S v Ntose - Special Review (CA&R121/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 84 (4 August 2023)

S v Ntose - Special Review (CA&R121/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 84 (4 August 2023)

The court found that the proceedings were not in accordance with justice due to procedural anomalies: the lack of clarity regarding whether the proceedings were held in camera as required by Section 153, and the absence of any record that the intermediary was properly sworn in. Although the entry of another prosecutor into the CCTV room did not appear to have affected the witness, the Magistrate failed to exercise proper control over the proceedings. These irregularities warranted remitting the matter to the Regional Court for the trial to commence de novo before another Magistrate, rather than waiting for the conclusion of the trial.

Citation
[2023] ZAECMKHC 84
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Siyabonga Ntose
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2023
Case Number
CA&R121/2023
Procedural Posture
Special Review / Pre Trial; Proceedings Halted During Complainant's Evidence
Outcome
Matter remitted to the Regional Court for trial to start de novo before another Magistrate.
Judges
N G Beshe, G H Bloem
Legal Topics
Special Review, Intermediary Testimony, In Camera Proceedings, Procedural Irregularity
Criminal Law Special Review Intermediary Testimony In Camera Proceedings Procedural Irregularity

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Siyabonga Ntose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Review / Pre Trial; Proceedings Halted During Complainant's Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the entry of another prosecutor into the CCTV room during the complainant's testimony constituted a procedural irregularity.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were properly held in camera as required by Section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the intermediary was properly sworn in before acting in her role.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proceedings were not in accordance with justice due to procedural anomalies: the lack of clarity regarding whether the proceedings were held in camera as required by Section 153, and the absence of any record that the intermediary was properly sworn in. Although the entry of another prosecutor into the CCTV room did not appear to have affected the witness, the Magistrate failed to exercise proper control over the proceedings. These irregularities warranted remitting the matter to the Regional Court for the trial to commence de novo before another Magistrate, rather than waiting for the conclusion of the trial.

Court Disposition

Matter remitted to the Regional Court for trial to start de novo before another Magistrate.

Orders

  • The proceedings are remitted back to the Regional Court for the trial to start de novo before another Magistrate.