENCES
INQUESTION
)FTHEAPPLICANTFAILSTOFURNISHCOMPELLINGREASONSCONTEMPLATEDINSUBSECTION
E THE$IRECTOR 'ENERALOR-INISTER ASTHECASEMAYBE MAY SUBJECTTOTHE0RO
MOTIONOF!DMINISTRATIVE*USTICE!CT !CTOF REVOKETHECERTIFICATEOF
EXPUNGEMENT
D 4
HE $IRECTOR 'ENERAL *USTICE AND #ONSTITUTIONAL $EVELOPMENT MAY DELEGATE
ANYPOWERORASSIGNANYDUTYCONFERREDUPONORASSIGNEDTOHIMORHERINTERMS
OF SUBSECTION TO AN APPROPRIATELY QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IN THE EMPLOY OF THE
$EPARTMENTOF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTATTHERANKOF$EPUTY
$IRECTOR 'ENERAL
E !DELEGATIONORASSIGNMENTINTERMSOFPARAGRAPH D r
I IS SUBJECT TO ANY LIMITATION CONDITION AND DIRECTION WHICH THE $IRECTOR
'ENERALMAYIMPOSE
II MUSTBEINWRITINGAND
III DOESNOTDIVESTTHE$IRECTOR 'ENERALOFTHERESPONSIBILITYCONCERNINGTHE
EXERCISEOFTHEPOWERORTHEPERFORMANCEOFTHEDUTY
F 4HE$IRECTOR 'ENERALMAYr
I CONFIRM VARYORREVOKEANYDECISIONTAKENINCONSEQUENCEOFADELEGATION
ORASSIGNMENTINTERMSOFTHISSUBSECTION SUBJECTTOANYRIGHTSTHATMAY
HAVEACCRUEDTOAPERSONASARESULTOFTHEDECISIONAND
II ATANYTIME INWRITING WITHDRAWADELEGATIONORASSIGNMENT
3EE BELOW

#(!04%2r #,%-%.#9!.$/4(%22%,%6!.4!30%#43
02%3)$%.4)!,0/7%23
4HE#ONSTITUTIONOFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA EMPOWERSTHE0RESIDENT
OFTHE2EPUBLIC SUBJECTTOANDINACCORDANCEWITHTHE#ONSTITUTION TOPARDON
OR REPRIEVE OFFENDERS AND TO REMIT ANY FINES PENALTIES OR FORFEITURESS J
READWITHSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION!LTHOUGHTHESEPOWERSAREREGULATEDBYSTAT
UTE THEY ARE DERIVED HISTORICALLY FROM THE ROYAL PREROGATIVES OF THE 0RESIDENTS
ERSTWHILE PREDECESSOR THE "RITISH MONARCH AND ARE STILL GENERALLY REGARDED AS
HAVINGTHECHARACTEROFPRESIDENTIALPREROGATIVESSEE0RESIDENTOFTHE2EPUBLICOF
3OUTH!FRICAV3OUTH!FRICAN2UGBY&OOTBALL5NION 3!## AT;=4HE
POWERSTOREPRIEVEANDTOEXTENDMERCYAREANINTEGRALPARTOFOURCRIMINALJUS
TICESYSTEMANDACONSTITUTIONALMECHANISMTOPROTECTTHESYSTEMANDTHEPEOPLE
AGAINSTINJUSTICESANDMISTAKES!LTHOUGHTHEREISNORIGHTTOBEPARDONED THE
FUNCTIONCONFERREDONTHE0RESIDENTINTERMSOFSTOMAKEADECISIONENTAILSA
CORRESPONDINGRIGHTTOHAVEAPARDONAPPLICATIONCONSIDEREDANDDECIDEDUPON
RATIONALLY INGOODFAITH INACCORDANCEWITHTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITY DILIGENTLY
AND WITHOUT DELAY 4HAT FINAL DECISION AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THATDECISIONRESTSOLELYWITHTHE0RESIDENT-INISTERFOR*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL
$EVELOPMENTV#HONCO 3!#2##
3ECTION OF THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT AFFIRMS EX ABUNDANTI CAUTELA THE
0RESIDENTSPREROGATIVEBYPROVIDINGTHATNOTHINGCONTAINEDINTHE!CTSHALLAFFECT
THEPOWERSOFTHE0RESIDENTTOEXTENDMERCYTOANYPERSON)NACCORDANCEWITH
INTERNATIONALTRADITION NEITHERTHE#ONSTITUTIONNORTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
LAYSDOWNSPECIFICCRITERIAACCORDINGTOWHICHTHEPREROGATIVESARETOBEEXERCISED
ANDITISCLEARTHATTHE0RESIDENTHASAWIDEDISCRETIONWHENEXERCISINGTHESEPOW
ERS 4HE ONLY CLEAR LIMITATION IS THAT THE 0RESIDENT CANNOT ACT CONTRARY TO THE
#ONSTITUTION SEE 0RESIDENT OF THE 23! V (UGO 3!#2 ## 0RIOR TO
THESAID(UGOCASETHE0RESIDENTIALPREROGATIVEWASUNFETTERED.OTHINGPREVENTS
THE0RESIDENTFROMGRANTINGMERCYMEROMOTU BUTGENERALLYTHE0RESIDENTISPETI
TIONED FOR MERCY BY THE CONVICTED PERSON OR BY SOMEONE ON HIS OR HER BEHALF
0RIOR TO THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT DECLARING THE DEATH PENALTY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IN AND THEREBY INVALIDATING ALL CORRESPONDING LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS THE
#RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT PROVIDED WITH REGARD TO CONVICTED PERSONS UNDER THE
SENTENCEOFDEATH THATTHE-INISTEROF*USTICECOULDSUBMITAPETITIONFORMERCYIN
CASESWHERESUCHPERSONSHADNOTREQUESTEDORDESIREDAPETITIONFORCLEMENCYCF
S!NOWREPEALED
)N 3IBIYA V $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG (IGH #OURT 3!
## THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTDECIDEDONTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFSTATUTORY
PROVISIONS SS n OF THE #RIMINAL ,AW !MENDMENT !CT OF THAT PRE
SCRIBEDHOWADEATHSENTENCE IMPOSEDBEFORETHEDECISIONIN-AKWANYANE HAD
TOBEREPLACEDBYANALTERNATIVEAPPROPRIATESENTENCE4HEREWERE ATTHETIMEOF
THISDECISION BETWEENANDPEOPLEONDEATHROW 4HEABOVE MENTIONED
PROVISIONS HAD BEEN PASSED AFTER THE JUDGMENT IN -AKWANYANE AND ESSENTIALLY
EMPOWERED THE 0RESIDENT OF 3OUTH !FRICA ON THE ADVICE OF A JUDGE TO IMPOSE
FRESH SENTENCES ON CONVICTED PRISONERS SENTENCED TO DEATH IN CASES WHERE ALL
APPEAL REMEDIES HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED 4HE 'AUTENG (IGH #OURT *OHANNESBURG
HELDTHATTHELAWWASUNCONSTITUTIONALBECAUSEITDIDNOTGIVETHEACCUSEDAFAIR
TRIALINRELATIONTOTHENEWSENTENCE4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTHELDTHATINTHE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LAW WAS NOT INVALID 4HERE WAS NO NEED TO COMPLY
WITHTHEFAIRTRIALRIGHTSINTHE#ONSTITUTIONBECAUSETHEPEOPLECONCERNEDHAD
ALREADYHADAFAIRTRIALINWHICHTHEYHADBEENTRIED CONVICTED SENTENCEDAND
HADTHEIRRIGHTTOAPPEAL9ACOOB*HELDTHATTHEPROCEDUREFORREPLACINGTHESEN
TENCESHADTOBE ANDWAS FAIR(EALSOHELDTHATTHEREWASNOTHINGWRONGWITH
A JUDGE DECIDING WHAT THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE OR WITH THE 0RESIDENT THEREAFTER
FORMALLYREPLACINGTHESENTENCE)TAPPEAREDFROMTHE3IBIYAJUDGMENTTHATINTHE
PERIODAFTERTHEJUDGMENTIN-AKWANYANEANDFIVEYEARSAFTERTHELAWBYWHICH
THESENTENCESWERETOBEREPLACED CONVICTEDPRISONERSSENTENCESHADSTILLNOT
YET BEEN REPLACED (OWEVER UNDER A MANDAMUS AND SUPERVISORY ORDERS OF THE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT ALLSENTENCESHADBEENSUBSTITUTEDANDTHEUNCONSTITUTION
ALITYOFTHEDEATHSENTENCEREALISEDINPRACTICEIN3IBIYAV$IRECTOROF0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS *OHANNESBURG(IGH#OURT 3!#2##
#ONVICTED PERSONS HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE PARDONED OR REPRIEVED AND ALSO HAVE
NO RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN RESPECT THEREOF BUT MAY ONLY HOPE FOR THE INDULGENCE
OF THE 0RESIDENT2APHOLO V 3TATE 0RESIDENT 3!#2 4 4HE PREROGA
TIVEOFCOMMUTINGANYPUNISHMENTISTHEREFORETHATOFTHE0RESIDENT)NPRACTICE
HOWEVER THE 0RESIDENT WILL NOT EXERCISE HIS PREROGATIVE OF MERCY WITHOUT CON
SIDERINGAREPORTFROMTHE-INISTEROF*USTICECONTAININGTHERECOMMENDATIONS
OFTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS THEPRESIDINGOFFICEROFTHETRIALCOURTAND
THATOFTHESTATELAWADVISERS4HISDOESNOTDETRACTFROMTHEFACTTHATITREMAINS
ANEXECUTIVEACTWHICHOUGHTNOTTOBEINFLUENCEDBYTHEJUDICIARYBUTSHOULDBE
OPENANDACCOUNTABLE4HECONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTINEXERCISINGHISPOWERSIN
TERMSOFSOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONREMAINSSUBJECTTOJUDICIALREVIEWSEES AND
OF THE #ONSTITUTION (OWEVER THE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT MUST CONFIRM ANY
DECISIONOFACOURTDECLARINGANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENTINVALIDINTERMSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONS A OFTHE#ONSTITUTION 7HERETHESENTENCESOFAGROUPOF
PRISONERSAREREMITTEDBYTHE0RESIDENT THECOURTSAREUNLIKELYTOINTERFEREWITH
SUCH CONDUCT UNLESS SATISFIED THAT THE DECISION WAS MOTIVATED BY BAD FAITH OR
WASSOIRRATIONALTHATNOREASONABLEEXECUTIVEAUTHORITYCOULDHAVEREACHEDSUCH
ACONCLUSION+RUGERV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#24 OR
THATTHEDISCRETIONARYEXERCISEOFTHE0RESIDENTSPOWERSWASDONEINANIRREGULAR
MANNERBECAUSEITVIOLATEDTHECONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSOFOTHERSINANUNREASONABLE
ANDUNJUSTIFIEDMANNERSEE0RESIDENTOFTHE23!V(UGO 3!#2##
CONCERNINGTHEUNIQUERELEASEOFFEMALEPRISONERSWHOHADCHILDRENUNDERTHE
AGEOFYEARS INTERMSOF0RESIDENTIAL!CTNO
)NADDITIONTOTHE0RESIDENTSPREROGATIVES THE)NDEMNITY!CTOF THE
)NDEMNITY!MENDMENT!CTOFANDTHE&URTHER)NDEMNITY!CTOF
EMPOWEREDTHE0RESIDENTTOGRANTTOANYPERSONORCATEGORYOFPERSONSEITHER
TEMPORARY AMNESTY OR IMMUNITY OR CONDITIONAL OR UNCONDITIONAL PERMANENT
INDEMNITY3UCHIMMUNITYORINDEMNITYWASGRANTEDAGAINSTARREST PROSECUTION
DETENTIONANDLEGALPROCEEDINGS4HEDISTINCTIONBETWEENTHEVARIOUSKINDSOF
INDEMNITIES OR IMMUNITIES WAS DISCUSSED IN 2APHOLO ABOVE &URTHERMORE IN
TERMSOF!CTOF THE0RESIDENTCOULD AFTERCONSULTATIONWITHTHE.ATIONAL
#OUNCIL ON )NDEMNITY RELEASE CERTAIN PRISONERS SERVING IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE
OR OTHER SENTENCES OF LONG TERM IMPRISONMENT 4HE POWER TO GRANT IMMUNITY
ORINDEMNITYINTERMSOFTHESE!CTSHADBEENSUBJECTTOCERTAINTIMELIMITSAND

#(!04%2r #,%-%.#9!.$/4(%22%,%6!.4!30%#43
WASGENERALLYASSOCIATEDWITHPOLITICALOBJECTIVESANDAIMEDATTHEPROMOTIONOF
POLITICALRECONCILIATIONIN3OUTH!FRICA4HESE!CTSWEREALLREPEALEDINTERMSOF
THE 0ROMOTION OF .ATIONAL 5NITY AND 2ECONCILIATION !CT OF ALTHOUGH
THEINDEMNITIESALREADYGRANTEDREMAINVALID4HELATTER!CTALSOESTABLISHEDTHE
4RUTHAND2ECONCILIATION#OMMISSIONANDPROVIDEDFORAMULTI PARTYREFERENCE
GROUP#OMMITTEEFOR!MNESTY TOSCRUTINISEAPPLICATIONSBYPOLITICALOFFENDERS
FOR PRESIDENTIAL PARDON 4HE COMMISSION OPERATED UNTIL THE END OF .OVEMBER
AND A SPECIAL DISPENSATION GROUP WAS SET UP BY FORMER 0RESIDENT 4HABO
-BEKI TO ADVISE ON THE GRANTING OF PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS TO POLITICAL OFFENDERS
WHOHADNOTAPPLIEDFORAMNESTYFROMTHE4RUTHAND2ECONCILIATION#OMMISSION
ANDWHOSEOFFENCESHADBEENCOMMITTEDBEFORE*UNE 0RETORIA.EWS
!UGUSTAND/CTOBER "ECAUSETHENAMESOFTHEAPPLICANTSWERENOTMADE
PUBLIC THECOURTORDEREDTHE0RESIDENTTOFURNISHACOALITIONOFVICTIMANDCIVIL
SOCIETYORGANISATIONSWITHTHELISTOFPRISONERSRECOMMENDEDFORRELEASEBYTHE
#OMMITTEE FOR !MNESTY 4HE #ONSTITUTIONAL #OURT ORDERED THAT THE 0RESIDENT
MUSTHEARTHEVICTIMSBEFOREGRANTINGSPECIALPARDONS ASTHEEXCLUSIONOFTHEVIC
TIMSFROMTHEPARDONPROCESSWASIRRATIONALANDNOTRATIONALLYRELATEDTONATION
BUILDINGANDNATIONALRECONCILIATION3EE!LBUTTV#ENTREFORTHE3TUDYOF6IOLENCE
AND2ECONCILIATION 3!#2##
%
805.'%-%.4/&#%24!).#2)-).!,2%#/2$32%,!4).'4/
30%#)&)##/.6)#4)/.3!.$3%.4%.#%3
!S INDICATED ABOVE EXPUNGING A CRIMINAL RECORD FOR A CONVICTION AND SUBSE
QUENTSENTENCEFORANOFFENCEISANEXECUTIVEACTION4HELEGISLATORMAY HOWEVER
PROMULGATE LEGISLATION TO EXPUNGE CERTAIN CRIMINAL RECORDS RELATING TO SPECIFIC
CONVICTIONSANDORSENTENCES3UCHEXPUNGEMENTMAYBEEFFECTED
AUTOMATICALLY REGARDING CONVICTIONS FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED IN TERMS OF
LEGISLATION BEFORE THE CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL DISPENSATIONFOR EXAMPLE OF
FENCESCOMMITTEDINTERMSOFSOFTHE)NTERNAL3ECURITY!CTOFCF
S# OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT OR
ONAPPLICATIONBYTHEPERSONCONCERNEDFORINFRACTIONSOFLEGISLATIONENACTED
BYTHEFORMERSELF GOVERNINGTERRITORIESBEFORETHE#ONSTITUTIONOFTHE2EPUBLIC
OF3OUTH!FRICA !CTOF TOOKEFFECT WHICHLEGISLATIONCREATEDOFFENCES
BASED ON RACE OR CREATED OFFENCES WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED
OFFENCESINANOPENANDDEMOCRATICSOCIETY BASEDONHUMANDIGNITY EQUAL
ITYANDFREEDOM UNDERTHECURRENTCONSTITUTIONALDISPENSATIONS#
OR
AFTERAFIXEDPERIODOFTIME
!CCORDINGLY THE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!MENDMENT!CTOFWHICHINSERTED
SS !n% INTO THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT AND OF WHICH SS AND CAME
INTOOPERATIONON-AY SHIFTEDTHERESPONSIBILITYTOTHE$IRECTOR 'ENERAL
*USTICE AND #ONSTITUTIONAL $EVELOPMENT FOR ASSESSING APPLICATIONS TO EXPUNGE
CONVICTIONS ANDFORISSUINGCERTIFICATESOFEXPUNGEMENT CHARGINGTHECRIMINAL
RECORDCENTREOFTHEPOLICEWITHREMOVALOFTHECRIMINALRECORDFORTHOSECONVIC
TIONS4HE#HILD*USTICE!CTOFHASASIMILARPROVISIONINSTHETASKOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
EXPUNGINGAJUVENILESCONVICTIONANDSENTENCEFORCERTAINOFFENCESISENTRUSTED
TOTHE$IRECTOR 'ENERALANDTOTHE-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVEL
OPMENTALTHOUGHONLYINEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCEORINCASEOFADISPUTE )NTHE
#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF
THEREGISTRAROFTHE.ATIONAL2EGISTERFOR3EXUAL/FFENCESISCHARGEDWITHREMOV
INGCONVICTIONSFROMTHEREGISTERS!UTOMATICALLYREMOVALSOFCERTAINSEXUAL
CONTRAVENTIONSAREINDICATEDINPARAGRAPHBELOW
%XPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDSOFCHILDRENCONVICTEDBEFORETHE
#HILD*USTICE!CTOFCAMEINTOOPERATION
)NESSENCE THESEPROVISIONSOFEXPUNGEMENTRELATINGTOCONVICTEDCHILDOFFENDERS
PROVIDE INRESPECTOFCRIMESCOMMITTEDBEFORETHE#HILD*USTICE!CTCAMEINTOOP
ERATIONIN THATDESPITETHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT ACHILD
WHO BEFORETHECOMMENCEMENTOFTHIS!CT WASCONVICTEDOF
A ANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOROR
B ANYOTHEROFFENCEUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORSTATUTEWHICHHASBEENREPEALED
BYTHE!CTSREFERREDTOIN
I ITEMS OROF3CHEDULEOR
II ITEMS OROF3CHEDULE
MAYAPPLYFORTHEEXPUNGEMENTOFHISORHERCRIMINALRECORDINTERMSOFSOF
THE#HILD*USTICE!CTS OFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT ASAMENDEDBYSOFTHE
*UDICIAL-ATTERS!MENDMENT!CTOF
%XPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDSOFCHILDRENCONVICTEDAFTERTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CTCAMEINTOOPERATION
3ECTIONOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT#*! PROVIDESTHAT IFACOURTHASCONVICTED
ACHILDOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOROFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT THE
CONVICTIONANDSENTENCEFALLAWAYASAPREVIOUSCONVICTION ANDTHECRIMINALRE
CORDOFTHATCHILDMUSTONTHEWRITTENAPPLICATIONOFTHECHILD HISORHERPARENT
APPROPRIATEADULTORGUARDIANINTHEPRESCRIBEDFORM BEEXPUNGEDAFTERAPERIOD
OF
I FIVEYEARSHASELAPSEDAFTERTHEDATEOFCONVICTIONINTHECASEOFANOFFENCE
REFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOR
II YEARSHASELAPSEDAFTERTHEDATEOFCONVICTIONINTHECASEOFANOFFENCERE
FERREDTOIN3CHEDULE UNLESSDURINGTHATPERIODTHECHILDISCONVICTEDOFA
SIMILARORMORESERIOUSOFFENCE
/NRECEIPTOFTHEAPPLICATION ANDIFHEISSATISFIEDTHATTHECHILDQUALIFIESFOREX
PUNGEMENTOFHISORHERRECORDONTHEBASISOFTHECRITERIAMENTIONEDABOVE THE
$IRECTOR 'ENERAL*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTMUSTISSUEAPRESCRIBED
CERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENT7HEREACHILDINANAPPLICATIONFOREXPUNGEMENTCAN
SHOWTHATEXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESEXISTWHICHJUSTIFYEXPUNGEMENT THE-IN
ISTERMAYISSUEACERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENTBEFORETHEPERIODSMENTIONEDINI
ANDII HAVEELAPSED

#(!04%2r #,%-%.#9!.$/4(%22%,%6!.4!30%#43
! CERTIFICATE OF EXPUNGEMENT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE $IRECTOR 'ENERAL OR THE
-INISTER IF IT SUBSEQUENTLY APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR THE
EXPUNGEMENTOFHISORHERCRIMINALRECORD INWHICHCASETHECONVICTIONS AND
SENTENCES AREREINSTATED
4HEHEADOFTHE#RIMINAL2ECORD#ENTREOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICEIS
RESPONSIBLEFORTHEREMOVALOFTHECRIMINALRECORDONTHESTRENGTHOFTHECERTIFI
CATEOFEXPUNGEMENT$IVERSIONORDERSMUSTBEEXPUNGEDBYTHE$IRECTOR 'ENERAL
3OCIAL$EVELOPMENTWHENTHECHILDTURNSYEARSOFAGE IFTHECHILDHASNOTBEEN
CONVICTEDOFANYOTHEROFFENCEBEFORETHATDATEORHASNOTFAILEDTOCOMPLYWITH
THEDIVERSIONORDER
$ESPITETHEPROVISIONSOFSOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CT ACHILDWHO BEFORETHE
COMMENCEMENTOFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTIN WASCONVICTEDOF
A ANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEOROFTHE#HILD*USTICE!CTOR
B ANYOTHEROFFENCEUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORSTATUTEWHICHHASBEENREPEALED
BYTHE!CTSREFERREDTOIN
I ITEMS OROF3CHEDULEOR
II ITEMS OROF3CHEDULE
MAYAPPLYFORTHEEXPUNGEMENTOFHISORHERCRIMINALRECORDINTERMSOFSOF
THE #HILD *USTICE !CTSEE S OF THE #HILD *USTICE !CT AS AMENDED BY *UDICIAL
-ATTERS!MENDMENT!CTOF
%
XPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDSOFCONVICTEDADULTSINTERMSOFTHE
!PARTFROMTHEPROVISIONSOFS!OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT WHICHCOME
INTOOPERATIONAUTOMATICALLYINRESPECTOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONSWHICHFALLAWAY
IFAPERIODOFYEARSHASELAPSEDINRESPECTOFSENTENCESOFLESSTHANSIXMONTHS
ORMORETHANSIXMONTHSBUTWHERETHEEXECUTIONOFTHESENTENCEWASSUSPENDED
WITHOUT A SENTENCE BEING IMPOSED AND APART FROM THE PROVISIONS OF S#
DEALING WITH PRE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVICTIONS OF CERTAIN OFFENCES IN RESPECT OF
WHICHCRIMINALRECORDSAREAUTOMATICALLYEXPUNGED THEPROVISIONSOFSS"
AND# OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTREQUIRETHATPERSONSCONVICTEDMUSTIN
WRITING ONTHEPRESCRIBEDFORM APPLYFOREXPUNGEMENTOFTHEIRCRIMINALRECORDS
INRESPECTOFEITHERCERTAINSENTENCESWHICHQUALIFYFOREXPUNGEMENTAFTERAPE
RIODOFYEARSHASELAPSED ORCONVICTIONSFORCONTRAVENTIONSOFPROVISIONSWHICH
WERECREATEDINTHEFORMERSELF GOVERNINGTERRITORIESBEFORETHECOMMENCEMENT
OFTHEINTERIM#ONSTITUTIONOF4HELATTERRELATETOOFFENCESTHATWEREBASED
ONRACEORWHICHWOULDNOTHAVEBEENCONSIDEREDTOBEOFFENCESINANOPENAND
DEMOCRATICSOCIETYBASEDONHUMANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOM
!FTERRECEIPTOFTHEAPPLICATION ANDIFHEISSATISFIEDTHATTHEPERSONAPPLYINGFOR
EXPUNGEMENTCOMPLIESWITHTHECRITERIAMENTIONEDINSS" OR# OR
OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT THE$IRECTOR 'ENERAL*USTICEAND#ONSTITUTIONAL
$EVELOPMENTMUSTISSUEAPRESCRIBEDCERTIFICATEOFEXPUNGEMENTANDSUBMITITTO
THEHEADOFTHE#RIMINAL2ECORD#ENTREOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE3ERVICE WHO
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXPUNGEMENT IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF S$ OF THE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
2
EMOVALANDEXPUNGEMENTOFCERTAINCRIMINALRECORDSUNDERTHE
3EXUAL/FFENCES!CT AND!CTOF WHICHAMENDEDTHE
#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT
OF
)NTERMSOFS! OF!CTOF
A 7HERE A COURT HAS CONVICTED A PERSON OF ANY OF THE OFFENCES REFERRED TO IN
PARAGRAPHB BELOW THE
I PARTICULARSOFTHATPERSONINRESPECTOFTHATOFFENCEMUSTBEREMOVEDAUTO
MATICALLYFROMTHE2EGISTERBYTHE2EGISTRARAND
II CRIMINAL RECORD CONTAINING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN QUESTION OF
THATPERSONINRESPECTOFTHATOFFENCEMUSTBEEXPUNGEDAUTOMATICALLYBY
THE#RIMINAL2ECORD#ENTREOFTHE3OUTH!FRICAN0OLICE;BYTHEHEADOFTHE
#ENTREORASENIORPERSONWITHTHERANKOFDIRECTORORABOVEINTHE#ENTRE=
B 4HEOFFENCESCONTEMPLATEDINPARAGRAPHA ARETHEFOLLOWING
I ! CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION A OR A OF THE 3EXUAL /FFENCES !CT
!CTOF IFTHECONVICTEDPERSONWASYEARSORYOUNGERATTHE
TIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCE
II ACONTRAVENTIONOFSECTION B C B OR C OFTHE3EXUAL
/FFENCES!CT IFTHECONVICTEDPERSONWASYEARSORYOUNGERATTHE
TIMEOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHEOFFENCEAND
III ACONTRAVENTIONOFSECTIONOROFTHIS!CTIFTHECONVICTEDPERSONWAS
YEARSOROLDER BUTUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARSATTHETIMEOFTHECOMMISSION
OFTHEOFFENCE
2%/0%.).'/&#!3%!.$0/7%23/&4(%02%3)$%.4
"EFORE IT WAS GENERALLY ASSUMED THAT THE !PPELLATE $IVISION NOW THE
3UPREME #OURT OF !PPEAL HAD EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION TO COME TO THE ASSIS
TANCE OF A CONVICTED PERSON IN ORDER TO PREVENT MATERIAL AND SERIOUS INJUSTICE
EVEN THOUGH NO REMEDY EXISTED )N -ILNE AND %RLEIGH 3! ! THE
!PPELLATE$IVISIONHELDOBITERTHATTHEASSUMPTIONOFSUCHJURISDICTIONCOULDBE
JUSTIFIEDONLYWHENTHELEGISLATUREHADNOTPROVIDEDAREMEDY3EE3IBANDE
3!! WHERETHEEXISTENCEOFTHEEXTRAORDINARYJURISDICTIONOFTHE!PPELLATE
$IVISIONNOW3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL INCRIMINALMATTERSWASQUESTIONED AND
ALSO-AHARAJ 3!! .GEMA#ELE 3!! -OFOKENG
3!! (ELLER 3!!
)N -OKOENA V -INISTER OF *USTICE 3! ! THE ACCUSED WAS CON
VICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO DEATH (E APPEALED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO THE
!PPELLATE$IVISION4HEREAFTERAWITNESSWHOHADGIVENMATERIALEVIDENCEATTHE
TRIALDECLAREDUNDEROATHTHATHEHADLIED/NTHESTRENGTHOFTHISINFORMATION
-OKOENAS EXECUTION WAS POSTPONED BUT THE 3TATE 0RESIDENT AS HE THEN WAS
DECIDED AGAINST COMMUTING THE SENTENCE OF DEATH "Y THIS TIME -OKOENA HAD
EXHAUSTED HIS REMEDIES UNDER THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE !CT AND CONSEQUENTLY
INSTITUTEDCIVILPROCEEDINGSFORTHESETTINGASIDEOFHISCONVICTIONANDSENTENCE
INTHEPROVINCIALDIVISION WHICHWEREDISMISSED/NAPETITIONTOTHE!PPELLATE
$IVISIONITWASHELDTHATOURCOMMONLAWDOESNOTALLOWACONVICTEDPERSONTO
HAVEHISCASEREOPENEDBYWAYOFACLAIMFORRESTITUTIOININTEGRUMINORDERTOPROVE
THATHEHADBEENCONVICTEDONFALSEEVIDENCE(OWEVER THE#HIEF*USTICEPOINTED
OUTTHATTHEREWASADEFICIENCYINOURCRIMINALPROCEDUREINTHATNOPROVISION

#(!04%2r #,%-%.#9!.$/4(%22%,%6!.4!30%#43
HADBEENMADEFORAPROCEDUREWHEREBYTHECONDEMNEDPERSONCOULDPETITION
THE3TATE0RESIDENTFORTHEHEARINGOFFURTHEREVIDENCEAFTERTHERECOGNISEDJUDI
CIALPROCEDURESHADBEENEXHAUSTEDORWERENOLONGERAVAILABLE4HISDEFICIENCY
WASREMEDIEDBYS WHICHWASFIRSTINTRODUCEDINTOOURCRIMINALJUSTICESYS
TEMBY!CTOF
3INCETHECOURTSARECREATEDBYSTATUTE THEPOWERSANDFUNCTIONSOFTHE(IGH
#OURTANDTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALWITHREGARDTOTHEREOPENINGOFACRIMI
NAL MATTER AND THE HEARING OF FURTHER EVIDENCE ARE GOVERNED BY THE #RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE !CT AND THE 3UPERIOR #OURTS !CT .OT EVEN THE 3UPREME #OURT OF
!PPEAL ITSELF HAS EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION TO REOPEN A CASE AFTER IT HAS BEEN
FINALISEDBYTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL3EFATSAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL
3!! NORCANITUSURPPOWERSTHATARENOTBESTOWEDUPONITBYTHE
LEGISLATURE-AMKELI 3!#2! 4HEREOPENINGOFSUCHAMATTERISONLY
POSSIBLEBYVIRTUEOFTHEPROVISIONSOFS
3ECTIONPROVIDESTHATIFAPERSONCONVICTEDOFANYOFFENCEINANYCOURTHAS
EXHAUSTEDALLTHERECOGNISEDLEGALPROCEDURESREGARDINGAPPEALANDREVIEW ORIF
THEYARENOLONGERAVAILABLETOHIM SUCHPERSONMAYSUBMITAPETITION SUPPORTED
BYAFFIDAVITS TOTHE-INISTEROF*USTICE STATINGTHATFURTHEREVIDENCEHASBECOME
AVAILABLEWHICHMATERIALLYAFFECTSHISCONVICTIONORSENTENCE4HEMINISTERMAY
IFHECONSIDERSTHATSUCHEVIDENCE IFTRUE MIGHTREASONABLYAFFECTTHECONVICTION
REFERTHEPETITIONANDAFFIDAVITSTOTHECOURTWHICHCONVICTEDTHEACCUSED
4HECOURTTHEREUPONRECEIVESTHEAFFIDAVITSANDMAYPERMITTHEEXAMINATIONOF
WITNESSESINCONNECTIONWITHTHEFURTHEREVIDENCEASIFITWEREANORMALCRIMINAL
TRIALTHEPRESENCEOFTHEACCUSEDISNOTESSENTIAL HOWEVER ANDASSESSESTHEVALUE
OF SUCH EVIDENCE 4HE FINDINGS OF THE COURT REGARDING THE FURTHER EVIDENCE DO
NOTFORMPARTOFTHEPROCEEDINGS4HECOURTFINALLYADVISESTHE0RESIDENTWHETHER
AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE FURTHER EVIDENCE AFFECTS THE CONVICTION 4HE 0RESIDENT
THEREUPONCONSIDERSTHEFINDINGORADVICE ANDMAYTHEN
DIRECTTHATTHECONVICTIONBEEXPUNGED EFFECTIVELYGIVINGTHEACCUSEDAFREE
PARDONOR
COMMUTETHECONVICTIONTOALESSERONEANDADJUSTTHESENTENCEACCORDINGLY
.OFURTHERAPPEAL REVIEWORPROCEEDINGSAREPERMITTEDINRESPECTOFPRO
CEEDINGS FINDINGS OR ADVICE OF THE COURT IN TERMS OF S 3IMILARLY NO
APPEAL REVIEW ORPROCEEDINGSSHALLLIEAGAINSTTHEREFUSALBYTHEMINISTERTO
ISSUEADIRECTIONTOTHETRIALCOURTORBYTHE0RESIDENTTOACTUPONTHEFINDING
ORADVICEOFTHECOURTS
.OTETHATSOFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CTANDS F OFTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS !CT ARE NOT THE SAME ALTHOUGH BOTH SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE TO WIT
PREVENTINGANINJUSTICE BUTONDIFFERENTSTAGES THEYARENOTTHESAMES
ISNOTANAPPEALPROCESS)TISAPROCESSBEYONDTHEAPPEALSTAGETHATISMEANT
TOBETHEFINALNETINORDERTOAVOIDAGRAVEINJUSTICE)TMAYBEUSEDAFTERREC
OGNISEDLEGALPROCEDURESFORAPPEALANDREVIEWHAVEBEENEXHAUSTEDBYTHE
CONVICTEDPERSONORTHEAPPEALPROCESSESARESPENTANDPERMANENTLYCLOSED
ANDNOLONGERAVAILABLETOTHECONVICTEDPERSON3ECTION F OFTHE3UPE
RIOR#OURTS!CTCONFERSONTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALTHE
POWERTOREFERAPETITIONFORRECONSIDERATIONTOTHECOURTAQUO3ECTION
F DOESSOWHILETHEAPPEALPROCESSISSTILLOPENANDTHEMATTERONAPPEALIS

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
REMITTEDTOTHE0RESIDENTOFTHE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALFORCONSIDERATION
SEE ,IESCHING 3!#2 ## AT ;=n;= AND PARAGRAPH OF
CHAPTERRELATINGTOS F OFTHE3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
3EE WITHREGARDTOTHEAPPLICATIONOFS (OOSAINV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL #APE
3!# (OOSAINV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL #APE 3!
# 3EFATSAV!TTORNEY 'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL 3!4 3EFATSAV!TTORNEY
'ENERAL 4RANSVAAL 3!! -OSTOFTHESECASESRELATETOMATTERS
WHERETHEDEATHSENTENCEWASIMPOSED
0!2/,%$)34).'5)3(%$&2/-#,%-%.#9
)N6AN6URENV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2## AT;= ITIS
POINTEDOUT WITHREFERENCETOTHERELEASEANDPLACEMENTPOLICYOFTHE$EPARTMENT
OF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES THATPAROLEHASARESTORATIVEPURPOSEAIMEDATEVENTUAL
REHABILITATIONANDRECONCILIATIONWITHINTHECONTEXTOFTHESTATESDUTYTOPROTECT
THECOMMUNITY WHOISENTITLEDTOBEPROTECTEDFROMCRIMINALS4HECOURTHELD
THAT@PAROLEHASARESTORATIVE JUSTICEAIM)TISAIMEDATTHEEVENTUALREHABILITATION
ANDRECONCILIATIONPROCESSESOFTHEOFFENDERnTHEMESTHATUNDERPINRESTORATIVE
JUSTICE )MPORTANTLY ALL THESE INTERESTS MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THOSE OF THE
COMMUNITY WHICHINCLUDETHERIGHTTOBEPROTECTEDAGAINSTCRIME)N*IMMALE
3!#2## AT;= THE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTCONFIRMEDTHEABOVEVIEW
ANDACKNOWLEDGEDTHEINFLUENCEOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONONTHECORRECTIONALSYSTEM
WHENITHELDTHAT
0AROLEISANACKNOWLEDGEDPARTOFOURCORRECTIONALSYSTEM)THASPROVEDTOBEA
VITALPARTOFREFORMATIVETREATMENTFORTHEPAROLEDPERSONWHOISTREATEDBYMORAL
SUASION 4HIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE
DEPRIVEDOFFREEDOMARBITRARILYORWITHOUTJUSTCAUSEANDTHATSENTENCEDPRISONERS
HAVETHERIGHTTOTHEBENEFITOFTHELEASTSEVEREOFTHEPRESCRIBEDPUNISHMENTS
0AROLE IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE #ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES !CT OF
EXCEPTFORTWOASPECTSDEALTWITHINS" B OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT WHICHPROVIDESONANON PAROLEPERIODANDS!OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE
!CT ANDTHESTATUTORYANDPOLICYFRAMEWORKWITHINWHICHPAROLEDECISIONSARE
MADEISSUMMARISEDIN"ARNARDV-INISTEROF*USTICE #ONSTITUTIONAL$EVELOPMENTAND
#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2'0 AT;=n;=
)TISACCEPTEDTHATAPRISONERHASNORIGHTTOBERELEASEDONPAROLE BUTONLYA
RIGHTTOBECONSIDEREDFORPAROLE6AN'UNDV-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES
3!#2 '.0 AT ;= $U 0REEZ V -INISTER OF *USTICE AND #ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES
3!#2'0 AT;=!SITWASPUTIN6AN6URENAT;=@4HE!CTENABLES
SENTENCEDOFFENDERSTOANTICIPATECONSIDERATIONFORSOMEFORMOFNON CUSTODIAL
SUPERVISION(OWEVER HUMANDIGNITYFORMSACORECOMPONENTOFALLRIGHTSCON
STITUTIONALLYPROTECTEDANDCONSEQUENTLY APRISONERISENTITLEDTOCONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRAINTSSUCHASFAIRPROCEDURE EQUALITYBEFORETHELAW LEGALITYINTHELAWAND
THERIGHTNOTTOBEDEPRIVEDOFFREEDOMARBITRARILYORWITHOUTJUSTCAUSE ASGUAR
ANTEED BY S A OF THE #ONSTITUTION 3ECTION N OF THE #ONSTITUTION
ENTRENCHESTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITYINTHECRIMINALLAWBYPROHIBITINGTHERETRO
ACTIVEAPPLICATIONOFAPUNISHMENTTHATISMORESEVERETHANTHATPRESCRIBEDWHEN
THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED 3ECTION OF THE #ONSTITUTION EMPHASISES EQUALITY

#(!04%2r #,%-%.#9!.$/4(%22%,%6!.4!30%#43
BEFORETHELAW EMBRACINGTHEREQUIREMENTOFALEGITIMATEGOVERNMENTPURPOSE
ANDANYPURPOSEATODDSWITHTHERULEOFLAWCOULDNEVERBELEGITIMATE0HAAHLAV
-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2## -AKHOKHA
3!#2##
#ONSIDERATIONOFPAROLEISANADMINISTRATIVEACTION ANDCONSEQUENTLYAPRIS
ONER IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR PROCEDURE 6AN 'UND V -INISTER OF #ORRECTIONAL 3ERVICES
3!#2 '.0 AT ;= $U 0REEZ V -INISTER OF *USTICE AND #ORRECTIONAL
3ERVICES 3!#2 '0 AT ;= %XAMPLES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PAROLE
DECISIONSBYTHE-INISTEROF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICESONACCOUNTOFNON COMPLIANCE
WITH THE 0ROMOTION OF !DMINISTRATIVE *USTICE !CT OF ARE $ERBY ,EWIS V
-INISTEROF*USTICEAND#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2'0 +ELLYV-INISTER
OF#ORRECTIONAL3ERVICES 3!#2'*
0RESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY OF WHICH FREE PARDON REPRIEVE AND REMITTING OF SEN
TENCEFORMPART DIFFERSFROMPAROLE!SPOINTEDOUTABOVE ITISGOVERNEDBYTHE
#ONSTITUTION AND AN EX ABUNDANTI CAUTELA PROVISION IN THE #RIMINAL 0ROCEDURE
!CT 4HE DISCRETION FOR CLEMENCY IS ENTRUSTED TO THE 0RESIDENT HIMSELF AND HIS
EXERCISEOFHISDISCRETIONISSUBJECTTOJUDICIALREVIEW!LTHOUGHNOPERSONHASA
RIGHTTORECEIVECLEMENCY HEORSHEISENTITLEDTOBECONSIDEREDFORCLEMENCY4HE
EFFECTOF0RESIDENTIALCLEMENCYISTHATACONVICTIONORSENTENCEISEXPUNGED AND
THATTHECONVICTEDPERSONCONSEQUENTLYHASACLEANRECORDASFARASTHEPARTICULAR
CONVICTIONANDSENTENCEARECONCERNED
!LTHOUGH THERE ARE CERTAIN SIMILARITIES BETWEEN 0RESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY AND
PAROLE SUCH AS THAT THEIR PURPOSES ARE BOTH RESTORATIVE THEY DIFFER MATERIALLY
!PARTFROMTHEFACTTHATPAROLEISGOVERNEDANDADMINISTEREDBYOTHERLEGISLATION
ANDPERSONSTHAN0RESIDENTIALCLEMENCY THEMATERIALDIFFERENCELIESINTHEEFFECT
OFTHEACTIONPAROLEMERELYENSURESTHERELEASEOFAPRISONERFROMACORRECTIONAL
FACILITY WHICHDOESNOTLEADTOTHEEXPUNGEMENTOFHISORHERCRIMINALRECORD
ANDCANBEREVOKED

!PPENDICES

!00%.$)8
3CHEDULESTOTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT
(Only the schedules that are relevant to the contents of the text are recorded.)
SCHEDULE 1
!LISTOFOFFENCESAPPEARINGINTHEFIRSTSCHEDULETOTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE!CT
ISGIVENBELOW4HESEOFFENCESRELATETOSSAND3EETHEDISCUSSIONTHEREOF
INTHETEXT
4REASON
3EDITION
0UBLICVIOLENCE
-URDER
#ULPABLEHOMICIDE
2APE OR COMPELLED RAPE AS CONTEMPLATED IN SS AND OF THE #RIMINAL ,AW
3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT RESPECTIVELY
3EXUALASSAULT COMPELLEDSEXUALASSAULTORCOMPELLEDSELF SEXUALASSAULTASCON
TEMPLATEDINSԜ OROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS
!MENDMENT!CT RESPECTIVELY
!NYSEXUALOFFENCEAGAINSTACHILDORAPERSONWHOISMENTALLYDISABLEDASCON
TEMPLATEDIN0ARTOF#HAPTERORTHEWHOLEOF#HAPTEROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW
4RAFFICKINGINPERSONSASPROVIDEDFORINSԜANDINVOLVEMENTINTHEOFFENCEAS
PROVIDEDFORINSԜOFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS
!CT
"ESTIALITY AS CONTEMPLATED IN SԜ OF THE #RIMINAL ,AW 3EXUAL /FFENCES AND
2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT
2OBBERY
+IDNAPPING
#HILDSTEALING
!SSAULT WHENADANGEROUSWOUNDISINFLICTED
!RSON
-ALICIOUSINJURYTOPROPERTY
"REAKINGORENTERINGANYPREMISES WHETHERUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORASTATU
TORYPROVISION WITHINTENTTOCOMMITANOFFENCE
4HEFT WHETHERUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORASTATUTORYPROVISION
2ECEIVINGSTOLENPROPERTYKNOWINGITTOHAVEBEENSTOLEN
&RAUD
&ORGERYORUTTERINGAFORGEDDOCUMENTKNOWINGITTOHAVEBEENFORGED


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
/FFENCESRELATINGTOTHECOINAGE
!NY OFFENCE EXCEPT THE OFFENCE OF ESCAPING FROM LAWFUL CUSTODY IN CIRCUM
STANCES OTHER THAN THE CIRCUMSTANCES REFERRED TO IMMEDIATELY HEREUNDER THE
PUNISHMENT WHEREFOR MAY BE A PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS
WITHOUTTHEOPTIONOFAFINE
%SCAPINGFROMLAWFULCUSTODY WHERETHEPERSONCONCERNEDISINSUCHCUSTODY
IN RESPECT OF ANY OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN THIS 3CHEDULE OR IS IN SUCH CUSTODY IN
RESPECTOFTHEOFFENCEOFESCAPINGFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
/FFENCESREFERREDTOINSԜ AND OFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4ORTURE
OF0ERSONS!CT
!NYCONSPIRACY INCITEMENTORATTEMPTTOCOMMITANYOFFENCEREFERREDTOINTHIS
3CHEDULE
3#(%$5,%
0!24))
4HEOFFENCESMENTIONEDINTHISPARTOF3CHEDULERELATETOSSAND
4REASON
3EDITION
-URDER
2APEORCOMPELLEDRAPEASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTIONSOROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW
/FFENCESPROVIDEDFORINSECTIONS ANDANDINVOLVEMENTINTHESEOFFENCES
ASPROVIDEDFORINSECTIONOFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN
0ERSONS!CT
2OBBERY
!RSON
4HEFT WHETHERUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORASTATUTORYPROVISION RECEIVINGSTOLEN
PROPERTYKNOWINGITTOHAVEBEENSTOLEN FRAUD FORGERYORUTTERINGAFORGEDDOCU
MENTKNOWINGITTOHAVEBEENFORGED INEACHCASEIFTHEAMOUNTORVALUEINVOLVED
INTHEOFFENCEEXCEEDS2
!NYOFFENCEUNDERANYLAWRELATINGTOTHEILLICITDEALINGINORPOSSESSIONOFPRE
CIOUSMETALSORPRECIOUSSTONES
!NYOFFENCEUNDERANYLAWRELATINGTOTHEILLICIT
A POSSESSIONOF
I DAGGAEXCEEDINGGRAMSOR
II ANYOTHERDEPENDENCE PRODUCINGDRUGSOR
B CONVEYANCEORSUPPLYOFDEPENDENCE PRODUCINGDRUGS
!NYOFFENCERELATINGTOTHECOINAGE

!00%.$)8r3#(%$5,%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
/FFENCESREFERREDTOINSECTION AND OFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF

4ORTUREOF0ERSONS!CT
!NYCONSPIRACY INCITEMENTORATTEMPTTOCOMMITANYOFFENCEREFERREDTOINTHIS
0ART
0!24)))
4HEOFFENCESMENTIONEDINTHISPARTOF3CHEDULERELATETOSS
3EDITION
0UBLICVIOLENCE
!RSON
-URDER
+IDNAPPING
#HILDSTEALING
/FFENCESASPROVIDEDFORINSECTIONS ANDANDINVOLVEMENTINTHESEOFFENCES
ASPROVIDEDFORINSECTIONOFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN
0ERSONS!CT
2OBBERY
(OUSEBREAKING WHETHERUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORASTATUTORYPROVISION WITH
INTENTTOCOMMITANOFFENCE
#ONTRAVENTIONOFTHEPROVISIONSOFSECTIONAND!OFTHE)NTIMIDATION!CT
!CTOF
/FFENCESREFERREDTOINSECTION AND OFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF
4ORTUREOF0ERSONS!CT
!NYCONSPIRACY INCITEMENTORATTEMPTTOCOMMITANYOFTHEABOVE MENTIONED
OFFENCES
4REASON
3#(%$5,%
4HEOFFENCESMENTIONEDIN3CHEDULERELATETOSS AND! AND
3CHEDULE
4REASON
-URDER
!TTEMPTEDMURDERINVOLVINGTHEINFLICTIONOFGRIEVOUSBODILYHARM
2APEORCOMPELLEDRAPEASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTIONOROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW
3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT RESPECTIVELY INCIR
CUMSTANCESOTHERTHANTHOSEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
!NY OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN SECTIONS AND AND INVOLVEMENT IN
THESEOFFENCESASPROVIDEDFORINSECTIONOFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF
4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS!CT
!NYOFFENCEREFERREDTOINSECTIONF OFTHE$RUGSAND$RUG4RAFFICKING!CT
!CTOF IFITISALLEGEDTHAT
A THEVALUEOFTHEDEPENDENCE PRODUCINGSUBSTANCEINQUESTIONISMORETHAN
2 OR

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
B THEVALUEOFTHEDEPENDENCE PRODUCINGSUBSTANCEINQUESTIONISMORETHAN
2 ANDTHATTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDBYAPERSON GROUPOFPER
SONS SYNDICATEORANYENTERPRISEACTINGINTHEEXECUTIONORFURTHERANCEOFA
COMMONPURPOSEORCONSPIRACYOR
C THEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDBYANYLAWENFORCEMENTOFFICER
!NYOFFENCERELATINGTOTHEDEALINGINORSMUGGLINGOFAMMUNITION FIREARMS
EXPLOSIVESORARMAMENT ORTHEPOSSESSIONOFANAUTOMATICORSEMI AUTOMATICFIRE
ARM EXPLOSIVESORARMAMENT
!NYOFFENCEINCONTRAVENTIONOFSECTIONOFTHE!RMSAND!MMUNITION!CT
!CT OF ON ACCOUNT OF BEING IN POSSESSION OF MORE THAN
ROUNDSOFAMMUNITIONINTENDEDFORFIRINGINANARMCONTEMPLATEDINSECTION
A I OFTHAT!CT
!NY OFFENCE RELATING TO EXCHANGE CONTROL EXTORTION FRAUD FORGERY UTTERING
THEFT ORANYOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN0ARTTO ORSECTION ORINSOFAR
ASITRELATESTOTHEAFOREMENTIONEDOFFENCES OF#HAPTEROFTHE0REVENTIONAND
#OMBATINGOF#ORRUPT!CTIVITIES!CT
A INVOLVINGAMOUNTSOFMORETHAN2 OR
B INVOLVINGAMOUNTSOFMORETHAN2 IFITISALLEGEDTHATTHEOFFENCE
WASCOMMITTEDBYAPERSON GROUPOFPERSONS SYNDICATEORANYENTERPRISEACT
INGINTHEEXECUTIONORFURTHERANCEOFACOMMONPURPOSEORCONSPIRACYOR
C IFITISALLEGEDTHATTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDBYANYLAWENFORCEMENTOFFICER
I INVOLVINGAMOUNTSOFMORETHAN2 OR
II ASAMEMBEROFAGROUPOFPERSONS SYNDICATEORANYENTERPRISEACTINGIN
THEEXECUTIONORFURTHERANCEOFACOMMONPURPOSEORCONSPIRACY
TEMPLATEDINSECTION OROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED
-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT RESPECTIVELYONACHILDUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS
!NOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
A ANDTHEACCUSEDHASPREVIOUSLYBEENCONVICTEDOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN
3CHEDULEOR
B WHICHWASALLEGEDLYCOMMITTEDWHILSTHEORSHEWASRELEASEDONBAILINRE
SPECTOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
4HEOFFENCESREFERREDTOINSECTION OR ORINSOFARASITRELATES
TOTHEAFOREMENTIONEDSECTIONS OFTHE0ROTECTIONOF#ONSTITUTIONAL$EMOCRACY
AGAINST4ERRORISTAND2ELATED!CTIVITIES!CT
!NYOFFENCEREFERREDTOINSECTION OROFTHE0REVENTIONOF/RGANISED
#RIME!CT !CTOF
!NYOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN
A SECTION OFTHE)NTERNATIONAL4RADE!DMINISTRATION!CT !CTOF

B SECTION A B C D K INSOFARASTHATPARAGRAPHRELATESTOSECTION
L M ORO OFTHE3ECOND (AND'OODS!CT !CTOF OR
C SECTIONOROFTHE'ENERAL,AW!MENDMENT!CT !CTOF

!00%.$)8r3#(%$5,%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
IF IT IS ALLEGED THAT FERROUS OR NON FERROUS METAL WHICH FORMED PART OF ESSENTIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ASDEFINEDINSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL-ATTERS!MENDMENT!CT
ISINVOLVED
4HEFT OF FERROUS OR NON FERROUS METAL WHICH FORMED PART OF ESSENTIAL INFRA
STRUCTURE AS DEFINED IN SECTION OF THE #RIMINAL -ATTERS !MENDMENT !CT

A IFITISALLEGEDTHATTHEOFFENCECAUSEDORHASTHEPOTENTIALTOCAUSE
I INTERFERENCEWITHORDISRUPTIONOFANYBASICSERVICE ASDEFINEDINSECTION
OFTHEAFOREMENTIONED!CT TOTHEPUBLICOR
II DAMAGETOSUCHESSENTIALINFRASTRUCTUREOR
B IFITISALLEGEDTHATTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDBYORWITHTHECOLLUSIONORAS
SISTANCEOF
I ALAWENFORCEMENTOFFICER ASDEFINEDINSECTION OFTHE#RIMINAL,AW
!MENDMENT!CT !CTOF
II ASECURITYOFFICER ASDEFINEDINSECTIONOFTHE0RIVATE3ECURITY)NDUSTRY
2EGULATION !CT !CT OF WHO WAS REQUIRED TO PROTECT OR
SAFEGUARDSUCHESSENTIALINFRASTRUCTURE
III ANEMPLOYEEOF ORCONTRACTORAPPOINTEDBY THEOWNERORTHEPERSONIN
CHARGEOFSUCHESSENTIALINFRASTRUCTUREOR
IV AGROUPOFPERSONS SYNDICATEORANYENTERPRISEACTINGINTHEEXECUTIONOR
FURTHERANCEOFACOMMONPURPOSEORCONSPIRACY
!NOFFENCEREFERREDTOINSECTIONOFTHE#RIMINAL-ATTERS!MENDMENT!CT

3#(%$5,%
4HEOFFENCESIN3CHEDULERELATETOSS AND AND!
-URDER WHEN
A ITWASPLANNEDORPREMEDITATED
B THEVICTIMWAS
I ALAWENFORCEMENTOFFICERPERFORMINGHISORHERFUNCTIONSASSUCH WHETH
ERONDUTYORNOT ORALAWENFORCEMENTOFFICERWHOWASKILLEDBYVIRTUEOF
HISORHERHOLDINGSUCHAPOSITIONOR
II APERSONWHOHASGIVENORWASLIKELYTOGIVEMATERIALEVIDENCEWITHREFER
ENCETOANYOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
C THEDEATHOFTHEVICTIMWASCAUSEDBYTHEACCUSEDINCOMMITTINGORATTEMPT
INGTOCOMMITORAFTERHAVINGCOMMITTEDORHAVINGATTEMPTEDTOCOMMITONE
OFTHEFOLLOWINGOFFENCES
I 2APEORCOMPELLEDRAPEASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTIONOROFTHE#RIMINAL
,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CT RESPEC
TIVELYOR
II ROBBERYWITHAGGRAVATINGCIRCUMSTANCESOR
D THEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDBYAPERSON GROUPOFPERSONSORSYNDICATEACTING
INTHEEXECUTIONORFURTHERANCEOFACOMMONPURPOSEORCONSPIRACY
2APEORCOMPELLEDRAPEASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTIONOROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
A WHENCOMMITTED
I INCIRCUMSTANCESWHERETHEVICTIMWASRAPEDMORETHANONCE WHETHER
BYTHEACCUSEDORBYANYCO PERPETRATORORACCOMPLICE
II BYMORETHANONEPERSON WHERESUCHPERSONSACTEDINTHEEXECUTIONOR
FURTHERANCEOFACOMMONPURPOSEORCONSPIRACY
III BYAPERSONWHOISCHARGEDWITHHAVINGCOMMITTEDTWOORMOREOFFENCES
OFRAPEOR
IV BYAPERSON KNOWINGTHATHEHASTHEACQUIREDIMMUNEDEFICIENCYSYN
DROMEORTHEHUMANIMMUNODEFICIENCYVIRUS
B WHERETHEVICTIM
I ISAPERSONUNDERTHEAGEOFYEARS
II ISAPHYSICALLYDISABLEDPERSONWHO DUETOHISORHERPHYSICALDISABILITY
ISRENDEREDPARTICULARLYVULNERABLEOR
III ISAPERSONWHOISMENTALLYDISABLEDASCONTEMPLATEDINSECTIONOFTHE
#RIMINAL ,AW 3EXUAL /FFENCES AND 2ELATED -ATTERS !MENDMENT !CT
OR
C INVOLVINGTHEINFLICTIONOFGRIEVOUSBODILYHARM
!NYOFFENCEREFERREDTOINSECTIONANDINVOLVEMENTINTHESEOFFENCESASPRO
VIDEDFORINSECTIONOFTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS
!CT
2OBBERY INVOLVING
A THEUSEBYTHEACCUSEDORANYCO PERPETRATORSORPARTICIPANTSOFAFIREARM
B THEINFLICTIONOFGRIEVOUSBODILYHARMBYTHEACCUSEDORANYOFTHECO PERPE
TRATORSORPARTICIPANTSOR
C THETAKINGOFAMOTORVEHICLE
!NOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE
A ANDTHEACCUSEDHASPREVIOUSLYBEENCONVICTEDOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN
3CHEDULEORTHIS3CHEDULEOR
B WHICHWASALLEGEDLYCOMMITTEDWHILSTHEORSHEWASRELEASEDONBAILINRE
SPECTOFANOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULEORTHIS3CHEDULE
4HEOFFENCESREFERREDTOINSECTION A ORINSOFAR
ASITRELATESTOTHEAFOREMENTIONEDSECTIONS OFTHE0ROTECTIONOF#ONSTITUTIONAL
$EMOCRACYAGAINST4ERRORISTAND2ELATED!CTIVITIES!CT SECTION AND
OFTHE#IVIL!VIATION/FFENCES!CT !CTOF SECTION J OFTHE
.ON 0ROLIFERATIONOF7EAPONSOF-ASS$ESTRUCTION!CT !CTOF AND
SECTION H OFTHE.UCLEAR%NERGY!CT !CTOF

!00%.$)8r3#(%$5,%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%
3#(%$5,%
4HEOFFENCESMENTIONEDIN3CHEDULERELATETOSS$AND%
4REASON
3EDITION
0UBLICVIOLENCE
-URDER
!NYOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN0ART)OR0ART))OF3CHEDULETOTHE)MPLEMENTATION
OFTHE2OME3TATUTEOFTHE)NTERNATIONAL#RIMINAL#OURT!CTOF
#ULPABLEHOMICIDE
2APE OR COMPELLED RAPE AS CONTEMPLATED IN SS AND OF THE #RIMINAL ,AW
TEMPLATEDINSԜ OROFTHE#RIMINAL,AW3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS
!MENDMENT!CTOF RESPECTIVELY
3EXUAL/FFENCESAND2ELATED-ATTERS !MENDMENT!CTOF RESPECTIVELY
2OBBERY
+IDNAPPING
#HILDSTEALING
!RSON
4HEFT WHETHERUNDERTHECOMMONLAWORASTATUTORYPROVISION
%SCAPINGFROMLAWFULCUSTODY WHERETHEPERSONCONCERNEDISINSUCHCUSTODY
INRESPECTOFANYOFFENCEREFERREDTOIN3CHEDULE ORISINSUCHCUSTODYINRESPECT
OFTHEOFFENCEOFESCAPINGFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
!NY
A OFFENCEUNDERTHE&IREARMS#ONTROL!CTOFWHICHISPUNISHABLEWITH
IMPRISONMENTFORAPERIODOFFIVEYEARSORLONGERINTERMSOFTHESAID!CT
B OFFENCEUNDERTHE%XPLOSIVES!CTOFWHICHISPUNISHABLEWITHIMPRIS
ONMENTFORAPERIODOFFIVEYEARSORLONGERINTERMSOFTHESAID!CT
C #ONVENTIONOFFENCEORSPECIFIEDOFFENCEASDEFINEDINSECTIONOFTHE0ROTEC
TIONOF#ONSTITUTIONAL$EMOCRACYAGAINST4ERRORISTAND2ELATED!CTIVITIES!CT
OF
D OFFENCEOFTRAFFICKINGINPERSONSASDEFINEDINSECTIONOFTHE0REVENTIONAND
#OMBATINGOF4RAFFICKINGIN0ERSONS!CTOFOR
E OFFENCEOFTORTUREASDEFINEDINTHE0REVENTIONAND#OMBATINGOF4ORTUREOF
0ERSONS!CTOF
!NY CONSPIRACY INCITEMENT OR ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ANY OFFENCE REFERRED TO IN
THIS3CHEDULE

3ELECTEDSECTIONSOFTHE
#ONSTITUTIONOFTHE2EPUBLICOF
3OUTH!FRICA
3ECTION2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA
4HE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICAISONE SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATICSTATEFOUNDEDONTHE
FOLLOWINGVALUES
x
C 3UPREMACYOFTHECONSTITUTIONANDTHERULEOFLAW
3ECTION3UPREMACYOF#ONSTITUTION
4HIS#ONSTITUTIONISTHESUPREMELAWOFTHE2EPUBLICLAWORCONDUCTINCONSISTENT
WITHITISINVALID ANDTHEOBLIGATIONSIMPOSEDBYITMUSTBEFULFILLED
3ECTION2 IGHTS
4HIS"ILLOF2IGHTSISACORNERSTONEOFDEMOCRACYIN3OUTH!FRICA)TENSHRINES
THERIGHTSOFALLPEOPLEINOURCOUNTRYANDAFFIRMSTHEDEMOCRATICVALUESOF
HUMANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOM
4HE3TATEMUSTRESPECT PROTECT PROMOTEANDFULFILTHERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF
2IGHTS
3ECTION!PPLICATIONOFRIGHTS
4HE"ILLOF2IGHTSAPPLIESTOALLLAW ANDBINDSTHELEGISLATURE THEEXECUTIVE
THEJUDICIARYANDALLORGANSOFSTATE
!PROVISIONOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSBINDSANATURALORAJURISTICPERSONIF ANDTO
THEEXTENTTHAT ITISAPPLICABLE TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHENATUREOFTHERIGHT
ANDTHENATUREOFANYDUTYIMPOSEDBYTHERIGHT
7HENAPPLYINGAPROVISIONOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSTOANATURALORJURISTICPERSON
INTERMSOFSUBSECTION ACOURT
A INORDERTOGIVEEFFECTTOARIGHTINTHE"ILL MUSTAPPLY ORIFNECESSARYDE
VELOP THECOMMONLAWTOTHEEXTENTTHATLEGISLATIONDOESNOTGIVEEFFECTTO
THATRIGHTAND
B MAYDEVELOPRULESOFTHECOMMONLAWTOLIMITTHERIGHT PROVIDEDTHAT
THELIMITATIONISINACCORDANCEWITHSECTION
!JURISTICPERSONISENTITLEDTOTHERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSTOTHEEXTENT
REQUIREDBYTHENATUREOFTHERIGHTSANDTHENATUREOFTHATJURISTICPERSON
3ECTION%QUALITY
%VERYONEISEQUALBEFORETHELAWANDHASTHERIGHTTOEQUALPROTECTIONAND
BENEFITOFTHELAW
%QUALITYINCLUDESTHEFULLANDEQUALENJOYMENTOFALLRIGHTSANDFREEDOMSx
4HESTATEMAYNOTUNFAIRLYDISCRIMINATEDIRECTLYORINDIRECTLYAGAINSTANYONE
ONONEORMOREGROUNDS INCLUDINGRACE GENDER SEX PREGNANCY MARITALSTATUS


!00%.$)8r3%,%#4%$3%#4)/.3/&4(%#/.34)454)/./&4(%23!
ETHNIC OR SOCIAL ORIGIN COLOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION AGE DISABILITY RELIGION
CONSCIENCE BELIEF CULTURE LANGUAGEANDBIRTH
x
$ISCRIMINATIONONONEORMOREOFTHEGROUNDSLISTEDINSUBSECTION ISUN
FAIRUNLESSITISESTABLISHEDTHATTHEDISCRIMINATIONISFAIR
3ECTION(UMANDIGNITY
%VERYONEHASINHERENTDIGNITYANDTHERIGHTTOHAVETHEIRDIGNITYRESPECTEDAND
PROTECTED
3ECTION,IFE
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOLIFE
3ECTION&REEDOMANDSECURITYOFTHEPERSON
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOFREEDOMANDSECURITYOFTHEPERSON WHICHINCLUDES
THERIGHT
A NOTTOBEDEPRIVEDOFFREEDOMARBITRARILYORWITHOUTJUSTCAUSE
B NOTTOBEDETAINEDWITHOUTTRIAL
C TOBEFREEFROMALLFORMSOFVIOLENCEFROMEITHERPUBLICORPRIVATESOURCES
D NOTTOBETORTUREDINANYWAYAND
E NOTTOBETREATEDORPUNISHEDINACRUEL INHUMANORDEGRADINGWAY
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOBODILYANDPSYCHOLOGICALINTEGRITY WHICHINCLUDES
THERIGHT
x
B TOSECURITYINANDCONTROLOVERTHEIRBODYx
3ECTION0RIVACY
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOPRIVACY WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHTNOTTOHAVE
A THEIRPERSONORHOMESEARCHED
B THEIRPROPERTYSEARCHED
C THEIRPOSSESSIONSSEIZEDOR
D THEPRIVACYOFTHEIRCOMMUNICATIONSINFRINGED
3ECTION&REEDOMOFMOVEMENTANDRESIDENCE
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOFREEDOMOFMOVEMENTx
3ECTION!CCESSTOINFORMATION
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTOFACCESSTO
A ANYINFORMATIONHELDBYTHESTATEAND
B ANYINFORMATIONTHATISHELDBYANOTHERPERSONANDTHATISREQUIREDFORTHE
EXERCISEORPROTECTIONOFANYRIGHTS
3ECTION!CCESSTOCOURTS
%VERYONEHASTHERIGHTTOHAVEANYDISPUTETHATCANBERESOLVEDBYTHEAPPLICA
TIONOFLAWDECIDEDINAFAIRPUBLICHEARINGBEFOREACOURTOR WHEREAPPROPRIATE
ANOTHERINDEPENDENTANDIMPARTIALTRIBUNALORFORUM
3ECTION! RRESTED DETAINEDANDACCUSEDPERSONS
%VERYONEWHOISARRESTEDFORALLEDGEDLYCOMMITTINGANOFFENCEHASTHERIGHT
A TOREMAINSILENT
B TOBEINFORMEDPROMPTLY

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
I OFTHERIGHTTOREMAINSILENTAND
II OFTHECONSEQUENCESOFNOTREMAININGSILENT
C NOTTOBECOMPELLEDTOMAKEANYCONFESSIONORADMISSIONTHATCOULDBE
USEDINEVIDENCEAGAINSTTHATPERSON
D TOBEBROUGHTBEFOREACOURTASSOONASREASONABLYPOSSIBLE BUTNOTLATER
THAN
II THEENDOFTHEFIRSTCOURTDAYAFTERTHEEXPIRYOFTHEHOURS IFTHE
HOURSEXPIREOUTSIDEORDINARYCOURTHOURSORONADAYWHICHISNOT
ANORDINARYCOURTDAY
E ATTHEFIRSTCOURTAPPEARANCEAFTERBEINGARRESTED TOBECHARGEDORTOBE
INFORMEDOFTHEREASONFORTHEDETENTIONTOCONTINUE ORTOBERELEASEDAND
F TOBERELEASEDFROMDETENTIONIFTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICEPERMIT SUBJECTTO
REASONABLECONDITIONS
%VERYONEWHOISDETAINED INCLUDINGEVERYSENTENCEDPRISONER HASTHERIGHT
A TOBEINFORMEDPROMPTLYOFTHEREASONFORBEINGDETAINED
B TOCHOOSE ANDTOCONSULTWITH ALEGALPRACTITIONER ANDTOBEINFORMEDOF
THISRIGHTPROMPTLY
C TOHAVEALEGALPRACTITIONERASSIGNEDTOTHEDETAINEDPERSONBYTHESTATE
ANDATSTATEEXPENSE IFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULT AND
TOBEINFORMEDOFTHISRIGHTPROMPTLY
D TOCHALLENGETHELAWFULNESSOFTHEDETENTIONINPERSONBEFOREACOURTAND
IFTHEDETENTIONISUNLAWFUL TOBERELEASED
E TOCONDITIONSOFDETENTIONTHATARECONSISTENTWITHHUMANDIGNITY INCLUDING
ATLEASTEXERCISEANDTHEPROVISION ATSTATEEXPENSE OFADEQUATEACCOM
MODATION NUTRITION READINGMATERIALANDMEDICALTREATMENTAND
F TOCOMMUNICATEWITH ANDBEVISITEDBY THATPERSONS
I SPOUSEORPARTNER
II NEXTOFKIN
III CHOSENRELIGIOUSCOUNSELLORAND
IV CHOSENMEDICALPRACTITIONER
%VERYACCUSEDPERSONHASARIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL WHICHINCLUDESTHERIGHT
A TOBEINFORMEDOFTHECHARGEWITHSUFFICIENTDETAILTOANSWERIT
B TOHAVEADEQUATETIMEANDFACILITIESTOPREPAREADEFENCE
C TOAPUBLICTRIALBEFOREANORDINARYCOURT
D TOHAVETHEIRTRIALBEGINANDCONCLUDEWITHOUTUNREASONABLEDELAY
E TOBEPRESENTWHENBEINGTRIED
F TOCHOOSE ANDBEREPRESENTEDBY ALEGALPRACTITIONER ANDTOBEINFORMED
OFTHISRIGHTPROMPTLY
G TOHAVEALEGALPRACTITIONERASSIGNEDTOTHEACCUSEDPERSONBYTHESTATE
ANDATSTATEEXPENSE IFSUBSTANTIALINJUSTICEWOULDOTHERWISERESULT AND
TOBEINFORMEDOFTHISRIGHTPROMPTLY
H TOBEPRESUMEDINNOCENT TOREMAINSILENT ANDNOTTOTESTIFYDURINGTHE
PROCEEDINGS
I TOADDUCEANDCHALLENGEEVIDENCE
J NOTTOBECOMPELLEDTOGIVESELF INCRIMINATINGEVIDENCE

!00%.$)8r3%,%#4%$3%#4)/.3/&4(%#/.34)454)/./&4(%23!
K TOBETRIEDINALANGUAGETHATTHEACCUSEDPERSONUNDERSTANDSOR IFTHAT
ISNOTPRACTICABLE TOHAVETHEPROCEEDINGSINTERPRETEDINTHATLANGUAGE
L NOTTOBECONVICTEDFORANACTOROMISSIONTHATWASNOTANOFFENCEUNDER
EITHERNATIONALORINTERNATIONALLAWATTHETIMEITWASCOMMITTEDOROMITTED
M NOTTOBETRIEDFORANOFFENCEINRESPECTOFANACTOROMISSIONFORWHICH
THATPERSONHASPREVIOUSLYBEENEITHERACQUITTEDORCONVICTED
N TO THE BENEFIT OF THE LEAST SEVERE OF THE PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENTS IF THE
PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE HAS BEEN CHANGED BETWEEN THE
TIMETHATTHEOFFENCEWASCOMMITTEDANDTHETIMEOFSENTENCINGAND
O OFAPPEALTO ORREVIEWBY AHIGHERCOURT
7HENEVER THIS SECTION REQUIRES INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO A PERSON THAT
INFORMATIONMUSTBEGIVENINALANGUAGETHATTHEPERSONUNDERSTANDS
%VIDENCEOBTAINEDINAMANNERTHATVIOLATESANYRIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
MUST BE EXCLUDED IF THE ADMISSION OF THAT EVIDENCE WOULD RENDER THE TRIAL
UNFAIROROTHERWISEBEDETRIMENTALTOTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE
3ECTION,IMITATIONOFRIGHTS
4HERIGHTSINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSMAYBELIMITEDONLYINTERMSOFLAWOFGENERAL
APPLICATION TO THE EXTENT THAT THE LIMITATION IS REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE
IN AN OPEN AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BASED ON HUMAN DIGNITY EQUALITY AND
FREEDOM TAKINGINTOACCOUNTALLRELEVANTFACTORS INCLUDING
%XCEPTASPROVIDEDINSUBSECTION ORINANYOTHERPROVISIONOFTHE#ONSTI
TUTION NOLAWMAYLIMITANYRIGHTENTRENCHEDINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
3ECTION3TATESOFEMERGENCY
!STATEOFEMERGENCYMAYBEDECLAREDONLYINTERMSOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT
ANDONLYWHEN
A THELIFEOFTHENATIONISTHREATENEDBYWAR INVASION GENERALINSURRECTION
DISORDER NATURALDISASTEROROTHERPUBLICEMERGENCYAND
B THEDECLARATIONISNECESSARYTORESTOREPEACEANDORDER
! DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND ANY LEGISLATION ENACTED OR OTHER
ACTIONTAKENINCONSEQUENCEOFTHATDECLARATION MAYBEEFFECTIVEONLY
A PROSPECTIVELYAND
B FOR NO MORE THAN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECLARATION UNLESS THE
.ATIONAL !SSEMBLY RESOLVES TO EXTEND THE DECLARATION 4HE !SSEMBLY
MAYEXTENDADECLARATIONOFASTATEOFEMERGENCYFORNOMORETHANTHREE
MONTHSATATIME4HEFIRSTEXTENSIONOFTHESTATEOFEMERGENCYMUSTBE
BYARESOLUTIONADOPTEDWITHASUPPORTINGVOTEOFAMAJORITYOFTHEMEM
BERSOFTHE!SSEMBLY!NYSUBSEQUENTEXTENSIONMUSTBEBYARESOLUTION
ADOPTEDWITHASUPPORTINGVOTEOFATLEASTPERCENTOFTHEMEMBERSOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
THE !SSEMBLY ! RESOLUTION IN TERMS OF THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE ADOPTED
ONLYFOLLOWINGAPUBLICDEBATEINTHE!SSEMBLY
!NYCOMPETENTCOURTMAYDECIDEONTHEVALIDITYOF
A ADECLARATIONOFASTATEOFEMERGENCY
B ANYEXTENSIONOFADECLARATIONOFASTATEOFEMERGENCYOR
C ANYLEGISLATIONENACTED OROTHERACTIONTAKEN INCONSEQUENCEOFADECLA
RATIONOFASTATEOFEMERGENCY
!NYLEGISLATIONENACTEDINCONSEQUENCEOFADECLARATIONOFASTATEOFEMERGENCY
MAYDEROGATEFROMTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSONLYTOTHEEXTENTTHAT
A THEDEROGATIONISSTRICTLYREQUIREDBYTHEEMERGENCYAND
B THELEGISLATION
I ISCONSISTENTWITHTHE2EPUBLICSOBLIGATIONSUNDERINTERNATIONALLAW
APPLICABLETOSTATESOFEMERGENCY
II CONFORMSTOSUBSECTION AND
III ISPUBLISHEDINTHENATIONAL'OVERNMENT'AZETTEASSOONASREASON
ABLYPOSSIBLEAFTERBEINGENACTED
.O!CTOF0ARLIAMENTTHATAUTHORISESADECLARATIONOFASTATEOFEMERGENCY AND
NOLEGISLATIONENACTEDOROTHERACTIONTAKENINCONSEQUENCEOFADECLARATION
MAYPERMITORAUTHORISE
A INDEMNIFYINGTHESTATE ORANYPERSON INRESPECTOFANYUNLAWFULACT
B ANYDEROGATIONFROMTHISSECTIONOR
C ANY DEROGATION FROM A SECTION MENTIONED IN COLUMN OF THE 4ABLE OF
.ON $EROGABLE 2IGHTS TO THE EXTENT INDICATED OPPOSITE THAT SECTION IN
COLUMNOFTHE4ABLE
4ABLEOF.ON $EROGABLE2IGHTS

3ECTION 3ECTIONTITLE %XTENTTOWHICHTHERIGHTIS
NUMBER PROTECTED
%QUALITY 7ITHRESPECTTOUNFAIRDISCRIMINATION
SOLELYONTHEGROUNDSOFRACE COLOUR
ETHNICORSOCIALORIGIN SEX RELIGIONOR
LANGUAGE
(UMANDIGNITY %NTIRELY
,IFE %NTIRELY
&REEDOMANDSECU 7ITHRESPECTTOSUBSECTIONS D ANDE
RITYOFTHEPERSON AND C
3LAVERY SERVITUDE 7ITHRESPECTTOSLAVERYANDSERVITUDE
ANDFORCEDLABOUR
#HILDREN 7ITHRESPECTTO
SUBSECTION D ANDE
THERIGHTSINSUBPARAGRAPHSI AND
II OFSUBSECTION G AND
SUBSECTIONI INRESPECTOFCHILD
RENOFYEARSANDYOUNGER

!00%.$)8r3%,%#4%$3%#4)/.3/&4(%#/.34)454)/./&4(%23!

3ECTION 3ECTIONTITLE %XTENTTOWHICHTHERIGHTIS
NUMBER PROTECTED
!RRESTED DETAINED 7ITHRESPECTTO
ANDACCUSED SUBSECTIONS A B ANDC AND D
PERSONS THERIGHTSINPARAGRAPHSA TOO
OFSUBSECTION EXCLUDINGPARA
GRAPHD
SUBSECTION AND
SUBSECTION WITHRESPECT
TOTHEEXCLUSIONOFEVIDENCE
IFTHEADMISSIONOFTHATEVI
DENCEWOULDRENDERTHETRIAL
UNFAIR
7HENEVERANYONEISDETAINEDWITHOUTTRIALINCONSEQUENCEOFADEROGATION
OFRIGHTSRESULTINGFROMADECLARATIONOFASTATEOFEMERGENCY THEFOLLOWING
CONDITIONSMUSTBEOBSERVED
A !NADULTFAMILYMEMBERORFRIENDOFTHEDETAINEEMUSTBECONTACTEDASSOON
ASREASONABLYPOSSIBLE ANDINFORMEDTHATTHEPERSONHASBEENDETAINED
B !NOTICEMUSTBEPUBLISHEDINTHENATIONAL'OVERNMENT'AZETTEWITHIN
FIVEDAYSOFTHEPERSONBEINGDETAINED STATINGTHEDETAINEESNAMEAND
PLACEOFDETENTIONANDREFERRINGTOTHEEMERGENCYMEASUREINTERMSOF
WHICHTHATPERSONHASBEENDETAINED
C 4HEDETAINEEMUSTBEALLOWEDTOCHOOSE ANDBEVISITEDATANYREASONABLE
TIMEBY AMEDICALPRACTITIONER
D 4HEDETAINEEMUSTBEALLOWEDTOCHOOSE ANDBEVISITEDATANYREASONABLE
TIMEBY ALEGALREPRESENTATIVE
E !COURTMUSTREVIEWTHEDETENTIONASSOONASREASONABLYPOSSIBLE BUTNOT
LATERTHANDAYSAFTERTHEDATETHEPERSONWASDETAINED ANDTHECOURT
MUSTRELEASETHEDETAINEEUNLESSITISNECESSARYTOCONTINUETHEDETENTION
TORESTOREPEACEANDORDER
F !DETAINEEWHOISNOTRELEASEDINTERMSOFAREVIEWUNDERPARAGRAPHE OR
WHOISNOTRELEASEDINTERMSOFAREVIEWUNDERTHISPARAGRAPH MAYAPPLYTO
ACOURTFORAFURTHERREVIEWOFTHEDETENTIONATANYTIMEAFTERDAYSHAVE
PASSEDSINCETHEPREVIOUSREVIEW ANDTHECOURTMUSTRELEASETHEDETAINEEUN
LESSITISSTILLNECESSARYTOCONTINUETHEDETENTIONTORESTOREPEACEANDORDER
G 4HEDETAINEEMUSTBEALLOWEDTOAPPEARINPERSONBEFOREANYCOURTCON
SIDERINGTHEDETENTION TOBEREPRESENTEDBYALEGALPRACTITIONERATTHOSE
HEARINGS ANDTOMAKEREPRESENTATIONSAGAINSTCONTINUEDDETENTION
H 4HESTATEMUSTPRESENTWRITTENREASONSTOTHECOURTTOJUSTIFYTHECONTINUED
DETENTIONOFTHEDETAINEE ANDMUSTGIVEACOPYOFTHOSEREASONSTOTHE
DETAINEEATLEASTTWODAYSBEFORETHECOURTREVIEWSTHEDETENTION
)FACOURTRELEASESADETAINEE THATPERSONMAYNOTBEDETAINEDAGAINONTHE
SAMEGROUNDSUNLESSTHESTATEFIRSTSHOWSACOURTGOODCAUSEFORRE DETAINING
THATPERSON

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
3UBSECTIONS AND DONOTAPPLYTOPERSONSWHOARENOT3OUTH!FRICANCITI

ZENSANDWHOAREDETAINEDINCONSEQUENCEOFANINTERNATIONALARMEDCONFLICT
)NSTEAD THESTATEMUSTCOMPLYWITHTHESTANDARDSBINDINGONTHE2EPUBLICUNDER
INTERNATIONALHUMANITARIANLAWINRESPECTOFTHEDETENTIONOFSUCHPERSONS
3ECTION%NFORCEMENTOFRIGHTS
!NYONELISTEDINTHISSECTIONHASTHERIGHTTOAPPROACHACOMPETENTCOURT ALLEG
INGTHATARIGHTINTHE"ILLOF2IGHTSHASBEENINFRINGEDORTHREATENED ANDTHE
COURTMAYGRANTAPPROPRIATERELIEF INCLUDINGADECLARATIONOFRIGHTS4HEPERSONS
WHOMAYAPPROACHACOURTARE
A ANYONEACTINGINTHEIROWNINTEREST
B ANYONEACTINGONBEHALFOFANOTHERPERSONWHOCANNOTACTINTHEIROWNNAME
C ANYONEACTINGASAMEMBEROF ORINTHEINTERESTOF AGROUPORCLASSOFPERSONS
D ANYONEACTINGINTHEPUBLICINTERESTAND
E ANASSOCIATIONACTINGINTHEINTERESTOFITSMEMBERS
3ECTION)NTERPRETATIONOF"ILLOF2IGHTS
7HENINTERPRETINGTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS ACOURT TRIBUNALORFORUM
A MUSTPROMOTETHEVALUESTHATUNDERLIEANOPENANDDEMOCRATICSOCIETY
BASEDONHUMANDIGNITY EQUALITYANDFREEDOM
B MUSTCONSIDERINTERNATIONALLAWAND
C MAYCONSIDERFOREIGNLAW
7HEN INTERPRETING ANY LEGISLATION AND WHEN DEVELOPING THE COMMON LAW
OR CUSTOMARY LAW EVERY COURT TRIBUNAL OR FORUM MUST PROMOTE THE SPIRIT
PURPORTANDOBJECTSOFTHE"ILLOF2IGHTS
4HE"ILLOF2IGHTSDOESNOTDENYTHEEXISTENCEOFANYOTHERRIGHTSORFREEDOMS
THATARERECOGNISEDORCONFERREDBYCOMMONLAW CUSTOMARYLAWORLEGISLA
TION TOTHEEXTENTTHATTHEYARECONSISTENTWITHTHE"ILL
3ECTION0OWERSANDFUNCTIONSOF0RESIDENT
4HE0RESIDENTHASTHEPOWERSENTRUSTEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDLEGISLATION
INCLUDINGTHOSENECESSARYTOPERFORMTHEFUNCTIONSOF(EADOF3TATEANDHEAD
OFTHENATIONALEXECUTIVE
4HE0RESIDENTISRESPONSIBLEFOR
x
J PARDONINGORREPRIEVINGOFFENDERSANDREMITTINGANYFINES PENALTIESOR
FORFEITURESx
3ECTION*UDICIALAUTHORITY
4HEJUDICIALAUTHORITYOFTHE2EPUBLICISVESTEDINTHECOURTS
4HECOURTSAREINDEPENDENTANDSUBJECTONLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONANDTHELAW
WHICHTHEYMUSTAPPLYIMPARTIALLYANDWITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICE
3ECTION-AGISTRATESCOURTSANDOTHERCOURTS
-AGISTRATES#OURTSANDALLOTHERCOURTSMAYDECIDEANYMATTERDETERMINEDBYAN!CT
OF0ARLIAMENT BUTACOURTOFASTATUSLOWERTHANA(IGH#OURTMAYNOTENQUIREINTO
ORRULEONTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFANYLEGISLATIONORANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT
3ECTION#OURTPROCEDURES
!LL COURTS FUNCTION IN TERMS OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND THEIR RULES AND PROCE
DURESMUSTBEPROVIDEDFORINTERMSOFNATIONALLEGISLATION

!00%.$)8r3%,%#4%$3%#4)/.3/&4(%#/.34)454)/./&4(%23!
3ECTION0OWERSOFCOURTSINCONSTITUTIONALMATTERS
7HENDECIDINGACONSTITUTIONALMATTERWITHINITSPOWER ACOURT
A MUSTDECLARETHATANYLAWORCONDUCTTHATISINCONSISTENTWITHTHE#ON
STITUTIONISINVALIDTOTHEEXTENTOFITSINCONSISTENCYAND
B MAYMAKEANYORDERTHATISJUSTANDEQUITABLE INCLUDING
AND
II ANORDERSUSPENDINGTHEDECLARATIONOFINVALIDITYFORANYPERIODANDON
ANYCONDITIONS TOALLOWTHECOMPETENTAUTHORITYTOCORRECTTHEDEFECT
A 4HE3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL A(IGH#OURTORACOURTOFSIMILARSTATUSMAY
MAKEANORDERCONCERNINGTHECONSTITUTIONALVALIDITYOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT
APROVINCIAL!CTORANYCONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT BUTANORDEROFCONSTITU
TIONALINVALIDITYHASNOFORCEUNLESSITISCONFIRMEDBYTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL
#OURT
B !COURTWHICHMAKESANORDEROFCONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYMAYGRANTA
TEMPORARYINTERDICTOROTHERTEMPORARYRELIEFTOAPARTY ORMAYADJOURN
THEPROCEEDINGS PENDINGADECISIONOFTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTONTHE
VALIDITYOFTHAT!CTORCONDUCT
C .ATIONALLEGISLATIONMUSTPROVIDEFORTHEREFERRALOFANORDEROFCONSTITU
TIONALINVALIDITYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
D !NY PERSON OR ORGAN OF STATE WITH A SUFFICIENT INTEREST MAY APPEAL OR
APPLY DIRECTLYTOTHE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTTOCONFIRMORVARYANORDEROF
CONSTITUTIONALINVALIDITYBYACOURTINTERMSOFTHISSUBSECTION
3ECTION)NHERENTPOWER
4HE#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT 3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAND(IGH#OURTSHAVETHE
INHERENT POWER TO PROTECT AND REGULATE THEIR OWN PROCESS AND TO DEVELOP THE
COMMONLAW TAKINGINTOACCOUNTTHEINTERESTSOFJUSTICE
3ECTION0ROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
4HEREISASINGLENATIONALPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYINTHE2EPUBLIC STRUCTUREDIN
TERMSOFAN!CTOF0ARLIAMENT ANDCONSISTINGOF
A A.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS WHOISTHEHEADOFTHEPROS
ECUTING AUTHORITY AND IS APPOINTED BY THE 0RESIDENT AS HEAD OF THE
NATIONALEXECUTIVEAND
B $IRECTORSOF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONSANDPROSECUTORSASDETERMINEDBYAN!CT
OF0ARLIAMENT
4HE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY HAS THE POWER TO INSTITUTE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
ONBEHALFOFTHESTATE ANDTOCARRYOUTANYNECESSARYFUNCTIONSINCIDENTALTO
INSTITUTINGCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
.ATIONALLEGISLATIONMUSTENSURETHATTHE$IRECTORSOF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
A AREAPPROPRIATELYQUALIFIEDAND
B ARERESPONSIBLEFORPROSECUTIONSINSPECIFICJURISDICTIONS SUBJECTTOSUB
SECTION
.ATIONALLEGISLATIONMUSTENSURETHATTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYEXERCISESITS
FUNCTIONSWITHOUTFEAR FAVOURORPREJUDICE

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
4HE.ATIONAL$IRECTOROF0UBLIC0ROSECUTIONS
A MUST DETERMINE WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE #ABINET MEMBER RESPON
SIBLEFORTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICE ANDAFTERCONSULTINGTHE$IRECTORS
OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS PROSECUTION POLICY WHICH MUST BE OBSERVED IN
THEPROSECUTIONPROCESS
B MUSTISSUEPOLICYDIRECTIVESWHICHMUSTBEOBSERVEDINTHEPROSECUTION
PROCESS
C MAYINTERVENEINTHEPROSECUTIONPROCESSWHENPOLICYDIRECTIVESARENOT
COMPLIEDWITHAND
D MAYREVIEWADECISIONTOPROSECUTEORNOTTOPROSECUTE AFTERCONSULTING
THE RELEVANT $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC 0ROSECUTIONS AND AFTER TAKING REPRESEN
TATIONS WITHIN A PERIOD SPECIFIED BY THE .ATIONAL $IRECTOR OF 0UBLIC
0ROSECUTIONS FROMTHEFOLLOWING
I 4HEACCUSEDPERSON
II 4HECOMPLAINANT
III !NYOTHERPERSONORPARTYWHOMTHE.ATIONAL$IRECTORCONSIDERSTO
BERELEVANT
4HE#ABINETMEMBERRESPONSIBLEFORTHEADMINISTRATIONOFJUSTICEMUSTEXER
CISEFINALRESPONSIBILITYOVERTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
!LLOTHERMATTERSCONCERNINGTHEPROSECUTINGAUTHORITYMUSTBEDETERMINED
BYNATIONALLEGISLATION

2EFERENCESTOTHE#RIMINAL
0ROCEDURE!CT

A
B

A nD
A
B C D
A B C

n

A
B

B

F G H H! I

A B C

A

A B


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
A
B

A B
I

!
"
#
$
%

C
A

A B
C D E F G H I J K
L M N O P Q
n

A B C D


2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4

A

A I BB
B C
D
D V
D

A B

!

B

C D

A

!
!

A B C

A
!
!
!
!

A B
C
A B C
D
"
" A
" B I II

n

A nD
A nE
A
B
C

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
D E

n!
n

A
B C
D E
F
G H

A B C D E F G H I J

!

A
B
!
"
" A
" A I II
" B
" C
" D
" D I II

A
B

F

A
!
!
! A nC
! AA
! A II
! B
! BB
! D
! A I II III

A n! A
A
B
C

!
! A
!
! A
! B

2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4
! C
!

B

!

A nD
E nG

!

!

! n#
!

B C

n

!

I
A
A I
A II
B

! "

A
B I II

A B
!
A B

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
D

C

!
! A
! B III
!

A
C
D
F

E

!

A
A II
B

B

A
B

!

2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4

A B
C

A!

II

!n$
!
#
$
n
n

A B
A B

A
A II

A B

B

A B

A

A
B

A
B B I II


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+

A B

!

B

E

A

!n$
!

n

A B

!
! A B A

n

2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4

B

n

!

B II
B

! B

n!
n

A

A B
D

C

n!

!

n
!n%
!
"n$
"n%
"
#
#
$

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+

H
I

!
! A B
!
!
"
" B

!
!
"

" B

A
A I CC
C

A

!
!

A
A I
A II
B

A
B
B IV
C


2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4
!

!

A
B

!

A

A
"
" A
" B
" A
" D A
"
" A
"
"
#
#
# A
# A I
# B
# n
# D
#
$ A
$
$

!
!
!

A
B

A
A
B


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
A

n

A
B
A
A
E

A B
C

A II

"
"

A
C

!

"


2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#2)-).!,02/#%$52%!#4
!

!
! A
! C
! D
! A
3CHEDULE
3CHEDULE
3CHEDULE
3CHEDULE
3CHEDULE

2EFERENCESTOTHE#HILD
*USTICE!CT
0REAMBLE

F
G

B

A B C D E
F G H

A I II
B

A B A B
A B A B

B C

B
C
C I


2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#(),$*534)#%!#4

A B

C

G

A

A

C
B

n

A

A B C D
A B I B II D

A B C D E


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+

A

A B C

A

A A I BB
A III
A

3CHEDULE

3CHEDULE
3CHEDULE
3CHEDULE

2EFERENCESTOTHE#ONSTITUTION
OFTHE2EPUBLICOF3OUTH!FRICA

n

n

A
C nE
D
E

B

A
C
D
F

B
C
A

A nM
A nO
A


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
M
N
O

A nE

J

A
B II
C

A
B

A
A

2%&%2%.#%34/4(%#/.34)454)/./&4(%2%05",)#/&3/54(!&2)#!
B C

D

A

A B
D
D III

n

3CHEDULE

2EFERENCESTOTHE3UPERIOR
#OURTS!CT

B

A

B

n
A B

A
A I II
B
C
A

A
A II

A
B
F

A
D

A
B
C

C
C D


2%&%2%.#%34/4(%350%2)/2#/5243!#4

B

3UBJECTINDEX
2EFERENCESARETO#HAPTERPARAGRAPH PASSIVEDEFENCERIGHT
NUMBERS PLEASPROVIDEDFORBYSTATUTE
PRESENCEOF
$ PREVIOUSCONVICTIONS
PRIORACQUITTALPLEA
ACCUSED
PRIORCONVICTIONPLEA
ABSENCEWHERETHEREISMORETHANONE
PRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATION

ACCOMPLICES
QUESTIONINGDIRECTEDAT
ADDRESSBYSURNAME
RECORDINGOFPLEA
ADMISSIONOFGUILTlNE
REFUSALTOPLEAD
ADULTSANDCHILDRENASCO ACCUSED
RELEASEONWARNING
APPEALAGAINSTSENTENCE
RIGHTNOTBEQUESTIONED
APPEALTO(IGH#OURTAGAINSTLOWERCOURTS
RIGHTOFAPPEAL
DECISIONREGARDINGBAIL
RIGHTOFAPPEALTOFULLCOURTOFDIVISION
APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEALINLOWER

COURT
ARRAIGNMENT RIGHTOFAPPEALTO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
ASCERTAINMENTOFBODILYFEATURES
AUTOMATICRIGHTOFAPPEALAGAINSTREFUSALOF RIGHTSVSVICTIMSRIGHTS
BAILABOLISHED RIGHTTOADDRESSCOURT
TOBEBROUGHTlRSTBEFORELOWERCOURT RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
CANCELLATIONOFBAIL
COURTSREFUSALTODISCHARGENOTAPPEALABLE RIGHTTOCONlDENTIALITY
RIGHTTOCROSS EXAMINE
CRIMINALLIABILITYONGROUNDOFFAILURETO RIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION
APPEARORTOCOMPLYWITHBAILCONDITION
RIGHTTOOBJECTTOINDICTMENT
DISCHARGEATENDOFSTATESCASE RIGHTTOSILENCE
ENTITLEMENTTOVERDICTAFTERPLEADING SERVICEOFINDICTMENTON
EVIDENCEBYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUIT STATUSASLEGALSUBJECT
TELEVISION UNREPRESENTED
EVIDENCEINMITIGATIONOFSENTENCE
EVIDENCEOBTAINEDINBREACHOF WRITTENNOTICETOAPPEAR
FUNDAMENTALRIGHTS ACQUITTALSEEDISCHARGEOFACCUSEDATENDOF
EXTRADITION STATESCASE
FAILURETOAPPEAR ADJECTIVALFORMAL LAW DISTINGUISHEDFROM
FAIRNESSTO SUBSTANTIVELAW
FORFEITUREOFBAILMONEY ADMISSIONOFGUILTlNE
GUILTYPLEA AMNESTY
IMPROPERBEHAVIOURDURINGTRIAL APPEAL
INDIGENTPERSONS ACCESSTO#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
INITIATIONOFREVIEW ACCESSTO#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURTBYMEANSOF
INTERROGATION APPEALWITHTHELEAVEOF#ONSTITUTIONAL
JOINDEROFSEVERAL #OURT
MENTALLYDISABLED BYACCUSEDINLOWERCOURT
MISBEHAVIOURDURINGTRIAL BYACCUSEDTO(IGH#OURTAGAINSTLOWER
NOTGUILTYPLEA COURTSDECISIONREGARDINGBAIL
NUMERICALIDENTIlCATIONOFCO ACCUSED APPEALSTO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
REGARDINGAPPEALSINCRIMINALCASES
PARTICIPANTSINSAMEOFFENCE ORIGINATINGINLOWERCOURTS


#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
APPLICATIONFORCONDONATIONFORLATENOTING TO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINST
JUDGMENTSBYDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH
APPLICATIONTOADDUCEFURTHEREVIDENCE #OURTASTRIALCOURTS
WHENFRESHTRIALWILLBEINSTITUTED
ASPECTRAISEDFORlRSTTIME WITHDRAWALOF
ANDAUTOMATICREVIEW APPEALSTO(IGH#OURT
CONSTITUTIONALISSUES APPEALTOBENOTEDWITHOUTAPPLICATIONFOR
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTOF LEAVETOAPPEAL
CONVICTIONSETASIDEBY CHILDREN
BYDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSAGAINST DIVISION
DECISIONOFCOURTTORELEASEACCUSEDON LIFEIMPRISONMENTSENTENCEBYREGIONAL
COURT
BAIL
WHENACCUSEDMAYAPPEAL
EXECUTIONOFSENTENCENOTSUSPENDED
WHOMAYAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEAL

EXECUTIONOFSENTENCENOTSUSPENDEDBY
WHOMAYNOTAPPLYFORLEAVETOAPPEAL

ONFACTS
APPELLANT FAILURETOAPPEAR
ONFACTSDISTINGUISHEDFROMAPPEALON ARRAIGNMENT
QUESTIONOFLAW ARREST
TOFULLCOURTOFADIVISIONAGAINST ASSISTANCEWITH
JUDGMENTSBYDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH CHILDREN
#OURTASCOURTSOFlRSTINSTANCEORAS DUTYTO
COURTSOFAPPEAL EFFECTOF
TOFULLCOURTOFDIVISION ESCAPEFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
HEARINGOFBYDIVISIONOF(IGH#OURTAS GENERALLY
COURTOFAPPEAL FORINTERROGATION
HISTORICALBACKGROUND LAWFUL
INSPECTIONINLOCO BYPEACEOFlCERS
JUDGESCERTIlCATE BYPRIVATEPERSONS
LIMITEDTOQUESTIONSOFLAW PROCEDUREAFTER
NOTBEFORECONVICTION PROPERCARE
PETITIONPROCEDUREONREFUSALOF RELEASEONWARNING
APPLICATION RESISTING
POWERSOFCOURT STATUTORYPOWERSOFCERTAINOFlCIALS
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURESDISTINGUISHEDFROMREVIEW USEOFDEADLYFORCE
PROCEDURES USEOFlREARMS
BYPROSECUTION RESTRICTEDTOQUESTIONOF USEOFFORCE
USEOFPOLICEDOGS
LAW
WITHWARRANT
BYPROSECUTIONAGAINSTSENTENCE
WITHOUTWARRANT
BYPROSECUTIONTO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL
ARRESTEDPERSON

RIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION
PUBLICATIONOFPROCEEDINGS
SEARCHOF
RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS
ASSESSORS
REFUSALOFAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL ABSOLUTEIMPARTIALITY
DEATHOF
REMISSIONFORNEWSENTENCE DISCHARGEOFACCUSEDATENDOFSTATESCASE
AGAINSTSENTENCEIMPOSEDBY(IGH#OURT
DIVISION INABILITYTOACT
ONSPECIALENTRYOFIRREGULARITYORILLEGALITY MAGISTRATESCOURTS
TO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL PRIVATEPERSONSAS
TO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL RIGHTSANDDUTIES
TO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEALAGAINST AUDIALTERAMPARTEMRULE
JUDGMENTSBYDIVISIONSOFTHE(IGH AUTOMATICREVIEW
#OURTASCOURTSOFAPPEAL APPLICABLEINRESPECTOFCHILDREN

35"*%#4).$%8
DISTRICTCOURTSSENTENCES CANCELLATIONOFATREQUESTOFACCUSED
JUDGEISCONlNEDTORECORDOFPROCEEDINGS
CANCELLATIONOFWHEREACCUSEDABOUTTO
LOSTORINCOMPLETERECORD ABSCOND
PROCEDURE CONDITIONS
ANDRIGHTTOAPPEAL CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTO
WHENNOTAPPLICABLE CRIMINALLIABILITYONGROUNDOFFAILURETO
AUTREFOISACQUIT APPEARORTOCOMPLYWITHBAILCONDITION
ACQUITTAL@ONTHEMERITSINlNALJUDGMENT
EFFECTSOF
COMMON LAWDEFENCE EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCESPERMITTING
COMPETENTCOURT RELEASE
CONCEPTOF@SAMEOFFENCE FAILURETOAPPEAR
CONSTITUTIONALPROVISION FAILURETOOBSERVECONDITIONS
FAIRNESS lNALITYANDJUSTICETOACCUSED FORFEITUREANDREMISSION
FORFEITUREOFMONEY
ANDJUDICIALREVIEW INQUISITORIALROLEOFTHECOURT
ANDSECTION NATUREOF
STATUTORYPROVISIONS NEEDFOR
WHENTOPLEAD NEWFACTSREQUIREDFORRENEWEDBAIL
AUTREFOISCONVICT APPLICATION
COMMON LAWDEFENCE NON PENAL
COMPETENTCOURT PAYMENTOFMONEY
CONCEPTOF@SAMEOFFENCE POLICE
POWEROFHIGHCOURTSTOREGULATEMATTERS
CONSTITUTIONALPROVISION
CONVICTION@ONTHEMERITSINlNAL PROOFOFJURISDICTIONALFACT
JUDGMENT PROOFOFPREVIOUSCONVICTIONS
FAIRNESS lNALITYANDJUSTICETOACCUSED PROSECUTORIAL
RECORDOFPROCEEDINGSINSUBSEQUENTTRIAL
ANDJUDICIALREVIEW
ANDSECTION RECUSALOFPRESIDINGOFlCER
STATUTORYPROVISIONS REFUSALOFININTERESTSOFJUSTICE
WHENTOPLEAD RELEASEOFCHILDRENON
AWAITINGTRIALPRISONERS DETENTIONOF
RELEASEONACCOUNTOFPRISONCONDITIONS

%
RISKSANDFACTORSINDETERMINING
BAIL APPLICATION
ACCESSTOINFORMATIONHELDBYTHE ROLEOFMAGISTRATE
PROSECUTION ROLEOFPRISONHEAD
ACCUSEDSAPPEALTO(IGH#OURTAGAINST RULESOFEVIDENCERELAXED
LOWERCOURTSDECISION "ILLOF2IGHTS
ACCUSEDSAUTOMATICRIGHTOFAPPEALAGAINST ABSOLUTERIGHTS
REFUSALOFBAILABOLISHED APPLICATIONOF
AMOUNT CONTENTSOF
APPEALBYDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS DEROGATIONFROM
AGAINSTDECISIONOFCOURTTORELEASE FUNDAMENTALRIGHTS
ACCUSED HORIZONTALOPERATIONOF
APPEALBYPROSECUTIONAGAINSTDECISION INTERPRETATIONOF
LIMITATIONCLAUSE
APPLICATIONPENDINGAPPEALAGAINST LIMITATIONSTORIGHTS
CONVICTIONORSENTENCE LOCUSSTANDIINCONSTITUTIONALLITIGATION
APPLICATIONSINCOURT
APPLICATIONSVIAAUDIOVISUALLINK BLOODSAMPLES
BURDENANDSTANDARDOFPROOF BODILYFEATURES ASCERTAINMENTOF
CANCELLATIONOF BODY PRINTSANDPHOTOGRAPHICIMAGES

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
& RESTORATIVEJUSTICE

RIGHTOFAPPEAL
CHARGESHEETS
AMENDMENTOF SENTENCING
CORRECTIONOFERRORS SUSPENSIONOFSENTENCE
DEFECTSCUREDBYEVIDENCE WITHDRAWALOFCASES
INCLUSIONOFUNNECESSARYAVERMENTS WRITTENNOTICETOAPPEAR
LODGEMENTWITHCLERKOFCOURT YOUTHASMITIGATINGFACTORINSENTENCING
NECESSARYAVERMENTSIN
NEGATIVINGEXCEPTIONS EXEMPTIONS CIVILACTIONS
PROVISOS EXCUSESORQUALIlCATIONS ANDCRIMINALPROSECUTIONS
DAMAGES
OBJECTIONSTOCHARGES PROOFUPONBALANCEOFPROBABILITIES
OBLIGATIONTOPROVIDEPARTICULARS COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTIONAND
SPLITTINGOFCHARGES MONITORING
VERDICTREQUIREDONEACHCOUNT COMMUNITYPOLICINGFORUMS ARRESTBY
CHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRE
CHILDJUSTICECOURTS COMPANYDIRECTORS JOINDEROF
CHILDREN COMPENSATION
YEARSOROLDERBUTUNDER COMPETENTVERDICTS
YEARSOROLDERBUTUNDER ACCESSORYAFTERTHEFACT
ADULTSASCO ACCUSED ASSAULTWITHINTENTTODOBODILYHARM
APPOINTMENTOFINTERMEDIARY
ATTEMPT
ARREST CERTAINOFFENCESNOTSPECIlED
ARRESTANDTREATMENTOF COMMONASSAULT
ASSESSMENTINPRE TRIALSTAGE CONVICTIONONMEANSACQUITTALONORIGINAL
CHARGE
ATTENDANCEATTRIALS CORRUPTACTIVITIES
AUTOMATICREVIEWAPPLICABLE CULPABLEHOMICIDE
BELOWAGEOFYEARS HOUSEBREAKINGWITHINTENTTOCOMMIT
BESTINTERESTSOFCHILDTOBEUPHELDDURING OFFENCE
PROCEEDINGS MURDERANDATTEMPTEDMURDER
CHILDANDYOUTHCARECENTRES NATURE PURPOSEANDSTATUTORYBASIS
ANDPREJUDICE
COMMUNITY BASEDSENTENCE RECEIVINGSTOLENPROPERTYKNOWINGITTO
COMPULSORYRESIDENCEINCARECENTREAS HAVEBEENSTOLEN
SENTENCE RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
CORRECTIONALSUPERVISION ROBBERY
CRIMINALCAPACITY SEXUALOFFENCES
DECISIONRELATINGTOMENTALILLNESSORDEFECT STATUTORYINTOXICATION
STATUTORYOFFENCEOFBREAKINGANDENTERING
DIVERSIONOFCRIMINALTRIAL OROFENTERINGPREMISES
EVIDENCEBYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUIT STATUTORYUNLAWFULCARNALINTERCOURSE
TELEVISION
EXPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDS TRAFlCKINGINPERSONS
COMPOUNDINGOFMINOROFFENCES
lNES CONlSCATIONORDER
IMPRISONMENT #ONSTITUTION
JOINDEROFOFFENCES LEGISLATIONINCONmICTWITH
LEGALREPRESENTATION
NATIONALINSTRUCTIONTOPOLICE SUPREMACYOF
NOTIlCATIONTOPROBATIONOFlCER #ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
ACCESSTOBYMEANSOFAPPEALWITHLEAVEOF
POSTPONEMENTOFSENTENCING #ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
PRELIMINARYENQUIRY ACCESSTOINRESPECTOFAPPEALS
RELEASEONBAIL APPEALJURISDICTION
RELEASEOTHERTHANONBAIL COMPOSITION

35"*%#4).$%8
CONlRMATIONOFINVALIDITYOFLEGISLATION COMMON LAWRULESANDCASELAWASSOURCE
OF
CONSTITUTIONALJURISDICTION COMPONENTOFCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM
DIRECTACCESS
lNALSAYONCONSTITUTIONALMATTERS CONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONSASSOURCEOF
HISTORICALDEVELOPMENT
LOCUSSTANDI ANDLEGALITY
CONSTITUTIONALMATTERS LEGISLATIONASSOURCEOF
ACCESSTOCOMPETENTCOURTS PROTECTIONOFRIGHTSANDINTERESTSOFVICTIMS
ANDAPPEALS
LIMITATIONSONDEMOCRACY PURPOSEOF
LIMITATIONSONSTATEPOWERS SCOPEANDCONTENTOF
LOCUSSTANDI CRIMINALPROSECUTIONS
MEANINGOF ANDCIVILACTIONS
PROOFBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT
MENTALLYDISABLEDPERSONS
CROSS EXAMINATION
PRIORCONVICTIONORACQUITTAL
REMEDIESIN
RESPONSIBILITIESOFPROSECUTORINBAIL '
APPLICATION DEATHPENALTY
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS REPLACEDBYALTERNATIVEAPPROPRIATE
ANDCRIMINALPROCEDURALRULES SENTENCE
LIMITATIONOF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
CONVICTIONS DECLARATORYORDER
DUPLICATIONOF DISCRETIONALREMEDY
EXPUNGEMENTOF NOTFORUSEININQUIRYINTOCONSTITUTIONAL
CORRECTIONALSUPERVISION INVALIDITY
CHILDREN DEFENCE
EXECUTIONOF ACTIVEDEFENCERIGHT
FACTORSINmUENCINGIMPOSITIONOF ADDRESS
FORMSOF CROSS EXAMINATIONOFDEFENCEWITNESSESBY
NATUREOF PROSECUTION
PENALVALUEOF EVIDENCE IN CHIEFOFDEFENCEWITNESSES
COSTS PRIVATEPROSECUTIONS
COURTS lNALARGUMENTS
PASSIVEDEFENCERIGHT
BROADCASTINGOFPROCEEDINGS
RE EXAMINATION
HIERARCHYOF
DETENTION
INDEPENDENCEOF
AWAITINGTRIALPRISONERS
JUDICIALAUTHORITYOF2EPUBLIC
FORINTERROGATION
JURISDICTION
TIMELIMITOFHOURS
OPENNESSOF
DISCHARGEOFACCUSEDATENDOFSTATESCASE
COURTSOFREVIEW
DISTRICTCOURTS
FUNCTIONSANDPOWERS JURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
INHERENTREVIEWJURISDICTION JURISDICTIONWITHREGARDTOSENTENCING
POWERSOFJUDICIALREVIEWANDEXCLUSIONOF
EVIDENCE SUMMARYTRIALS
CRIMECONTROL ANDDUEPROCESS DIVERSIONOFCRIMINALTRIAL
CRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM CHILDRENANDMINOROFFENCES
ACCUSATORIALANDINQUISITORIAL MATTERSINVOLVING3CHEDULEOFFENCES
CRIMINALPROCEDUREASCOMPONENTOF
INTERMSOF#HAPTEROF#HILD*USTICE!CT
LIMITATIONOFSTATEPOWER
POWERSTOREPRIEVEANDTOEXTENDMERCY DRUG ADDICTEDPERSONS TRIALOF
DUEPROCESS
PROTECTIONOFCHILDREN DEVELOPMENTOF
PUBLICCONlDENCEIN LIMITATIONOFSTATEPOWER
CRIMINALPROCEDURE REGULATIONOFSTATEPOWER

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
( ROLEOFPROSECUTOR
EQUALITYOFARMS STATEMENTBYACCUSEDINSTEADOF
QUESTIONING
ESCAPEFROMLAWFULCUSTODY
ESCAPEFROMUNLAWFULCUSTODY
EVIDENCE +
CURINGDEFECTSININDICTMENTORCHARGE HABEASCORPUS
(IGH#OURTS
EXCLUSIONARYRULE ACCESSTOINRESPECTOFAPPEALS
BYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUITTELEVISION APPEALANDREVIEWJURISDICTION
APPEALSFROM
OATHORSOLEMNAFlRMATIONORSERIOUS APPEALSTO
ADMONITIONTOSPEAKTRUTH ASSESSORS
CIRCUITCOURTS
OBTAINEDINBREACHOFACCUSEDS COMPOSITION
FUNDAMENTALRIGHTS CONSTITUTIONALJURISDICTION
REVIEWANDEXCLUSIONOFEVIDENCE CONSTITUTIONANDJURISDICTIONOFFULLCOURT
@EVIDENCEALIUNDERULE
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF DIVISIONSOF
EXPUNGEMENTOFCRIMINALRECORDS HEARINGOFAPPEALBYDIVISIONASCOURTOF
CHILDREN APPEAL
CONVICTEDADULTS INHERENTREVIEWJURISDICTION
EXTRADITION JURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
JURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
) COMMITTEDON3OUTH!FRICANTERRITORY

FAIRTRIALSEERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL JURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
lNALITY COMMITTEDOUTSIDE3OUTH!FRICA
lNES JURISDICTIONWITHREGARDTOSENTENCING
AMOUNTOF
CHILDREN LODGEMENTOFINDICTMENT
DEFERMENTOFPAYMENT POWERSOFREVIEWINTERMSOFS
DETERMININGTHEMEANSOFOFFENDER POWERSOFREVIEWINTERMSOFS
POWERTOREGULATEBAILMATTERS
FURTHERRELIEFAFTERSTARTOFPRISONTERM PRESIDINGJUDGESINABILITYTOACT
RENAMINGOF
IMPRISONMENTINDEFAULTOFPAYMENT RESERVATIONOFQUESTIONSOFLAW
RIGHTOFAPPEALTOFULLCOURTOFDIVISION
PAIDTOSTATE
RECOVERYOF VENUE
REMISSIONOF ()6TESTINGOFALLEGEDSEXOFFENDERS
WHENIMPOSED HUMANRIGHTS LIMITATIONOF
lNGERPRINTING
FORFEITUREORDER ,
FORFEITURES REMISSIONOF
FOURKILOMETRESRULE IDENTIlCATIONPARADE
IMMUNITY
IMPACTSTATEMENT
*
IMPRISONMENT
GUILTYPLEA BACKDATINGOFSENTENCE
ACCUSEDSVERSION CHILDREN
AMENDMENTTO@NOTGUILTY DECLARATIONASDANGEROUSCRIMINAL
COMMITTALFORSENTENCEBYREGIONALCOURT
DECLARATIONASHABITUALCRIMINAL
CORRECTIONOF
EVIDENCEORQUESTIONINGWITHREGARDTO INDEFAULTOFPAYMENTOFlNE
SENTENCE FORMSOF
QUESTIONINGBYPRESIDINGOFlCIAL FORLIFE

35"*%#4).$%8
ORDINARYIMPRISONMENTFORTERM -
DETERMINEDBYCOURT JOINDER
PERIODICAL OFACCUSED ATWHICHSTAGE
REDUCTIONOFSENTENCE COMPANYDIRECTORS
UNDERS I OFTHE#RIMINAL0ROCEDURE NOTPERMITTEDAFTERINSPECTIONINLOCO
!CT OFOFFENCES
SENTENCESETASIDEONAPPEALORREVIEW OFPERSONSCOMMITTINGSEPARATEOFFENCESAT
SAMETIMEANDPLACE
VALUEOF OFPERSONSIMPLICATEDINSAMEOFFENCE
INDEMNITY OFSEVERALACCUSED
INDICTMENTS JUDICIALOFlCERS
AMENDMENTOF CERTIlCATE
CORRECTIONOFERRORS CONTROL
DEFECTSCUREDBYEVIDENCE COURTESY
INCLUSIONOFUNNECESSARYAVERMENTS DECISIONSTOBESOLELYUPONEVIDENCE
LODGEMENTINHIGHCOURT
NEGATIVINGEXCEPTIONS EXEMPTIONS IMPARTIALITY
PROVISOS EXCUSESORQUALIlCATIONS
MATERIALABSENCEOFFORSENTENCING
OBJECTIONSTO REVIEW
OBLIGATIONTOPROVIDEPARTICULARS JURISDICTION
DISTRICTCOURTS
REQUIREMENTSOF
EXTRATERRITORIAL
SPLITTINGOFCHARGES
TOPRONOUNCEUPONVALIDITYOFLAWSOR
VERDICTREQUIREDONEACHCOUNT
CONDUCTOFTHE0RESIDENT
WHENTOBESERVED
REGIONALCOURTS
INDIGENTACCUSEDPERSONS
REMOVALOFCRIMINALCASEFROMONEDIVISION
INFORMERSPRIVILEGE
OF(IGH#OURTTOANOTHER
INSPECTIONINLOCO INRESPECTOFOFFENCESCOMMITTEDON3OUTH
APPEAL !FRICANTERRITORY
JOINDEROFACCUSEDNOTPERMITTEDAFTER INRESPECTOFOFFENCESCOMMITTEDOUTSIDE
INTELLECTUALDISABILITYSEEMENTALLYDISABLED 3OUTH!FRICA
PERSONS SENTENCING
INTERCEPTIONANDMONITORINGOF JUSTICIABILITY
COMMUNICATIONS JUVENILEOFFENDERSSEECHILDREN
INTERDICT
INTERDICTUMDELIBEROHOMINEEXHIBENDO /

LEGALAID
INTERMEDIARIES APPOINTMENTOF
LEGALETHICS

LEGALITY
INTERPRETERS
INCONTEXTOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE
INTERROGATION
ANDJUDICIALREVIEW
ARRESTFORPURPOSESOF
JUDICIALSUPERVISIONANDCONTROL
DETENTIONFORPURPOSESOF
LIMITATIONONSTATE
ENTRYTOPREMISESTOINTERROGATEPERSONS LEGALREPRESENTATION
ACCESSIBILITY
LEGALDUTYTOFURNISHINFORMATIONEXISTSFOR BAILSHOULDNOTBEPAIDBYREPRESENTATIVE
HIGHTREASON
NOGENERALLEGALDUTYONPERSONSTOFURNISH CHILDREN
INFORMATION COMPETENTLAWYERING
OBTAININGNAMEANDADDRESS CONmICTOFINTEREST
POWERSRELATINGTOSUSPECTSANDACCUSED CONTRADICTORYINSTRUCTIONSFROMCLIENT

POWERSRELATINGTOWITNESSES CONTROLOFDEFENCECASE
STATUTORYOFFENCES DEFENCEOFADMITTEDLYGUILTYACCUSED

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
DUTYOFCOURTWHERELEGALREPRESENTATIVE NEMODEBETBISVEXARIPROUNAETEADEMCAUSA
WITHDRAWS
DUTYTOINFORMACCUSEDOFRIGHT NOTGUILTYPLEA
ELIGIBILITYOFCOUNSELTOAPPEARBEFORECOURT ACCUSEDSPARTICIPATION
ADMISSIONSMADEINCOURSEOFEXPLANATION
EXTENSIONTOWITNESSES
HISTORICALDEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTOF
INCLUDESRIGHTTOCONlDENTIALITY COMMITTALTOREGIONALCOURT
OPPORTUNITYTOACCUSEDTOOBTAIN EXPLANATIONOF
PRE TRIALSTAGE PLEAEXPLANATIONPROCEDURE
ROLEOFREPRESENTATIVEANDOTHERS
ATSTATEEXPENSE 2
DURINGTRIAL
OATHSANDAFlRMATIONS
WITHDRAWALOFLEGALREPRESENTATIVE
ADMINISTRATIONBYPRESIDINGJUDGEOR

REGISTRAROFCOURT
LISPENDENS
PURPOSEOF
LOCUSSTANDI
OFFENCES
APPEALS
CONTINUOUSREPETITIONOFSAMEOFFENCE
#ONSTITUTIONAL#OURT
SPREADOVERLONGPERIODOFTIME
INCONSTITUTIONALMATTERS
JOINDEROF
PRIVATEPROSECUTIONS
MORETHANONEACTCOMMITTEDPRACTICALLY
PROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
SIMULTANEOUSLYCONSTITUTINGMORETHAN
LOSTRECORD
ONEOFFENCE
APPEALS
PRESCRIPTIONOF
JUDICIALREVIEW
SINGLEACTCONSTITUTINGMORETHANONE
OFFENCEATCOMMONLAW
0
SINGLEACTCONSTITUTINGMORETHANONE
MAGISTRATESCOURTS STATUTORYOFFENCE ORSTATUTORYAND
APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOAPPEAL COMMON LAWOFFENCES
ASSESSORS /FlCEFOR7ITNESS0ROTECTION
COMPOSITION OPENJUSTICEPRINCIPLE
CONSTITUTIONALANDAPPEALJURISDICTION ORALITY

CONSTITUTIONOF 3
LODGEMENTOFCHARGESHEETS
PARDON
PLEAONCHARGEJUSTICIABLEINHIGHCOURT
BY0RESIDENT

RIGHTTOHAVEAPPLICATIONCONSIDEREDAND
PLEAONCHARGEJUSTICIABLEINREGIONALCOURT
DECIDEDUPON

PAROLE
PREPARATORYEXAMINATIONSANDPRELIMINARY
COMPLAINANTSRIGHTTOMAKE
ENQUIRIES
REPRESENTATIONS
VENUE
DISTINGUISHEDFROMCLEMENCY
WHENFRESHTRIALWILLBEINSTITUTEDAFTER
RIGHTTOBECONSIDEREDFOR
CONVICTIONISSETASIDE
PEACEOFlCERS ARRESTBY
MANDAMUS
PENALTIES REMISSIONOF
MENTALLYDISABLEDPERSONS
PENALTYCLAUSES
ASACCUSED
PETITIONONREFUSALOFAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETO
TRIALOF
APPEAL
MERCY
POWERSANDDUTIESOFCOURTCONSIDERING
0RESIDENTSDISCRETION
PETITION
0RESIDENTSPREROGATIVETOEXTENDMERCY
PROCEDURE

PETITIONONREFUSALOFAPPLICATIONFORLEAVETO
APPEALTOFULLCOURTOFDIVISION
1
PLEA
.ATIONAL2EGISTERFOR3EXUAL/FFENCES AMBIGUITYIN
NEIGHBOURHOODWATCHES ARRESTBY INCRIMINALDEFAMATION

35"*%#4).$%8
OFDIPLOMATICIMMUNITY BYINDIVIDUALONNOLLEPROSEQUICERTIlCATE
TOJURISDICTIONOFCOURT
ASTOORDEROFCOURTONUNREASONABLEDELAY INTERVENTIONBYSTATE
,EGAL0RACTITIONERS&IDELITY&UND"OARD
RECORDALOF
PLEABARGAINING LOCUSSTANDI
STATUTORY OCCUPIERSOFPROPERTY
TRADITIONAL SECURITY
POLICEDOCKETS ACCESSTOINFORMATION STATUTORYRIGHT
POLICEOFlCIALS GRANTINGOFBAIL VICTIMPARTICIPATIONINCRIMINALPROCESS
PRELIMINARYENQUIRIES
WITHDRAWALOFCHARGE
PREPARATORYEXAMINATIONS PRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATION
DISTINGUISHEDFROMSUMMARYTRIAL PROBATIONOFlCERS
POWERSOFDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS POLICETONOTIFYOFSUMMONSONCHILD
AFTERCONCLUSION POLICETONOTIFYOFSUSPICIONTHATCHILDHAS
PURPOSEOF COMMITTEDOFFENCE
WHENHELD POLICETONOTIFYOFWRITTENNOTICEONCHILD
PRESERVATIONORDER TOAPPEAR
0RESIDENTSPOWERS REOPENINGOFCASES PROPORTIONALITYTEST USEOFFORCEINARREST
0RESIDENTSPREROGATIVETOEXTENDMERCY
SUBJECTTOJUDICIALREVIEW PROSECUTINGAUTHORITY
ACCOUNTABILITYTO0ARLIAMENT
PRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE
APPEALAGAINSTDECISIONOFCOURTTORELEASE

ACCUSEDONBAIL
ANDLEGALGUILT
APPOINTMENTOF@OUTSIDEPROSECUTORS
ANDNATUREOFALLEGEDCRIME

ASSTATEMENTOFPROSECUTIONSBURDENOF
APPOINTMENTOFSPECIALDIRECTORS
PROOF
AUTHORITYANDHIERARCHYOFPOWERTO
PRE TRIALPHASE
INSTITUTECRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
ACCUSEDTOBEBROUGHTlRSTBEFORELOWER
CODEOFCONDUCT
COURT
DECISIONTOPROSECUTECHILDREN
EXERCISEOFPOWERS
DEPUTYNATIONALDIRECTORSOFPUBLIC
PREPARATORYEXAMINATIONDISTINGUISHED
PROSECUTIONS
FROMSUMMARYTRIAL DISCRETIONTOINSTITUTEPREPARATORY
PREPARATORYEXAMINATIONS EXAMINATION
PRIORCONVICTIONORACQUITTAL SEE DISCRETIONTOPROSECUTE
ALSOAUTREFOISACQUITAUTREFOISCONVICT GRANTINGOFBAIL
PRISONCONDITIONS GROSSLYIMPROPERCONDUCTOFPROSECUTOR
CATEGORYOFACCUSEDINS! APPLICATION
INITIATIONOFREVIEW
RELEASEOFPRISONERSONBAIL INVESTIGATINGDIRECTORATES
ROLEOFHEADOFPRISON ANDJUDICIARY
ROLEOFMAGISTRATE LOCUSSTANDI
PRIVATEPERSONS ARRESTBY MINISTERIALRESPONSIBILITY
PRIVATEPROSECUTIONS NATIONALDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONS
ANIMAL CRUELTYOFFENCES
CERTIlCATENOLLEPROSEQUI POWERTOINSTITUTEANDCONDUCTCRIMINAL
CHILDRENWHEREMATTERHASBEENDIVERTED PROCEEDINGS
POWERTOINSTITUTECRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
COSTSOFACCUSEDINUNSUCCESSFULPRIVATE
PROSECUTION PRESCRIPTIONOFRIGHTTOPROSECUTE
COSTSOFSUCCESSFULPRIVATEPROSECUTION PROFESSIONALINDEPENDENCE
PROSECUTIONANDASSISTANCEOFPRIVATELEGAL
ENVIRONMENTALINTERESTS PRACTITIONER
FAILUREOFPRIVATEPROSECUTORTOAPPEAR PROSECUTIONPOLICYANDISSUINGOFPOLICY
DIRECTIVES

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PROSECUTIONSANDLEGALETHICS RE EXAMINATION

RELATIONSHIPWITHPOLICE REGIONALCOURTS
RESPONSIBILITIESOFPROSECUTORINBAIL JURISDICTIONINRESPECTOFOFFENCES
APPLICATION JURISDICTIONWITHREGARDTOSENTENCING
REVIEWOFDECISIONTODECLINETOPROSECUTE
SUMMARYTRIALS
STATUTORYBODY RELEASEONWARNING PRISONCONDITIONS
STRUCTUREANDCOMPOSITION RELEASEOTHERTHANONBAIL
WRITTENAUTHORISATIONOF.$00REQUIREDFOR CHILDREN
PROSECUTIONOFCERTAINOFFENCES RELEASEONWARNING
PROSECUTION REMEDIESFORINFRACTIONOFFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS
APPEALAGAINSTDECISIONBY(IGH#OURTON CIVILACTIONFORDAMAGES
BAIL CONSTITUTIONALMECHANISMS
APPEALAGAINSTSENTENCE ESCAPEFROMUNLAWFULCUSTODY
APPEALRESTRICTEDTOQUESTIONOFLAW EXCLUSIONARYRULE
HABEASCORPUS
APPEALSAGAINSTSENTENCEIMPOSEDBY(IGH INTERDICT
#OURTDIVISION INTERDICTUMDELIBEROHOMINEEXHIBENDO
APPEALSLIMITEDTOQUESTIONSOFLAW MANDAMUS
RESISTANCETOUNLAWFULARREST
APPEALSTO3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL REOPENINGOFCASES
CALLINGOFSTATEWITNESSES RESISTANCETOUNLAWFULARREST
CHILDRENYEARSOROLDERBUTUNDER RESTITUTION
RESTORATIVEJUSTICE
DIRECTIVES REVIEW
DISCRIMINATORY AUTOMATIC
DISTINCTIONBETWEENWITHDRAWALOFCHARGE CATEGORIESOFPROCEDURES
ANDSTOPPINGOFPROSECUTION CONDUCTOF0RESIDENTINEXERCISINGPOWERS
lNALARGUMENTS
OPENINGOFSTATESCASE DECLARATORYORDER
WHENAPPEALAGAINSTBAILDECISIONMAYBE DElNITION
MADE EXECUTIONOFSENTENCEBROUGHTUNDER
PUBLICPROSECUTIONS REVIEWNOTSUSPENDED
CONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS EXTRAORDINARY
CONTROLOVERPROSECUTORS FUNCTIONSANDPOWERSOFCOURT
DIRECTORS ATINSTANCEOFACCUSED
DISCRETIONOFPROSECUTINGAUTHORITY ATINSTANCEOFPROSECUTION
POWERSOFJUDICIALREVIEWANDEXCLUSIONOF
EXTRAORDINARYPOWERSOFDIRECTORS EVIDENCE
PRIVATEFUNDINGOFPROSECUTION PROCEDURESDISTINGUISHEDFROMAPPEAL
PROSECUTIONASDOMINUSLITIS PROCEDURES
PROSECUTORS PROCEEDINGSBEFORESENTENCE
REPORTINGOFCRIMEBYPOLICEOFlCIALS RETRIALWHERECONVICTIONISSETASIDE
RIGHTTO
REPORTINGOFCRIMEBYTHEPUBLIC SETDOWNOFCASEFORARGUMENT
INTERMSOF3UPERIOR#OURTS!CT
INTERMSOFTHE#ONSTITUTION
5
WHENAPPROPRIATE
REASONABLENESS RIGHTNOTBEQUESTIONED
EXERCISEOFPOWERS RIGHTOFACCESSTOCOURTS
PROPORTIONALITYTEST RIGHTOFACCESSTOINFORMATION
SEARCHINTERMSOFWARRANT RIGHTOFAPPEAL
RECUSALOFASSESSORSINLOWERCOURTS RIGHTTOADDRESSCOURT
RECUSALOFJUDICIALPRESIDINGOFlCER RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIAL
APPLICATIONFOR ACCESSTOINFORMATION
BAIL ADMISSIONOFCHILDSEVIDENCE
BYJUDICIALOFlCER APPEAL

35"*%#4).$%8
CLEARANDPROPERREASONSFORSPECIlC POWERSOFOCCUPIERSOFPREMISES
SENTENCEIMPOSED POWERSOFPOLICE
COMPETENTVERDICTS FORPURPOSEOFEFFECTINGARREST
COMPOSITIONOFRIGHT FORPURPOSESOFBORDERCONTROL
DEFECTSININDICTMENTORCHARGE ATROADBLOCKORCHECKPOINT
FAIRAPPEALPROCESSES INTERMSOF$RUGSAND$RUG4RAFlCKING!CT
FAIRNESSTOPUBLICASREPRESENTEDBY3TATE
WHEREDELAYWOULDDEFEATOBJECTTHEREOF
GRANTINGORDENIALOFCONDONATIONOFLATE
APPEAL SEIZURE
INCLUDESRIGHTTOREPRESENTATION ARTICLESSUSCEPTIBLETO
INFORMATIONREGARDINGALLEGATIONS CONlSCATIONORDER
OPENJUSTICEPRINCIPLE DISPOSALANDFORFEITUREOFSEIZEDARTICLES
POWERTOINCREASEONSENTENCEONAPPEAL
PRESERVATIONORDER
PRIORCONVICTIONORACQUITTAL SENTENCES
REVIEW APPEALAGAINST
RIGHTTOADDUCEANDCHALLENGEEVIDENCE BREACHOFCONDITIONSOFSUSPENSION

SUFlCIENTREASONSFORCONVICTION CAUTION
RIGHTTOBECONSIDEREDFORPAROLE COMMUNITY BASED
RIGHTTOCROSS EXAMINE CONDITIONSOFSUSPENSION
EXECUTIONOFSENTENCENOTSUSPENDEDBY
RIGHTTOEQUALITYBEFORETHELAW APPEAL
RIGHTTOHAVEPARDONAPPLICATIONCONSIDERED EXPUNGEMENTOF
ANDDECIDEDUPON MINIMUM
RIGHTTOJUDICIALREVIEW MORETHANONECRIME
RIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION POSTPONED
POWERTOINCREASEONAPPEAL
RIGHTTOPRIVACY REDUCTIONOF
SCOPEANDCONTENTOF REMISSIONONAPPEALFORNEWSENTENCE
RIGHTTOSILENCE
RULEOFLAW RESTORATIVEJUSTICE
RULES DOUBLE FUNCTIONALNATURE SUSPENDED
SUSPENSIONOFOPERATIONOFORDER
SENTENCING
6
ACCUSEDSEVIDENCEINMITIGATIONOF
@3CHUPINGTEST SENTENCE
SEARCH AND!DJUSTMENTOF&INES!CT
EFFECTOFUNLAWFULACTION AGGRAVATINGFACTORS
PROPRIETYREQUIREMENT CAUTIONANDDISCHARGE
USEOFFORCE COMMITTALTOATREATMENTCENTRE
SEARCHINTERMSOFWARRANT CORRECTIONALSUPERVISION
DISCRETIONTOISSUEWARRANT DEATHPENALTYISUNCONSTITUTIONAL
EXECUTIONBYDAY DElNITION
GENERALRULE DISCRETIONOFCOURT
INFORMATIONREGARDINGWARRANTS DUTYTOSUPPLYINFORMATION
PROCEDURE lNE
WARRANTSTOMAINTAININTERNALSECURITYAND GENERALPRINCIPLES
LAWANDORDER IMPRISONMENT
SEARCHOFARRESTEDPERSON JURISDICTION
SEARCHWITHOUTWARRANT JUVENILEOFFENDERS
ACTIONSMAYBEREVIEWED MATERIALABSENCEOFJUDICIALOFlCER
CONSENTTOSEARCHANDORTOSEIZE MINIMUMSENTENCES
INCORDONED OFFAREA MITIGATINGFACTORS
EMPOWERMENTOFPRIVATEPERSONSAND PENALTYCLAUSES
POLICEOFlCIALS POSTPONEMENTOF

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.$"//+
PRE SENTENCEINVESTIGATION STATUTORYOROTHERLIMITATIONSONPOWERS

PREVIOUSCONVICTIONS OF
ANDPUNISHMENT SUSPECTS INTERROGATION
RESTORATIONOFRIGHTSOFVICTIMS
SENTENCEOFIMPRISONMENTSETASIDEON 7
APPEALORREVIEW
TRADITIONALCOURTS
TRIADOF:INN
TREATMENTCENTRE COMMITTALTOASSENTENCE
YOUTHASAMITIGATINGFACTOR

SEPARATIONOFTRIALS
ATANYTIME TRIALBYJURYREPEALED
COMPANYDIRECTORS TRIALS
CONSEQUENCESOFSUCCESSFULAPPLICATION INABSENTIA
ACCUSEDSPRESENCE
COURTMAYRAISEMATTER ADJOURNMENTOF
TESTAPPLICABLE ARRAIGNMENT
SEXUALOFFENCES ATTENDANCEAT
COMPETENTVERDICTS CASEFORTHEDEFENCE
COMPULSORY()6TESTINGOFALLEGEDSEX CLOSINGOFSTATESCASE
OFFENDERS CONCLUSIONONACQUITTAL
IMPACTSTATEMENT COURSEOF
ANDMENTALLYDISABLEDPERSONS CROSS EXAMINATION
.ATIONAL2EGISTERFOR3EXUAL/FFENCES
ANDOPENJUSTICEPRINCIPLE DISCHARGEOFACCUSEDATENDOFSTATESCASE
PROTECTIONOFVICTIMSOF
REMOVALANDEXPUNGEMENTOFCERTAIN DRUG ADDICTEDPERSONS
CRIMINALRECORDS EQUALITYOFARMS
3OUTH!FRICAN*UDICIAL%DUCATION)NSTITUTE EXAMINATION IN CHIEF
SUBSTANTIVELAW DISTINGUISHEDFROMADJECTIVAL FAIRNESSOF
FORMAL LAW FAIRNESSTOACCUSED
SUMMARYTRIALS lNALITY
DISTINGUISHEDFROMPREPARATORY FUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLES
EXAMINATIONS HELDINCAMERA
SUMMONS IMPARTIALITY
CHILDTOAPPEARATPRELIMINARYINQUIRY INTERPRETERS
PROCEDURE JOINDERORSEPARATIONOF
PROOFOFSERVICE JUDICIALCONTROL
3UPREME#OURTOF!PPEAL JUDICIALIMPARTIALITY
ACCESSTOINRESPECTOFAPPEALS LEGALITY
APPEALJURISDICTION MENTALLYDISABLEDPERSONS
APPEALONSPECIALENTRYOFIRREGULARITYOR NATUREANDPURPOSEOF
ILLEGALITYTO OATHSANDAFlRMATIONS
APPEALSREGARDINGAPPEALSINCRIMINALCASES ORALITY
ORIGINATINGINLOWERCOURTS PLEABARGAINING
COMPOSITION POSTPONEMENTOF
CONmICTINGDECISIONSOF@PROVINCIALAND POSTPONEMENTTHROUGHAUDIO VISUAL
@LOCALDIVISIONS LINKAGE
CONSTITUTIONALISSUES PRIVATEPERSONSASASSESSORS
CONSTITUTIONALJURISDICTION PROHIBITIONOFPUBLICATIONOFCERTAIN
INFORMATION
DEVELOPMENTOFCOMMONLAW RE EXAMINATION
SEPARATIONOF
POWERSOF SPEEDINESS
POWERSREGARDINGHEARINGOFAPPEAL UNREASONABLEDELAY
RIGHTOFAPPEALTO WHENFRESHTRIALWILLBEINSTITUTED
SETTINGASIDEORALTERATIONOFCONVICTIONON WHENFRESHTRIALWILLBEINSTITUTEDAFTER
GROUNDOFIRREGULARITY APPEAL

35"*%#4).$%8
8 VICTIMLESSCRIMES
VOICEIDENTIlCATIONPARADE
UNLAWFULCONDUCT CONSEQUENCESOF
UNREPRESENTEDACCUSEDPERSONS
ABSENCEOFWARNINGOFRISKOFCOMPETENT :
VERDICT WITNESSES
COURTSPOWERTORAISEMATTEROFSEPARATION ADDRESSBYSURNAME
OFTRIALS APPOINTMENTOFINTERMEDIARY
DUTYOFCOURTREGARDINGRIGHTS
EXPLANATIONOFRIGHTS CALLINGBYJUDGE
FAILURETOADVISEOFRIGHTTOAPPLYFOR CALLINGBYPROSECUTION
DISCHARGE COUNSELLINGOF
INFORMATIONREGARDINGRIGHTSANDOPTIONS COURTMAYSUBPOENA
CROSS EXAMINATION
INFORMEDPARTICIPATIONINTRIAL DETENTIONOF PENDINGPROCEEDINGS
LOSSOFAPPEALPROCESSINSYSTEM DISCHARGEFROMPROSECUTION
RIGHTTOAPPLYFORBAIL ENTITLEDTOLEGALREPRESENTATION
RIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION EVIDENCEBYMEANSOFCLOSED CIRCUIT
TELEVISION
USEOFFORCEINARREST EVIDENCE IN CHIEFOFDEFENCEWITNESSES
REQUIREMENTSFOR
EVIDENCEINOWNWORDS
9 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF
INTIMIDATIONOF
VERDICTS
NOTOBLIGEDTOANSWERSELF INCRIMINATING
COMPETENT
QUESTIONS
COURTSAMENDMENTOFITSOWN
OATHSANDAFlRMATIONS
REASONABLETIME
/FlCEFOR7ITNESS0ROTECTION
REQUIREDONEACHCOUNT
ORALITY
REQUIREMENTFORREASONSBYCOURT
POWEROFCOURTTOEXAMINE
VICTIMS
POWERSRELATINGTOINTERROGATION
IMPACTSTATEMENT
PRISONERCALLEDONBEHALFOFDEFENCEOROF
NON PUNITIVEMODELOFVICTIMSRIGHTS
PRIVATEPROSECUTOR

PROTECTIONOF
PARTICIPATIONINCRIMINALPROCESS
RECALCITRANT
POSITIONINCRIMINALPROCESS
RE EXAMINATION
PROTECTIONOF
RELATEDPERSONS
PROTECTIONOFRIGHTSANDINTERESTS
RIGHTTOLEGALREPRESENTATION

SECURINGATTENDANCEOF
PUNITIVEMODELOFVICTIMSRIGHTS
SEQUENCEOFDEFENCEWITNESSES
RIGHTSVSRIGHTSOFACCUSEDPERSONS
WITNESSPROTECTIONSYSTEM
3ERVICE#HARTERFOR6ICTIMSOF#RIMEIN
WRITTENNOTICETOAPPEAR
3OUTH!FRICA
OFSEXUALOFFENCES

Criminal Procedure Handbook 13th Ed.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Procedure Handbook 13th Ed.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 1 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 3 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

0ROJECT#O ORDINATOR6ALENCIA7YNGAARD !RENZ

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 4 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 5 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 7 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

0(!3%47/ 4(%42)!,                                       

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 8 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 9 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 10 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

!NDERSON 3!/                                              

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 11 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

"ALOYI 3!#2##                                              

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 12 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

"KENLELE 3!/                                               

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 13 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

"RUINDERS 3!#27##                                           

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 14 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 15 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

$AYIMANI 3!#2%                                            

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 16 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

$INTWE 3!"'                                               

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 17 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 18 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 19 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 20 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

'ROBLER 3!/                                                

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 21 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

(ELLER 3!!                                                 

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 22 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

(UDSON 3!$                                             

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 23 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

*OALE 3!#2/                                                

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 24 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

+GOLOKO 3!#2!                                             

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 25 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

+UZWAYO 3!!                                               

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 26 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

,OMBOLENIAND4EN/THER!PPEAL#ASESV4HE3TATE .2.,$         

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 27 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-ACHABA 3!#23#!                                         

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 28 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-AKHUBELE 3!4                                             

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 29 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-ARION 3!4                                               

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 30 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-AYV5NION'OVERNMENT 3!.                                 

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 31 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 32 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-ITSHAMA 3!#27                                           

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 33 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-OKGELEDI 3!!                                              

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 34 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-OTATAV.AIR./ 3!#24  

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 35 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

-THETWA 3!.                                               

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 36 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 37 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

.EL 3!.#                                                  

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 38 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

.KOSI 3!#23#!                                             

Criminal Procedure 13th edition.indb 39 2020/01/28 12:39 PM

/CTOBER 3!#2#                                             

#2)-).!,02/#%$52%(!.

0ROJECT#O ORDINATOR6ALENCIA7YNGAARD !RENZ

0(!3%47/ 4(%42)!,

!NDERSON 3!/

"ALOYI 3!#2##

"KENLELE 3!/

"RUINDERS 3!#27##

$AYIMANI 3!#2%

$INTWE 3!"'

'ROBLER 3!/

(ELLER 3!!

(UDSON 3!$

*OALE 3!#2/

+GOLOKO 3!#2!

+UZWAYO 3!!

,OMBOLENIAND4EN/THER!PPEAL#ASESV4HE3TATE .2.,$

-ACHABA 3!#23#!

-AKHUBELE 3!4

-ARION 3!4

-AYV5NION'OVERNMENT 3!.

-ITSHAMA 3!#27

-OKGELEDI 3!!

-OTATAV.AIR./ 3!#24

-THETWA 3!.

.EL 3!.#

.KOSI 3!#23#!

/CTOBER 3!#2#

0HUNDULA 3!4

3 3!!

3EGAL 3!#

3IBANDE 3!!

3MITH 3!#23#!

4AITZ 3!.

4SHUKE 3!#

6ANMALI 3!.

7EBERV2EGIONAL-AGISTRATE7INDHOEK 3!37!

9OUNGV-INISTEROF3AFETYAND3ECURITY 3!#23%

/FCOURSE ALLOFTHEABOVETHESTATESDUTYTOENFORCECRIMINALLAW THEALLOCATION

4HEDOUBLE FUNCTIONALNATUREOFSOMERULES

TYRANNY!NDYET IFTHERIGHTSOFTHEINDIVIDUALWEREABSOLUTE THESTATEWOULDBE

NOTMAKEARIGHT4HEFACTTHATSOMEONEHASBEENROBBED ASSAULTED DEFRAUDEDOR

ORWRONGDONETOANOTHERPERSON2ESTORATIVEJUSTICESENTENCES HOWEVER ARENOT

REGULATIONS RELATING TO AMONG OTHER THINGS THE ASSISTANCE OF AND SUPPORT TO

4HERIGHTTOSILENCEINCLUDINGTHEPRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF INCRIMINATION

WHETHERVERBALORDOCUMENTARY LAYOREXPERT DIRECTORCIRCUMSTANTIAL ANDTHE

PERFORMTHEIRDUTIESPROPERLY)N3EBOFI 3!#2'* 3UTHERLAND*STATED