Director of Public Prosecutions v King (CC257/2005) [2008] ZAGPHC 118 (24 April 2008)

Director of Public Prosecutions v King (CC257/2005) [2008] ZAGPHC 118 (24 April 2008)

The court found that the application was premature, as the respondent had not yet applied for a postponement and any such application could only be properly adjudicated by the trial judge on the facts presented at the time. The court held that it would be improper to prejudge the respondent's intentions or to interfere with the discretion of the trial judge. The court further found that neither party was solely responsible for the delays in the proceedings and that the outstanding application for access to sections B and C of the docket should be resolved expeditiously to facilitate trial preparation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the matter postponed to the scheduled...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 118
Parties
Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: David Cunningham King
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2008
Case Number
CC257/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application / Interlocutory Application Seeking to Pre Empt Postponement of Criminal Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; matter postponed to 28 July 2008 for trial.
Judges
L O Bosielo
Legal Topics
Criminal Trial Postponement, Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act, Docket Disclosure, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Criminal Trial Postponement Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act Docket Disclosure Fair Trial Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

David Cunningham King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application / Interlocutory Application Seeking to Pre Empt Postponement of Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be pre-emptively barred from seeking a postponement of the criminal trial scheduled for 28 July 2008.
  2. 2 Whether the court should impose strict terms on the respondent to ensure trial readiness.
  3. 3 Whether delays in the proceedings are unreasonable and prejudicial to the prosecution or defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was premature, as the respondent had not yet applied for a postponement and any such application could only be properly adjudicated by the trial judge on the facts presented at the time. The court held that it would be improper to prejudge the respondent's intentions or to interfere with the discretion of the trial judge. The court further found that neither party was solely responsible for the delays in the proceedings and that the outstanding application for access to sections B and C of the docket should be resolved expeditiously to facilitate trial preparation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the matter postponed to the scheduled...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; matter postponed to 28 July 2008 for trial.

Orders

  • The application by the applicant is dismissed.
  • The case is postponed to 28 July 2008, being the trial date.