Myoli and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape and Others (593/2014) [2015] ZAECBHC 33 (22 September 2015)

Myoli and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape and Others (593/2014) [2015] ZAECBHC 33 (22 September 2015)

The court held that section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act does not infringe the right to a fair trial as protected by the Constitution. The section provides an exclusionary rule that ensures evidence obtained through traps or undercover operations is only admissible if it does not render the trial unfair or is not detrimental to the administration of justice. The tension between public interest in combating crime and the accused's constitutional rights is recognized and resolved through section 36, which allows for reasonable and justifiable limitations. The applicants failed to identify any specific wording or sub-section of section 252A that is unconstitutional. The criticisms...

Citation
[2015] ZAECBHC 33
Parties
Applicant: Unathi Myoli; Applicant: Siyanda Nobhatyi; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions, Bisho; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services; Respondent: Speaker of the National Parliament; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: National Commissioner of the South African Police Services; Respondent: Captein Buys; Respondent: Provisional Co-ordinator for Section 252A Authority, South African Police Services, Zwelitsha
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Case Number
593/2014
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Judgment on Application to Declare Section 252 a of the Criminal Procedure Act Unconstitutional
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Alkema
Legal Topics
Entrapment, Fair Trial Rights, Exclusionary Rule, Limitation of Rights, Criminal Procedure Act Section 252a
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Entrapment Fair Trial Rights Exclusionary Rule Limitation of Rights Criminal Procedure Act Section 252a

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unathi Myoli

Applicant

Siyanda Nobhatyi

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions, Bisho

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services

Respondent

Speaker of the National Parliament

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

National Commissioner of the South African Police Services

Respondent

Captein Buys

Respondent

Provisional Co-ordinator for Section 252A Authority, South African Police Services, Zwelitsha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / Judgment on Application to Declare Section 252 a of the Criminal Procedure Act Unconstitutional

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional in its entirety.
  2. 2 Whether section 252A infringes the right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether any limitation of the right to a fair trial by section 252A is reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act does not infringe the right to a fair trial as protected by the Constitution. The section provides an exclusionary rule that ensures evidence obtained through traps or undercover operations is only admissible if it does not render the trial unfair or is not detrimental to the administration of justice. The tension between public interest in combating crime and the accused's constitutional rights is recognized and resolved through section 36, which allows for reasonable and justifiable limitations. The applicants failed to identify any specific wording or sub-section of section 252A that is unconstitutional. The criticisms...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of the two counsel.