S v Morgan (7/2005) [2005] ZANCHC 10 (21 January 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] ZANCHC 10
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C C Williams, C J Musi
- Case number
- 7/2005
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C C Williams, C J Musi
- Case number
- 7/2005
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court held that it is not appropriate to intervene by way of review at this stage of the proceedings, as the refusal of the recusal application does not constitute an exceptional circumstance or a gross irregularity warranting immediate review. The general rule is that review should not be conducted in a piecemeal manner before the conclusion of proceedings in the lower court. The matter does not present the type of grave injustice or irreversible harm that would justify deviation from this rule. Accordingly, the case is remitted to the magistrate for continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Court disposition
The application for review is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the magistrate for continuation of proceedings.
Orders
- The case is referred back to the magistrate for the continuation of criminal proceedings.
- No intervention by way of review is granted at this stage.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantJohn Morgan
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Interlocutory Review Prior to Commencement of Criminal Proceedings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether it is appropriate for the High Court to intervene by way of review before the conclusion of criminal proceedings in the magistrate's court.
- 02
Whether the refusal of the recusal application constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying immediate review.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant's legal representative sought the recusal of the magistrate before the commencement of criminal proceedings, arguing that the magistrate should not preside over the matter. The magistrate refused the application and, seeking confirmation of the correctness of his decision, referred the matter for special review before continuing with the proceedings.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by the prosecution, maintained that the proceedings should continue and that the refusal of the recusal application did not warrant immediate review by the High Court, as no exceptional circumstances or irreversible injustice had been demonstrated.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Wahlhaus v Additional Magistrate, Johannesburg 1959(3) SA 113(A)
Review proceedings should not be entertained in a piecemeal fashion before the conclusion of lower court proceedings, except in rare cases to prevent grave injustice or irreversible legal harm.
- 02
Ismail and Others v Additional Magistrate, Wynberg and Another 1963(1) SA 1 (A)
The High Court may intervene by way of review before conviction only in exceptional cases where a gross irregularity would result in grave injustice that cannot be remedied by appeal.
- 03
S v McIntyne and Others 1997(2) SACR 333 (TPA); Van Tonder v Kilian No and Another 1992(1) SA 67(T)
Distinction must be maintained between irregularities justifying review before conviction and errors suitable for appeal after conviction; intervention should be reserved for rare cases.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court held that it is not appropriate to intervene by way of review at this stage of the proceedings, as the refusal of the recusal application does not constitute an exceptional circumstance or a gross irregularity warranting immediate review. The general rule is that review should not be conducted in a piecemeal manner before the conclusion of proceedings in the lower court. The matter does not present the type of grave injustice or irreversible harm that would justify deviation from this rule. Accordingly, the case is remitted to the magistrate for continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Obiter and limits
- A Superior Court should be slow to intervene in ongoing proceedings in a lower court and should generally confine its powers to rare cases where grave injustice might otherwise result.
- Not every failure of justice amounts to a gross irregularity justifying interference before conviction; the distinction between reviewable irregularities and appealable errors must be maintained.
Court disposition
The application for review is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the magistrate for continuation of proceedings.
- The case is referred back to the magistrate for the continuation of criminal proceedings.
- No intervention by way of review is granted at this stage.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
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.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(Noord-Kaapse Afdeling)
SAAKNOMMER: 7/2005
DATUM GELEWER: 21-01-2005
In die saak van:
DIE STAAT
teen
JOHN
MORGAN
Coram: Williams R et Musi WnR
HERSIENINGSUITSPRAAK
WILLIAMS R:
Hierdie aangeleentheid is op spesiale hersiening gestuur deur die Landdros te Barkly-Wes nadat hy ân aansoek vir sy rekusering, gebring deur die beskuldigde se prokureur, van die hand gewys het.
Die aansoek om rekusering is gebring voor die strafverrigtinge teen die beskuldigde ân aanvang geneem het, en het die landdros dit gerade geag om uitsluitsel oor die korrektheid van sy beslissing te kry alvorens die verrigtinge voortgesit word.
Die vraag wat nou ontstaan, is of dit gepas is dat hierdie Hof op hierdie stadium op hersiening genader word. Die algemene reël is dat verrigtinge in ân laerhof nie broksgewys op hersiening geneem word nie. Sien Wahlhaus v Additional Magistrate, Johannesburg 1959(3) SA 113(A).
Alhoewel die hooggeregshof by magte is om in te gryp by wyse van hersiening voor die einde van ân saak, word hierdie mag slegs in uitsonderlike gevalle uitgeoefen om ân onomkeerbare en ernstige regskending te voorkom. Sien byvoorbeeld S v McIntyne en Andere 1997(2) SASV 333 TPA, Van Tonder v Kilian No en ân ander 1992(1) SA 67(T).
Met betrekking tot inmenging voor skuldigbevinding sê Steyn HR die volgende in Ismail and Others v Additional Magistrate, Wynberg and Another 1963(1) SA 1 (A) te bl. 5.
âI should point out that it is not every failure of justice which would amount to a gross irregularity justifying interference before conviction. As was pointed out in Wahlhaus and Others v Additional Magistrate, Johannesburg and Another, 1959 (3) SA 113 (AD) at p. 119, where the error relied upon is no more than a wrong decision, the practical effect of allowing an interlocutory remedial procedure would be to bring the magistrate's decision under appeal at a stage when no appeal lies. Although there is no sharply defined distinction between illegalities which will be restrained by review before conviction on the ground of gross irregularity, on the one hand, and irregularities or errors which are to be dealt with on appeal after conviction, on the other hand, the distinction is a real one and should be maintained. A Superior Court should be slow to intervene in unterminated proceedings in a court below, and should, generally speaking, confine the exercise of its powers to 'rare cases where grave injustice might otherwise result or where justice might not by other means be attainedâ
Sonder om met die meriete van die aansoek om rekusering te handel is ek nie van mening dat hierdie ân uitsonderlike geval is wat ingryping by wyse van hersiening op hierdie stadium regverdig nie.
Bygevolg word die saak terugverwys na die landdros vir die voortsetting van die verrigtinge.
______
C.C WILLIAMS
REGTER
Ek stem saam.
C J MUSI
WAARNEMENDE REGTER
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.