Arendse v Magistrate, Wynberg and Others (3866/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 81; [2016] 3 All SA 707 (WCC); 2017 (1) SACR 403 (WCC) (24 June 2016)

Arendse v Magistrate, Wynberg and Others (3866/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 81; [2016] 3 All SA 707 (WCC); 2017 (1) SACR 403 (WCC) (24 June 2016)

The Court found that the applicant failed to establish any actionable infringement of his constitutional rights. The delay in execution of the sentence was largely attributable to the applicant's own conduct, including his failure to properly instruct his attorney and to make reasonable inquiries regarding the progress of his appeal. The applicant's reliance on changed personal circumstances and health issues did not justify relief, as these factors could be addressed through parole procedures. The Court held that any limitation of the applicant's rights resulting from the delayed execution of sentence was reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 81
Parties
Applicant: Henoch Arendse; Respondent: Mrs H Alman, Magistrate Wynberg; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions, Cape Town; Respondent: Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Case Number
3866/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Declaratory Relief Following Criminal Conviction and Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed. Inquiry into warrant of arrest referred back to the magistrate for determination.
Judges
Bozalek
Legal Topics
Delay in Execution of Sentence, Right to Fair Trial, Bill of Rights Limitation, Stay of Prosecution, Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Delay in Execution of Sentence Right to Fair Trial Bill of Rights Limitation Stay of Prosecution Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henoch Arendse

Applicant

Mrs H Alman, Magistrate Wynberg

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions, Cape Town

Respondent

Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Declaratory Relief Following Criminal Conviction and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking to deem a criminal sentence served due to delay in execution?
  2. 2 Did the delay between the dismissal of the applicant's appeal and the notice to surrender infringe his constitutional rights to a fair trial, dignity, and freedom?
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to relief on constitutional grounds, namely, that he be deemed to have served his sentence or granted lesser relief?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to establish any actionable infringement of his constitutional rights. The delay in execution of the sentence was largely attributable to the applicant's own conduct, including his failure to properly instruct his attorney and to make reasonable inquiries regarding the progress of his appeal. The applicant's reliance on changed personal circumstances and health issues did not justify relief, as these factors could be addressed through parole procedures. The Court held that any limitation of the applicant's rights resulting from the delayed execution of sentence was reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Inquiry into warrant of arrest referred back to the magistrate for determination.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The postponed inquiry in terms of section 299 of Act 51 of 1977 relating to the applicant is referred back to the magistrate for determination in light of this judgment, as soon as possible and within not less than 14 days.