S v Byleveld (CC 2/2015) [2016] ZANWHC 20; 2017 (1) SACR 218 (NWM) (29 April 2016)

S v Byleveld (CC 2/2015) [2016] ZANWHC 20; 2017 (1) SACR 218 (NWM) (29 April 2016)

The court found that accused no 8 was an informer engaged in covert operations at the request of the police, with his activities authorised by police but not by the Director of Public Prosecutions as required by section 252A(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The immunity provided by section 252A(5)(a) applies to acts performed in good faith during undercover operations, but prosecution for such acts requires written authorisation from the DPP. The evidence showed that accused no 8 was instructed to assist police and continued covert activities, but also acted outside his mandate by using proceeds for personal benefit and failing to disclose funds. The court held that the lack of...

Citation
[2016] ZANWHC 20
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Petrus Andries Byleveld
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Case Number
CC 2/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The prosecution of accused no 8 for offences committed during authorised undercover operations without written authorisation from the Director of Public Prosecutions is irregular and cannot proceed.
Judges
Landman
Legal Topics
Undercover Operations, Prosecution Authorisation, Section 252a Criminal Procedure Act, Informers Immunity
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Undercover Operations Prosecution Authorisation Section 252a Criminal Procedure Act Informers Immunity

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Petrus Andries Byleveld

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Trial / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused no 8, as an informer, is immune from prosecution under section 252A(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act if he acted in good faith during undercover operations.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution of accused no 8 was properly authorised in writing by the Director of Public Prosecutions as required by section 252A(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the offences for which accused no 8 is indicted fall within the scope of section 252A(5)(a) immunity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that accused no 8 was an informer engaged in covert operations at the request of the police, with his activities authorised by police but not by the Director of Public Prosecutions as required by section 252A(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The immunity provided by section 252A(5)(a) applies to acts performed in good faith during undercover operations, but prosecution for such acts requires written authorisation from the DPP. The evidence showed that accused no 8 was instructed to assist police and continued covert activities, but also acted outside his mandate by using proceeds for personal benefit and failing to disclose funds. The court held that the lack of...

Court Disposition

The prosecution of accused no 8 for offences committed during authorised undercover operations without written authorisation from the Director of Public Prosecutions is irregular and cannot proceed.

Orders

  • The prosecution of accused no 8 for offences falling under section 252A(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is declared unauthorised and a nullity.
  • The State is directed to obtain written authorisation from the Director of Public Prosecutions should it wish to proceed with prosecution on these counts.