S v Mapey (4/5645/2002) [2007] ZAWCHC 22 (11 May 2007)

S v Mapey (4/5645/2002) [2007] ZAWCHC 22 (11 May 2007)

The High Court found that it has inherent review powers to correct irregularities in magistrate's court proceedings, particularly where the accused's rights and liberty are at stake. The magistrate's order of 19 March 2003 was incompetent because it did not comply with the requirements of section 77(6)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as there was no finding that the accused committed an act involving serious violence, nor was there a panel examination as required by section 79(1)(b). The subsequent order of 13 December 2006 was also invalid, as it referenced the repealed Mental Health Act 18 of 1973. The correct procedure, in light of the amendments to the law, is for the accused to...

Citation
[2007] ZAWCHC 22
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Mabuti Mapey
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2007
Case Number
4/5645/2002
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review of Magistrate's Orders
Outcome
The orders made on 19 March 2003 and 13 December 2006 are set aside and replaced with orders for the accused's detention and review under the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002.
Judges
A P Blignault, A H Veldhuizen
Legal Topics
Mental Health Care Act, Criminal Capacity, Review of Magistrate Orders, Detention of Accused
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Mental Health Care Act Criminal Capacity Review of Magistrate Orders Detention of Accused

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mabuti Mapey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review of Magistrate's Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has inherent review powers over magistrate's orders made under section 77(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's order of 19 March 2003 for detention pending a judge's decision was competent under the Criminal Procedure Act and Mental Health Act.
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent order of 13 December 2006 was valid given the repeal of the Mental Health Act 18 of 1973.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that it has inherent review powers to correct irregularities in magistrate's court proceedings, particularly where the accused's rights and liberty are at stake. The magistrate's order of 19 March 2003 was incompetent because it did not comply with the requirements of section 77(6)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as there was no finding that the accused committed an act involving serious violence, nor was there a panel examination as required by section 79(1)(b). The subsequent order of 13 December 2006 was also invalid, as it referenced the repealed Mental Health Act 18 of 1973. The correct procedure, in light of the amendments to the law, is for the accused to...

Court Disposition

The orders made on 19 March 2003 and 13 December 2006 are set aside and replaced with orders for the accused's detention and review under the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002.

Orders

  • The accused, Mabuti Mapey, is to be detained in Valkenburg Hospital as if he were an involuntary mental health care user contemplated in section 37 of the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002.
  • The head of Valkenburg Hospital is directed to cause the mental health status of the accused to be reviewed in terms of section 37 of the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 within 30 days after this order comes to his notice.