S v Marques and Another (A833/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 299; 2013 (2) SACR 369 (GNP) (20 November 2012)

S v Marques and Another (A833/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 299; 2013 (2) SACR 369 (GNP) (20 November 2012)

The High Court found that the complaint raised by the presiding officer regarding the prosecutor's conduct did not amount to a gross irregularity as contemplated by section 24(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Act. The evidence in question was properly tested under cross-examination, and the presiding officer's duty is to evaluate credibility and reliability impartially. The review jurisdiction of the High Court is not triggered in the absence of a sentence or a formal application by a party. The matter was erroneously submitted for review and should be remitted to the Regional Court for hearing to finality.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 299
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: Alexander Alberto Raptis Marques; Applicant: Marius de Kock
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2012
Case Number
A833/12
Procedural Posture
Special Review / Referral From Regional Magistrate to High Court for Special Review Prior to Finalization of Criminal Trial.
Outcome
The matter is remitted back to the Regional Court Pretoria for hearing to finality.
Judges
AML Phatudi, M W Msimeki
Legal Topics
Gross Irregularity, Review Jurisdiction, Fair Trial Rights, Cross Examination, Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Gross Irregularity Review Jurisdiction Fair Trial Rights Cross Examination Criminal Procedure Act

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Alexander Alberto Raptis Marques

Applicant

Marius de Kock

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Special Review / Referral From Regional Magistrate to High Court for Special Review Prior to Finalization of Criminal Trial.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the prosecutor in consulting with a witness and assisting in drafting a second statement constitutes a gross irregularity in the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the matter prior to sentence under section 24(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remitted to the Regional Court for hearing to finality.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the complaint raised by the presiding officer regarding the prosecutor's conduct did not amount to a gross irregularity as contemplated by section 24(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Act. The evidence in question was properly tested under cross-examination, and the presiding officer's duty is to evaluate credibility and reliability impartially. The review jurisdiction of the High Court is not triggered in the absence of a sentence or a formal application by a party. The matter was erroneously submitted for review and should be remitted to the Regional Court for hearing to finality.

Court Disposition

The matter is remitted back to the Regional Court Pretoria for hearing to finality.

Orders

  • The matter is remitted back to the Regional Court Pretoria for hearing of the matter to finality.