S v Mofokeng (59/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 117 (3 February 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] ZAFSHC 117
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- M Voges, CHG van der Merwe
- Case number
- 59/2005
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- M Voges, CHG van der Merwe
- Case number
- 59/2005
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court found that, although there were concerns about the accuracy of interpretation during the trial, neither the defence nor the prosecution currently allege any unfairness. The trial is still ongoing, and any errors in interpretation can be identified and rectified during the remainder of the proceedings. Without a completed trial and a clear demonstration of prejudice, it is not necessary or appropriate for the High Court to intervene at this stage. The matter should be returned to the magistrate's court for completion, and any further review or appeal can be considered after finalisation if necessary.
Court disposition
The review application is dismissed. The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court for completion of the trial.
Orders
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court for finalisation.
- No intervention by the High Court is warranted at this stage.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantNtshinki Jabulani Mofokeng
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Pre Finalisation Review From Magistrate's Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's right to a fair trial was infringed due to alleged errors in interpretation during proceedings.
- 02
Whether it is necessary for the High Court to intervene and set aside the proceedings before their completion in the magistrate's court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The magistrate referred the matter for review, expressing concern that the accused's right to a fair trial may have been compromised due to incorrect interpretation by the court interpreter. The magistrate suggested that the proceedings should be set aside and the accused retried before another magistrate.
- Respondent
- Neither the defence nor the prosecution currently allege that the accused has been denied a fair trial. Both parties indicated satisfaction with the corrected interpretation and agreed that the trial should continue with a different interpreter, as cross-examination was ongoing and any discrepancies could still be addressed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
LE GRANGE AND ANOTHER v LOUBSER N.O. AND ANOTHER 1990 (2) SA 202 (O)
A higher court has the authority to review proceedings of a lower court before their completion, but this power should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where injustice cannot otherwise be avoided.
- 02
Section 304(A) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Errors in interpretation during trial do not automatically warrant setting aside proceedings unless it is clear that a fair trial has been denied.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court found that, although there were concerns about the accuracy of interpretation during the trial, neither the defence nor the prosecution currently allege any unfairness. The trial is still ongoing, and any errors in interpretation can be identified and rectified during the remainder of the proceedings. Without a completed trial and a clear demonstration of prejudice, it is not necessary or appropriate for the High Court to intervene at this stage. The matter should be returned to the magistrate's court for completion, and any further review or appeal can be considered after finalisation if necessary.
Obiter and limits
- The situation may be different if an appeal or review is sought after the conclusion of the trial, should evidence of unfairness emerge.
- It is not in the interests of justice for court proceedings to be interrupted and dealt with piecemeal unless absolutely necessary.
Court disposition
The review application is dismissed. The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court for completion of the trial.
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court for finalisation.
- No intervention by the High Court is warranted at this stage.
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
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE VRYSTAATSE PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Hersienings Nr. : 59/2005
DIE
STAAT
versus
NTSHINKI
JABULANI MOFOKENG
CORAM: VAN DER MERWE R et
VOGES
WND R
UITSPRAAK: VOGES
WND R
_____________
GELEWER OP: 3 FEBRUARIE 2005
Hierdie aangeleentheid is deur die landdros van Bethlehem na hierdie hof verwys vir hersiening.
Sy is van mening dat die beskuldigde se reg op ân billike verhoor aangetas is en dat dit in belang van geregtigheid nodig is dat die huidige verrigtinge tersyde gestel en die beskuldigde de novo voor ân ander landdros verhoor moet word.
Die verhoor het alreeds gevorder tot in die verdedigingsaak toe die beskuldigde aangedui het dat die hoftolk nie korrek tolk nie.
Nadat ân ander tolk gevra was om die getuienis van die betrokke getuie oor te tolk, het dit geblyk dat âdaar wel dele was wat die tolk nie elke woord oorgetolk het nie of selfs verkeerd getolk hetâ.
Daarna, aldus die landdros, âhet die Staat sowel as Mnr de Beer die hof meegedeel dat hulle tevrede is met Mnr Mbango se getolkte weergawe van die verrigtinge en dat die saak net voortgesit moet word met ân ander tolk. Beide van hulle se mening is dat aangesien die getuie nog onder kruisverhoor is, die Staat en die verdediging nog steeds die geleentheid het om die weersprekings tydens haar getuienis en kruisondervraging op te klaarâ.
Aangesien daar nog geen skuldigbevinding was nie, is artikel 304(A) van die Strafproseswet Nr 51 van 1977 natuurlik nie van toepassing nie.
ân Hoër hof het die bevoegdheid om die verrigtinge van ân laerhof voor die voltooiïng daarvan te hersien. Hierdie bevoegdheid moet egter spaarsamig uitgeoefen word, omdat dit nie in belang van regspleging is dat hofgedinge broksgewys afgehandel word nie. Die algemene reël is dat die uitoefening van hierdie hersieningsbevoegdheid beperk word tot daardie seldsame gevalle waar onreg nie anders vermy kan word nie. (Sien LE GRANGE EN âN ANDER v LOUBSER N.O. EN âN ANDER 1990 (2) SASV 202 (O) en gesag daarin vermeld.)
In die onderhawige verrigtinge bekla nóg die verdediging nóg die Staat hulle tans oor ân onbillike verhoor.
Aangesien die verhoor nog nie afgehandel is nie, kan foute wat met die vertolking van getuienis ingesluip het, indien dit wel so gevind word deur enige van die partye, nog uitgewys en reggestel word.
Sonder om die twee vertolkings te vergelyk, is dit nie moontlik om die omvang en effek van die tolk se fout(e) te beoordeel nie.
Dit kan nie tans bevind word dat die beskuldigde nie ân billike verhoor gehad het nie. Die situasie mag vanselfsprekend anders wees sou ân appèl of hersiening volg ná afhandeling van die verhoor.
Ek is nie tevrede dat ingryping op hiersiening voor afhandeling van die verrigtinge in die landdroshof tans noodsaaklik is nie.
Die saak word na die landdroshof terugverwys vir afhandeling.
____
M. VOGES, WND R
Ek stem saam.
________
C.H.G. VAN DER MERWE, R
/sp
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.