S v Roux (2904/02, PSS131/2002, 50/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 74; 2007 (1) SACR 379 (C) (2 December 2002)

S v Roux (2904/02, PSS131/2002, 50/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 74; 2007 (1) SACR 379 (C) (2 December 2002)

The court held that the magistrate's interpretation of section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Act was unduly narrow. The statutory requirement for viva voce evidence must be interpreted broadly to include the use of interpreters or experts who can facilitate communication between the witness and the court. South African courts have long accepted evidence given through interpreters, whether the witness is deaf, mute, or otherwise unable to communicate intelligibly. The purpose of section 161 is not to exclude evidence simply because it is not presented in the usual manner, but to ensure that evidence is intelligible to the court, the accused, and court officials. Provided the interpreter or...

Citation
[2002] ZAWCHC 74
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Andries Petrus Stefanus Roux
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2002
Case Number
2904/02
Procedural Posture
Special Review / Review of Magistrate's Ruling on Witness Competence
Outcome
The matter is remitted to the magistrate to proceed with the trial, using a broad interpretation of section 161 to allow the complainant's evidence to be heard with the assistance of a competent interpreter or expert.
Judges
CC Williams, NC Erasmus
Legal Topics
Competence of Witnesses, Interpretation of Statutes, Viva Voce Evidence, Use of Interpreters
Criminal Law Competence of Witnesses Interpretation of Statutes Viva Voce Evidence Use of Interpreters

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Andries Petrus Stefanus Roux

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Review / Review of Magistrate's Ruling on Witness Competence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a child witness with a speech impairment who cannot communicate intelligibly may testify with the assistance of a speech therapist or interpreter.
  2. 2 Whether section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits evidence to be received through an intermediary interpreter where the witness can speak but is not understood by the court.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's interpretation of section 161 was unduly narrow.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the magistrate's interpretation of section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Act was unduly narrow. The statutory requirement for viva voce evidence must be interpreted broadly to include the use of interpreters or experts who can facilitate communication between the witness and the court. South African courts have long accepted evidence given through interpreters, whether the witness is deaf, mute, or otherwise unable to communicate intelligibly. The purpose of section 161 is not to exclude evidence simply because it is not presented in the usual manner, but to ensure that evidence is intelligible to the court, the accused, and court officials. Provided the interpreter or...

Court Disposition

The matter is remitted to the magistrate to proceed with the trial, using a broad interpretation of section 161 to allow the complainant's evidence to be heard with the assistance of a competent interpreter or expert.

Orders

  • The magistrate is directed to continue with the trial and to make every effort to hear the complainant's evidence through a broad interpretation of section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Act, including the use of a speech therapist or other competent interpreter.