Pretorius and Others v Magistrate, Durban and Others (AR155/12) [2013] ZAKZPHC 5; 2013 (2) SACR 153 (KZP) (18 January 2013)

Pretorius and Others v Magistrate, Durban and Others (AR155/12) [2013] ZAKZPHC 5; 2013 (2) SACR 153 (KZP) (18 January 2013)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that they did not receive proper, effective, or competent legal representation. The third respondent's version, supported by affidavits and not effectively challenged, indicated that adequate consultations took place and that the defence was conducted in accordance with professional ethics. The applicants' dissatisfaction was largely based on hindsight and the failure of their chosen defence strategy, which does not amount to grave injustice. The court held that misplaced reliance on legal advice, given in good faith, is not a ground for review. The alleged mistiming of the constitutional challenge did not constitute incompetence....

Citation
[2013] ZAKZPHC 5
Parties
Applicant: Tracy-Anne Pretorius; Applicant: Tyronne Hofland; Applicant: Bonzile Chutshela; Applicant: Travis Bailey; Applicant: Senzele Dlezi; Respondent: The Magistrate, Durban; Respondent: The State; Respondent: J P van der Ver Veen
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Case Number
AR155/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of Criminal Proceedings Prior to Sentencing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kruger, Mokgohloa
Legal Topics
Right to Legal Representation, Fair Trial, Competent Defence, Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, Criminal Procedure Review
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Legal Representation Fair Trial Competent Defence Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act Criminal Procedure Review

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy-Anne Pretorius

Applicant

Tyronne Hofland

Applicant

Bonzile Chutshela

Applicant

Travis Bailey

Applicant

Senzele Dlezi

Applicant

The Magistrate, Durban

Respondent

The State

Respondent

J P van der Ver Veen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of Criminal Proceedings Prior to Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants received a fair trial in accordance with their constitutional right to legal representation.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the third respondent amounted to incompetent legal representation justifying review before sentencing.
  3. 3 Whether grave injustice would result if the High Court did not intervene before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that they did not receive proper, effective, or competent legal representation. The third respondent's version, supported by affidavits and not effectively challenged, indicated that adequate consultations took place and that the defence was conducted in accordance with professional ethics. The applicants' dissatisfaction was largely based on hindsight and the failure of their chosen defence strategy, which does not amount to grave injustice. The court held that misplaced reliance on legal advice, given in good faith, is not a ground for review. The alleged mistiming of the constitutional challenge did not constitute incompetence....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay costs.