S v Griessel (355/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 72 (5 August 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAFSHC 72
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Van der Merwe, R, Wright, R
- Case number
- 355/2010
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Van der Merwe, R, Wright, R
- Case number
- 355/2010
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court declined to intervene at this stage, finding that the alleged inadequacy of interpretation did not amount to an injustice that could only be remedied by immediate review. The witness's testimony was simple, the accused was legally represented, and the proceedings could continue with a more experienced interpreter. The court emphasized that intervention prior to verdict should be reserved for exceptional cases where injustice cannot otherwise be avoided.
Court disposition
The matter is referred back to the magistrate for completion of the proceedings.
Orders
- The case is remitted to the magistrate for further proceedings and finalization.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantBrian Griessel
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Prior to Verdict
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the High Court should intervene in magistrates' court proceedings prior to verdict due to alleged inadequate interpretation.
- 02
Whether the accused's right to a fair trial was compromised by the interpreter's lack of experience.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecutor raised concerns that the interpreter was not adequately conveying the witness's testimony, suggesting that proceedings should be set aside and restarted with a more experienced interpreter to ensure fairness.
- Respondent
- The accused, represented by counsel, did not formally object but was affected by the alleged inadequate interpretation. The defense relied on the court to ensure fair proceedings and proper interpretation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
WAHLHAUS AND OTHERS v ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE, JOHANNESBURG AND ANOTHER 1959 (3) SA 113 (A) at 119E–120E
A High Court has inherent jurisdiction to review lower court proceedings before completion, but this power must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where injustice cannot otherwise be avoided.
- 02
ISMAIL AND OTHERS v ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE, WYNBERG AND ANOTHER 1963 (1) SA (A) at 5–6
The accused's right to a fair trial includes the right to proper interpretation throughout the proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court declined to intervene at this stage, finding that the alleged inadequacy of interpretation did not amount to an injustice that could only be remedied by immediate review. The witness's testimony was simple, the accused was legally represented, and the proceedings could continue with a more experienced interpreter. The court emphasized that intervention prior to verdict should be reserved for exceptional cases where injustice cannot otherwise be avoided.
Obiter and limits
- The general rule is that review jurisdiction should not be exercised piecemeal, as it is not in the interests of justice to fragment court proceedings.
- Continuation of proceedings with a competent interpreter is likely to avoid any potential injustice to the accused.
Court disposition
The matter is referred back to the magistrate for completion of the proceedings.
- The case is remitted to the magistrate for further proceedings and finalization.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
VRYSTAATSE HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA
Saak Nr.: 355/2010
In die hersiening van:
DIE
STAAT
en
BRIAN GRIESSEL
CORAM: VAN DER MERWE, R et WRIGHT, R ______________
UITSPRAAK: VAN DER MERWE, R
GELEWER OP: 5 AUGUSTUS 2010
[1] Hierdie aangeleentheid is deur die landdros van Hennenman na hierdie hof verwys vir sogenaamde spesiale hersiening.
[2] Die beskuldigde het onskuldig gepleit op aanklagte van bestuur van ‘n motorvoertuig terwyl hy onder die invloed van sterk drank was asook die bestuur van die motorvoertuig sonder ‘n bestuurderslisensie. Die eerste staatsgetuie was ‘n polisiekonstabel wie saam met twee ander waargeneem het hoedat die beskuldigde die voertuig bestuur het en wie die beskuldigde daarna gearresteer het. Gedurende die kruisverhoor van hierdie getuie deur die prokureur vir die beskuldigde, het die staatsaanklaer dit geopper dat die tolk na haar oordeel nie na behore oorgedra het wat die getuie gesê het nie. Die tolk is in amptelike maar onervare
hoftolk. Die betrokke onduidelikheid is opgeklaar maar nadat die staatsaanklaer vir ‘n tweede keer geopper het dat nie na behore getolk word nie, het die verhoorlanddros besluit om die saak uit te stel en na hierdie hof te verwys met die versoek dat die verrigtinge ter syde gestel word en de novo begin word met ‘n meer ervare tolk.
[3] Omdat geen skuldigbevinding of vonnis nog uitgebring is nie, is die bepalings van artikel 304(4) en 304A van Wet 51 van 1977 nie van toepassing nie. In so ‘n geval het ‘n Hoë Hof steeds die inherente bevoegdheid om die verrigtinge van ‘n laerhof voor die voltooiing daarvan te hersien. Hierdie bevoegdheid moet egter spaarsamig uitgeoefen word omdat dit nie in die belang van regspleging is dat hofverrigtinge broksgewys afgehandel word nie. Die algemene reël is dat die uitoefening van hierdie hersieningsbevoegdheid beperk moet word tot daardie seldsame gevalle waar onreg nie anders vermy kan word dan deur ingryping voor voltooiing van die verrigtinge voor die landdros nie. Sien WAHLHAUS AND OTHERS v ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE, JOHANNESBURG AND ANOTHER 1959 (3) SA 113 (A) op 119 E – 120 E en ISMAIL AND OTHERS v ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE, WYNBERG AND ANOTHER 1963 (1) SA (A) op 5 – 6.
[4] Die beskuldigde se reg het op ‘n billike verhoor sluit natuurlik in dat behoorlik getolk word. In die onderhawige geval is ek egter nie tevrede dat onreg teenoor die beskuldigde slegs vermy kan word deur ingryping op hersiening voor afhandeling van die verrigtinge nie. Die eerste staatsgetuie se getuienis is van eenvoudige aard. Hy is nog onder kruisverhoor en die beskuldigde het regsverteenwoordiging. Daar is dus goeie rede om te glo dat voortsetting van die verrigtinge met behulp van ‘n ervare tolk onreg teenoor die beskuldigde sal kan vermy.
[5] Gevolglik word die saak na die landdros terugverwys vir afhandeling daarvan.
________
C.H.G. VAN DER MERWE, R
Ek stem saam.
___
G. F. WRIGHT, R
/eb
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.