S v Pilane (1362/16) [2017] ZASCA 71; 2017 (2) SACR 154 (SCA) (1 June 2017)

S v Pilane (1362/16) [2017] ZASCA 71; 2017 (2) SACR 154 (SCA) (1 June 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act clearly authorises the interpreter to administer the oath to witnesses in the presence or under the eyes of the presiding judicial officer. The procedure followed in the regional court, where the interpreter administered the oath in the presence of the magistrate, was lawful and in accordance with both the statute and established practice. The high court erred in disregarding the express wording of section 165 and in relying on authorities that did not address the interpreter's role. The court further clarified that the judicial officer is not required to conduct a preliminary enquiry unless the witness...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 71
Parties
Appellant: The State; Respondent: Nkoketsang Elliot Pilane
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2017
Case Number
1362/16
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, Sitting on Appeal From the Regional Court.
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence reinstated; matter remitted to the high court for the appeal to proceed on the merits.
Judges
Cachalia, Wallis, Molemela, Gorven, Mbatha
Legal Topics
Administration of Oath, Criminal Procedure Act, Admissibility of Evidence, Role of Interpreter
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Administration of Oath Criminal Procedure Act Admissibility of Evidence Role of Interpreter

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Appellant

Nkoketsang Elliot Pilane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, Sitting on Appeal From the Regional Court.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the administration of the oath to witnesses by the interpreter in the presence of the judicial officer constitutes a proper administration of the prescribed oath under s 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of witnesses sworn in by the interpreter is admissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act clearly authorises the interpreter to administer the oath to witnesses in the presence or under the eyes of the presiding judicial officer. The procedure followed in the regional court, where the interpreter administered the oath in the presence of the magistrate, was lawful and in accordance with both the statute and established practice. The high court erred in disregarding the express wording of section 165 and in relying on authorities that did not address the interpreter's role. The court further clarified that the judicial officer is not required to conduct a preliminary enquiry unless the witness...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence reinstated; matter remitted to the high court for the appeal to proceed on the merits.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the high court is set aside.