S v Khamadi and Others (R109/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 75 (13 June 2019)

S v Khamadi and Others (R109/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 75 (13 June 2019)

The recusal of the Magistrate, prompted by discomfort with the accused appearing in shackles and in line with established legal principles, rendered the trial proceedings a nullity. The High Court confirmed that a de novo trial before another presiding officer is required. The use of shackles or restraints on accused persons in court is an exception, not the rule, and should only be permitted if the court finds reasonable grounds for believing the accused may be violent or attempt escape. The appearance of accused in restraints undermines the presumption of innocence and violates human dignity, both of which are central to the right to a fair trial under the Constitution.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 75
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Tsietsi Daniel Khamadi and Nine Others
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2019
Case Number
R109/2019
Procedural Posture
Special Review / Review of Recusal and Trial Proceedings
Outcome
The recusal of the presiding Magistrate is confirmed; the trial proceedings are set aside and the accused must be tried de novo before another presiding officer.
Judges
Loubser, Opperman
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judicial Officer, Fair Trial Rights, Presumption of Innocence, Use of Restraints in Court
Criminal Law Recusal of Judicial Officer Fair Trial Rights Presumption of Innocence Use of Restraints in Court

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Tsietsi Daniel Khamadi and Nine Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Review / Review of Recusal and Trial Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recusal of the presiding Magistrate rendered the trial proceedings a nullity.
  2. 2 Whether the accused may appear in court while shackled on their ankles.
  3. 3 Whether the trial must commence de novo before another presiding officer.

Ratio Decidendi

The recusal of the Magistrate, prompted by discomfort with the accused appearing in shackles and in line with established legal principles, rendered the trial proceedings a nullity. The High Court confirmed that a de novo trial before another presiding officer is required. The use of shackles or restraints on accused persons in court is an exception, not the rule, and should only be permitted if the court finds reasonable grounds for believing the accused may be violent or attempt escape. The appearance of accused in restraints undermines the presumption of innocence and violates human dignity, both of which are central to the right to a fair trial under the Constitution.

Court Disposition

The recusal of the presiding Magistrate is confirmed; the trial proceedings are set aside and the accused must be tried de novo before another presiding officer.

Orders

  • The recusal of the presiding Magistrate is confirmed.
  • The trial proceedings against the accused are set aside.