S v DeVries and Others (67/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 8; 2008 (4) SA 441 (C); 2008 (1) SACR 580 (C) (18 February 2008)

S v DeVries and Others (67/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 8; 2008 (4) SA 441 (C); 2008 (1) SACR 580 (C) (18 February 2008)

The applications by the accused to declare the NDPP's POCA authorization and the centralization directive invalid, and to set aside the charges, are refused. The trial court cannot review its own proceedings at this late stage; any challenge to the validity of the authorization or directive must be made by way of a special entry under s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act for consideration by a higher court. The authorization and directive were handed up at the start of trial without objection, and the accused pleaded not guilty, thereby consenting to the court's jurisdiction under s 110(1)(b). The POCA authorization was sufficiently specific when read with the indictment, and the process...

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 8
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Selwyn Winston De Vries; Respondent: Virgil Lennith De Vries; Respondent: Julian Michael Van Heerden; Respondent: Vernon Noel Victor; Respondent: Alex Anna; Respondent: Gary Williams; Respondent: Llewellyn Smith; Respondent: Francis James Ngarinoma; Respondent: Edward Moagi; Respondent: Darryl Pitt; Respondent: Achmat Mather
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2008
Case Number
67/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application / Application for Declarations of Invalidity and Setting Aside of Charges After Close of State's Case
Outcome
Applications for declarations of invalidity and setting aside of charges refused.
Judges
Bozalek
Legal Topics
Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Centralisation of Prosecution, Jurisdiction, Special Entry Irregularity, Criminal Procedure Act, Authority of Ndpp
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Prevention of Organised Crime Act Centralisation of Prosecution Jurisdiction Special Entry Irregularity Criminal Procedure Act Authority of Ndpp

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

The State

Applicant

Selwyn Winston De Vries

Respondent

Virgil Lennith De Vries

Respondent

Julian Michael Van Heerden

Respondent

Vernon Noel Victor

Respondent

Alex Anna

Respondent

Gary Williams

Respondent

Llewellyn Smith

Respondent

Francis James Ngarinoma

Respondent

Edward Moagi

Respondent

Darryl Pitt

Respondent

Achmat Mather

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application / Application for Declarations of Invalidity and Setting Aside of Charges After Close of State's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the NDPP's authorization under s 2(4) of POCA was valid and sufficiently specific.
  2. 2 Whether the centralization directive issued under s 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act was valid and intra vires.
  3. 3 Whether the accuseds' late challenge to the authorization and directive could be entertained by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The applications by the accused to declare the NDPP's POCA authorization and the centralization directive invalid, and to set aside the charges, are refused. The trial court cannot review its own proceedings at this late stage; any challenge to the validity of the authorization or directive must be made by way of a special entry under s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act for consideration by a higher court. The authorization and directive were handed up at the start of trial without objection, and the accused pleaded not guilty, thereby consenting to the court's jurisdiction under s 110(1)(b). The POCA authorization was sufficiently specific when read with the indictment, and the process...

Court Disposition

Applications for declarations of invalidity and setting aside of charges refused.

Orders

  • All applications by the accused for declarations of invalidity and setting aside of charges are refused.