Botha and Others v Regional Magistrate, Springs and Others (A807/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 128 (28 March 2017)

Botha and Others v Regional Magistrate, Springs and Others (A807/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 128 (28 March 2017)

The High Court declined to review the magistrate's ruling on admissibility of evidence during an unconcluded criminal trial. The court held that its review powers should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases of grave injustice or where justice cannot otherwise be attained. The magistrate's ruling was interlocutory and subject to change if new evidence emerges. The applicants' uncertainty regarding the case they must meet does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying intervention at this stage. The proper remedy is to appeal after the trial concludes. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed and the trial in the regional court should proceed.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 128
Parties
Appellant: Morne Botha; Appellant: Andries Greyvenstein; Appellant: Emerald Fire Trading 76 (CC) as represented by Andries Greyvenstein; Appellant: Johan van der Linden; Appellant: Michael Allen Martin; Appellant: Northern Spark Trading 237 (Pty) Ltd as represented by Johan van der Linden; Appellant: Quinton Hendriks; Respondent: The Regional Magistrate, Springs Mrs B Oswell; Respondent: The National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: The Office of the State Attorney
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2017
Case Number
A807/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of Interlocutory Ruling During Ongoing Criminal Trial
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; trial to proceed in the regional court.
Judges
Ranchod, Makhoba
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Trial Within a Trial, Interlocutory Orders, Review of Magistrate Decisions, Constitutional Rights, Provisional Admissibility
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Trial Within a Trial Interlocutory Orders Review of Magistrate Decisions Constitutional Rights Provisional Admissibility

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morne Botha

Appellant

Andries Greyvenstein

Appellant

Emerald Fire Trading 76 (CC) as represented by Andries Greyvenstein

Appellant

Johan van der Linden

Appellant

Michael Allen Martin

Appellant

Northern Spark Trading 237 (Pty) Ltd as represented by Johan van der Linden

Appellant

Quinton Hendriks

Appellant

The Regional Magistrate, Springs Mrs B Oswell

Respondent

The National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

The Office of the State Attorney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of Interlocutory Ruling During Ongoing Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should review and set aside the magistrate's ruling on admissibility of evidence during an unconcluded criminal trial.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's ruling on admissibility was final or provisional and its effect on the accused's rights.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify intervention before the conclusion of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court declined to review the magistrate's ruling on admissibility of evidence during an unconcluded criminal trial. The court held that its review powers should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases of grave injustice or where justice cannot otherwise be attained. The magistrate's ruling was interlocutory and subject to change if new evidence emerges. The applicants' uncertainty regarding the case they must meet does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying intervention at this stage. The proper remedy is to appeal after the trial concludes. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed and the trial in the regional court should proceed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; trial to proceed in the regional court.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The trial in the regional court, Springs, should continue.