S v Molefi J Malefane (R56/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 234 (14 September 2021)

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

Case no: R56/2021

In the matter between:

THE

STATE

and

MOLEFI

JOHANNES MALEFANE

CORAM: NS DANISO J et

CL PAGE AJ

HEARD ON:

DELIVERED ON: 14 September 2021

JUDGMENT BY: CL

PAGE AJ

[1] Mr Molefi Johannes Malefani (“the accused”) pleaded not guilty to a charge of housebreaking with intention to steal and theft. The trial proceeded before the magistrate, Bothshabelo. The accused was subsequently convicted and sentenced to twelve (12) months imprisonment. The matter is subject to automatic review as provided by the provisions of Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act. (‘the Act”).

The Trial Proceedings.

[2] The accused offered a plea explanation in terms of section 115 of the Act. He denied breaking into the complainant’s residence and further stated that he had informed the complainant that two other persons had broken into his residence. He also intimated that the complainant refused to approach the said two persons.

[3] The state called two witnesses. The accused testified and wished to call two witnesses. The defense witnesses were not called for reasons which will appear below.

The right of an accused to cross examine witnesses:

[4] The state called the complainant, Mr Moyeti Piet Ramatse. Once his evidence in chief was concluded, the accused commenced cross examination.

[5] The court interjected whilst the accused was busy with cross examination of the complainant and started posing questions to the accused. I refer to the portion of the record, on page 17 as from line 14:

“Hof: Kom die holf help jou bietjie. Die klaer se daar is sekere van sy goed by u huis gekry en hy noem op wat by u huis gekry is. Stem u saam dat daardie goed wat by u huis gekry is, dat dit aan die, dat die goed in die eerste plek by u huis gekry en dat dit in die tweede plek, dat dit die klaer se goed is?

Beskuldigde: Ja.

Hof: Op al twee? Ja op al twee, die goed is daar gekry en 2 dit is die klaer se goed se komberse en sy [ tolk begin tolk].

Beskuldigde: Korrek, agbare op die vrae.

Hof: Goed en die klaer se ook hy het, ag hy het die verf daar gesien en dit is, wat is die ander ding wat hy daar gesien het?

Prosecutor: Varnish.

Interpreter: Varnish.

Hof: Ja, hy het dit daar gesien. Het u vrae daaroor? Hy se dit is ook syne.

Beskuldigde: Agbare, waar ek werk ek gebruik die paint, agbare. So in my huis daar was 20 litre van paint.

Hof: So u ontken dat die verf en die varnish wat hy gesien het dat dit aan, dat syne was?

Beskuldigde: Korrek, agbare.”

[6] What appears from the above interaction between the magistrate and the accused, is that the magistrate started questioning the accused and upon the answers given by the accused, the complainant was asked if he has an answer to what was elicited.

[7] It is acceptable for a presiding officer to assist an accused who has difficulty to cross examine the witness. Such assistance should, however, be conducted by way of an explanation to the accused of what is expected of him during cross examination. The presiding officer should allow the accused to pose the questions to the witness himself.

[8] It was clear from the record that the witness was not having difficulty posing questions to the witness. It was clear that the presiding officer was not attentive and grew impatient with the accused and then simply interjected and started questioning the accused.

[9] What transpired after the words, “ ...Kom die hof help jou bietjie..” is an explanation to the accused of what the state witness testified, promoting the evidence of the witness and challenging the accused with two pertinent questions which should have been posed to the accused during cross examination by the state.

[10] The magistrate in essence cross examined the accused at the stage of the proceedings when the accused had to exercise his right to cross examine the witness.

[11] The accused was in the circumstances not allowed to exercise his right to cross examine the witness due to the interference by the presiding officer.

The issue of asking question for purposes of clarity after cross examination of the accused.

[12] After cross examination by the state the presiding officer continued to question the accused. The questions are clearly posed to challenge the accused’s version that two persons known as Chandos and Tumelo woke him up and brought some of the stolen items (blankets, a paraffin lamp and heater) to his house earlier the morning. The questions start on page 14 and continues until page 16 of the record.

[13] It is clear from the questioning that the presiding officer is guiding the accused to highlight that which may seem more detrimental to him and ignoring the answers given by the accused. This is emphasized by the presiding officer’s misinterpretation of the evidence and the accused’s version as to where the stolen blankets were found in the accused’s room. The complainant indicated that he identified the blankets in the presence of the police on the accused’s bed. The accused confirmed that the blankets were on top of his bed. The presiding officer makes the inexplicable finding in the judgment that the accused used the blankets as if it belonged to him because he covered his bed with the blankets. This was never the evidence of the state and neither did the accused indicate that he covered his bed with the stolen blankets. The accused clearly stated that he put the blankets on top of his bed.

[14] From perusal of the record, it is clear that the presiding officer, interrogated the accused and further failed to remain open minded, objective and impartial. The questions were not asked to ascertain the truth, or to clear up uncertainties in the evidence of the accused. In fact, the accused’s evidence in chief was brief and did not deal with what he has said during the plea explanation. The presiding officer should have assisted and warned the accused to elaborate on what he has said during the plea explanation and what he has mentioned as his version during the cross examination of the witnesses.

The Accused’s right to call witnesses.

[15] The presiding officer questions the accused at length about the witnesses which he was desirous to call:

“ Hof: U het reeds aangedui u wil getuies roep. Is dit steeds so, wil u steeds die getuies roep?

Beskuldigde: Korrek so, agbare.

Hof: En die getuies wat u wil roep, wat moet die getuies vir die hof kom se?

Beskuldigde: Om te kom getuig, agbare wat het gebeur wat hulle weet, agbare.

Hof: Ja, maar wat is dit….[ tussenbeide ]

Beskuldigde: Want hulle is my buurmense.

Hof:

Goed, hulle is u bure maar waaroor moet hulle nou kom getuig? Was hulle by gewees toe die goed vir u gebring is. Of wat moet hulle kom getuig.

Beskuldigde: Agbare, ek weet nie of het hulle gesien as hulle die goed by my plek saambring. Ek weet nie.

Hof: Nou wat wil u he moet hulle kom getuig?

Beskuldigde: Om te kom getuig, agbare dat ek is nie betrokke in die inbreking van die klaer se plek nie.

Hof: Nie hierdie klas van dinge nie, die hof praat van ‘n spesifieke voorval. Die hof stel belang in ‘n spesifieke voorval belang en dit is die voorval waar die klaer beweer sy goed gesteel is daar in ‘n inbraak en u beweer dat die goed van die klaer se gesteelde eiendom is by u huis aangebring. Maar die hof wil weet wat kan die bure kom se.?

Besk

uldigde: Agbare,om te kom getuig dat ek is nie betrokke in die huisbraak by die klaer se plek.Hof: En hoe weet hulle u is nie betrokke nie?

Beskuldigde: Agbare, om te kom getuig dat ek is nie betrokke in die huisbraak by die klaer se plek.

Hof: En hoe weet hulle u is nie betrokke nie?

Beskuldigde: Want Chandos en sy vriend is hulle wat vir my wakker gemaak, agbare as hulle opdaag.

Hof: En het die bure dit gesien?

Beskuldigde: Ek dink hulle het gesien, agbare.

Hof: Maar u het nog nooit vir hulle gevra eers of het ulle dit gesien nie.

Beskuldigde: Ek het vir hulle gevra, agbare.

Hof: En wat het hulle gese?

Beskuldigde: Die ander getuie, agbare het gese ja, hy het gesien en hy het gedog dat Chandos het saam met sy vrou baklei, so hy het besluit om sy goeters te vat en loop.

Hof: Goed en die buurman wat dit gese het vir u hy het dit gesien, wat is sy naam?

Beskuldigde: Die getuie se noemnaam, agbare is Legend.

Hof: Watse goed?

Beskuldigde: Langa.

Hof:

En wanneer gaan u hierdie getuie by die hof he?

Beskuldigde: Op die volgende datum, agbare.

Hof: Goed, is dit net een getuie wat u wil roep, of is dit meer as een getuie wat u wil roep.

Beskuldigde: Twee getuies, agbare.

Hof: Die ander getuie is dit ook ‘n buurman?

Beskuldigde: Ja, agbare.

Hof: Wat is sy naam?

Beskuldigde: Die vrou se noemnaam is Dada, agbare mar ek is, ek weet nie wat haar van is nie.

Hof: Goed en wat moet sy vir die hof kom se?

Beskuldigde: Hy het gesien agbare, as Chandos se vriend by my plek opdaag.

Hof: Sy het dit gesien.

Beskuldige: Ja.

[16] The case is thereafter postponed for the defense witnesses. One of the witnesses were present on the next date, but the case is postponed due to other more urgent cases which had to be dealt with.

[17] When the case continues the following court date, the following transpires:

Hof: Oukei, u getuie, waarom was u getuier nie by die hof, is u getuie nie by die hof nie want hy was die vorige keer deur die hof gewaarsku?

Beskuldigde: Ek weet nie hoekom agbare, maar hy was gewaarsku.

Hof: Een getuie was gewaarsku.

Hof: Maar net een getuie was hier. U het gese u wil twee getuies roep, maar hier was een getuie gewees.

Beskuldigde: Agbare, Woensdag ek was saam met die getuie. Ek het vir hom laat onthou oor die datum. Hy het nie ‘n probleem gehad. So, ek weet nie. Maar vandag hy is nie …[ onduidelik- mompel]

Hof: Nou wil u steeds die getuie roep, of wil u, gaan u die getuie nou maar los?

Beskuldigde: Agbare, ek dink om die getuie te los, agbare.

Hof: Goed. Laat ons op rekord gaan.

Tolk: Ons is op…[ tussenbeide]

Hof: Klaar op rekord. Goed, so u dui die, u dui aan, nou die saak meganies Voort gesit. U dui aan u wil nie meer die getuies roep nie. Die hof plaas nie druk op u nie, dit is u eie besluit. Wil u die getuies nog roep, of los u nou die getuies?

Beskuldigde: Agbare, ek dink om die getuies te los want hulle wil nie by die hof kom nie.

Hof: Sluit u dan u saak.

[18] The record speaks for itself. The magistrate subjected the accused to tiresome interrogation. This led to a decision by the accused not to call witnesses whose evidence may have been paramount to his case. He is cajoled into submission by the tone and persistence of the presiding officer.

The explanation of the accused’s right prior to sentence:

[19] The following explanation was given to the accused prior to sentencing:

“Goed, Beskuldigde, die volgende regte voor vonnis. Getuig onder eed. U kan onbeedigde vertoe rig. U kan getuig of u kan swyg of u kan vrae stel. U is nie verplig om te antwoord nie. Verstaan u en wat verkies u?”

[20] The accused indicated that he understands and proceeded to adress the court even though the explanation by the presiding officer is terse and confusing. This tone and abrupt manner of addressing the accused can be observed throughout the proceedings.

Legal Authority

[21] A judicial officer should always be mindful of the provisions of S 35(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa during trial proceedings. This section of our constitution includes several component rights which are included in the all-embracing concept of the right of an accused to a fair trial.

Over the years a wealth of caselaw related to the fairness of trial proceedings has been developed and it will be of benefit to all judicial officers to perform their judicial functions in the spirit expressed in our constitution and the decided cases.

[22] Having said this, I find the following quotation in Ramulifa v The State 413/12 [2012] ZASCA 202 (30 November 2012) by the honourable Southwood AJA to be significant:

“This meant that the regional magistrate was obliged to act as the guide of the appellant at all stages of the trial. He was obliged to inform the appellant of his basic procedural rights – the right to cross-examine, the right to testify, the right to call witnesses, the right to address the court both on the merits and in respect of sentence, and in comprehensible language to explain to him the purpose and significance of his rights. The regional magistrate was also obliged to assist the appellant whenever he needed assistance in the presentation of his case. It was also required of the regional magistrate that he ensures that the parties’ cases were presented fully and fairly and that the truth was established: in other words, he was not to be a passive observer of the trial: he was obliged to ensure fairness and justice and, if necessary to intervene to achieve this.”

[23] in S v Mathabathe 2003(2) SACR 28 (T), on page 30 Paras I-J and page 31 b-c of the judgment the following entrenched principle is stated:

“It is clear that in order to give the accused a fair trial a judicial officer must not only be impartial but be seen to be impartial…. When a judicial officer intervenes to ask questions, he must be careful not to lose that impartiality.”

[24] After consideration of the proceedings, I find that the presiding magistrate limited the accused’s right to cross examine the first state witness by intervening in the fashion as described hereabove.

[25] The presiding magistrate’s questioning of the accused after cross examination by the State, were not posed with the aim of clarity on issues or to find the truth. The questions appear to conform to cross examination of the accused and by so doing, the judicial officer descended into the arena of the proceedings.

[26] Further, the presiding magistrate’s questions related to the calling of state witnesses clearly intimidated the accused and his right to call witnesses were infringed.

[27] In considering the above it is apt to classify the conduct of the trial by the magistrate as irregular and it is accordingly found that the irregularities mentioned hereabove prejudiced the accused. The trial is therefore rendered unfair and not in accordance with justice.

[28] I make the following order:

1. The conviction and sentence is set aside.

2. The ruling in terms of S 103(1) of Act 60 of 2000 is set aside.

_______

C L Page AJ

______

I concur: NS Daniso J