Delport and Others v S (861/13) [2014] ZASCA 197; [2015] 1 All SA 286 (SCA); 2015 (1) SACR 620 (SCA) (28 November 2014)

Delport and Others v S (861/13) [2014] ZASCA 197; [2015] 1 All SA 286 (SCA); 2015 (1) SACR 620 (SCA) (28 November 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the remittal order of the high court, which sent the matter back to the magistrate for continuation of the criminal trial, is not appealable. The general rule, supported by judicial and legislative policy and s 35(3)(d) of the Constitution, is that criminal trials should proceed to completion without interruption by interim appeals, except in rare and unusual circumstances. The appellants failed to demonstrate any unusual circumstances or grave injustice that would justify a departure from this rule. Furthermore, the high court granted leave to appeal only on specific legal questions, excluding its principal finding that the prosecutors' appointments...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 197
Parties
Appellant: Hendrik Frederick Delport; Appellant: Christopher Arthur Ilston Pickard; Appellant: Petrus Casparus Horne; Appellant: Hendrik Fourie; Appellant: Ioannis Papoulias; Appellant: Michael Hermanus Kinnear; Appellant: Victor William Arlow; Appellant: Deidre Arlow; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Case Number
861/13
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court (sitting as Court of Appeal) to Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll.
Judges
Cachalia, Leach, Theron, Majiedt, Schoeman
Legal Topics
Appealability of Orders, Title to Prosecute, Remittal Orders, Criminal Trial Delay, Substantial Compliance, Constitutional Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Appealability of Orders Title to Prosecute Remittal Orders Criminal Trial Delay Substantial Compliance Constitutional Right to Fair Trial

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Frederick Delport

Appellant

Christopher Arthur Ilston Pickard

Appellant

Petrus Casparus Horne

Appellant

Hendrik Fourie

Appellant

Ioannis Papoulias

Appellant

Michael Hermanus Kinnear

Appellant

Victor William Arlow

Appellant

Deidre Arlow

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court (sitting as Court of Appeal) to Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the remittal order of the high court (sitting as a court of appeal) is appealable before the completion of the criminal trial.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment and authority of the prosecutors was valid under the National Prosecuting Authority Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal where leave was granted by the high court on specific grounds only.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the remittal order of the high court, which sent the matter back to the magistrate for continuation of the criminal trial, is not appealable. The general rule, supported by judicial and legislative policy and s 35(3)(d) of the Constitution, is that criminal trials should proceed to completion without interruption by interim appeals, except in rare and unusual circumstances. The appellants failed to demonstrate any unusual circumstances or grave injustice that would justify a departure from this rule. Furthermore, the high court granted leave to appeal only on specific legal questions, excluding its principal finding that the prosecutors' appointments...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.