Golding and Others v S (63/2019) [2022] ZAKZDHC 20 (11 May 2022)

Golding and Others v S (63/2019) [2022] ZAKZDHC 20 (11 May 2022)

The court found that, although there were delays in the trial, these did not cumulatively amount to 'unreasonable delay' as contemplated by section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The delays were explained by the State as being largely outside its control, involving logistical challenges with witnesses who are private individuals, Covid-19 protocols, and other systemic factors. The court held that the prosecution's conduct did not amount to wilful or negligent delay and that the accused's right to a speedy trial had not been infringed to the extent warranting relief under section 342A. The application was dismissed, but the State undertook to implement mechanisms to minimise future...

Citation
[2022] ZAKZDHC 20
Parties
Applicant: DK Golding & 15 Others; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Case Number
63/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application Under Section 342 a of the Criminal Procedure Act for Relief Due to Alleged Unreasonable Delays in Trial
Outcome
Application under section 342A is dismissed; no finding of unreasonable delay; State held to undertakings to minimise future delays.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a, Right to Speedy Trial, Unreasonable Delay, Prosecutorial Discretion
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a Right to Speedy Trial Unreasonable Delay Prosecutorial Discretion

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DK Golding & 15 Others

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Application Under Section 342 a of the Criminal Procedure Act for Relief Due to Alleged Unreasonable Delays in Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delays in the criminal trial constitute 'unreasonable delay' as contemplated by section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the accused's right to a trial beginning and concluding without unreasonable delay under section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution has been infringed.
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant relief or orders to streamline the trial process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although there were delays in the trial, these did not cumulatively amount to 'unreasonable delay' as contemplated by section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The delays were explained by the State as being largely outside its control, involving logistical challenges with witnesses who are private individuals, Covid-19 protocols, and other systemic factors. The court held that the prosecution's conduct did not amount to wilful or negligent delay and that the accused's right to a speedy trial had not been infringed to the extent warranting relief under section 342A. The application was dismissed, but the State undertook to implement mechanisms to minimise future...

Court Disposition

Application under section 342A is dismissed; no finding of unreasonable delay; State held to undertakings to minimise future delays.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The State is held to its undertakings to provide advance notice of witnesses and minimise delays for the remainder of the trial.