S v Ruiter (311/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 265 (14 June 2011)
- Citation
- [2011] ZAWCHC 265
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Dlodlo, Samela
- Case number
- 311/2010
More details
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Dlodlo, Samela
- Case number
- 311/2010
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that, notwithstanding the accused's legal representation, section 85(1) of the Child Justice Act requires that all cases involving minors, as specified in the section, must be subject to automatic review by the High Court. The rationale is that the High Court, as the upper guardian of minors, must ensure that justice is done in all cases involving children, regardless of whether they were legally represented at trial. The proceedings in the lower court were reviewed and found to be in accordance with justice.
Court disposition
The proceedings in the lower court are found to be in accordance with justice.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are confirmed as being in accordance with justice.
- No further action is required.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantJohn Pierre Ruiter
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Criminal Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether section 85(1) of the Child Justice Act requires automatic review of convictions and sentences of minors regardless of legal representation.
- 02
Whether the proceedings in the lower court were in accordance with justice.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State did not advance specific arguments in this review; the matter was referred for automatic review in terms of section 85(1) of the Child Justice Act.
- Respondent
- The accused was legally represented throughout the proceedings. The Magistrate questioned whether automatic review was necessary in such circumstances, given the provisions of section 85 and Chapter 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Child Justice Act 75 of 2008, section 85(1)
Section 85(1) of the Child Justice Act provides that the provisions of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act dealing with review apply to all children convicted under the Act, with specific conditions for those under 16 and those aged 16 to under 18.
- 02
Common law principle; see also S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2007 (2) SACR 539 (CC)
The High Court is the upper guardian of all minors within its jurisdiction and must ensure justice in all cases involving children.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, notwithstanding the accused's legal representation, section 85(1) of the Child Justice Act requires that all cases involving minors, as specified in the section, must be subject to automatic review by the High Court. The rationale is that the High Court, as the upper guardian of minors, must ensure that justice is done in all cases involving children, regardless of whether they were legally represented at trial. The proceedings in the lower court were reviewed and found to be in accordance with justice.
Obiter and limits
- The wording of section 85(1) of the Child Justice Act could have been clearer regarding the scope of automatic review.
- The reference to Chapter 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act limits the application of automatic review, but the protection of minors remains paramount.
Court disposition
The proceedings in the lower court are found to be in accordance with justice.
- The conviction and sentence are confirmed as being in accordance with justice.
- No further action is required.
Source and reliance status
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
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.
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH
COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE, CAPE TOWN)
REVIEW CASE NO. 311/2010 MAGISTRATE'S SERIAL NO. 19/2010
HIGH COURT REF. NO. 101499
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
And
JOHN
PIERRE RUITER …..............................................................................ACCUSED
"REVIEW
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2011
[1] This matter served before me as a review emanating from the remarks made by the Presiding Magistrate. The remarks read as follows:
"Voorlegging op automatiese hersierdng ingevolge Artikel 85 (1) Wet
75/2008
Na mening is die bepalings van artikel 85 oop vir verskillende inierpretasies. Met die aanvanklike hestudering van die wetgewing was ek van mening dat dit nie nodig is on? die saak op hersiening te stuur nie. aangesien die beskuldigde deurentyd regsverteenwoordig
was.
By hestudering van artikel 85 net ek my ook laat lei deur die hepalings van Hoofstuk 30 van die Srrafproseswet, spesiflek artikels 302 (I) en 302 (3), wat aandui dat hersiening nie van toepassing is op sake wot regsverteenwoordig is me. Artikel 85 bepaal juis dat Hoofstuk 30 van die Strafproseswet toepassing vind. Na mening is artikel 85 slegs 'n uitbreiding van Hoofstuk 30. By nadere bestudering van artkel 85 blyk dit dat die volgende interpretasies ook moontlik is:
Artikel 85 (i) a - indien n kind tydens die pleging van 'n misdryf under 16 jaar oud is, die vonnis onderhewig is aan hersiening - dit sou na mening beteken dat dit alle vonnisse insluit. Dit is nie duidelik of Artikel 85 (I) a ook betrekking net op gevalle van gevangenisstraf en verpligte verblyf soos in Artikel 85 (1) b nie.
Artikel 85 (I) B - maak voorsiening vir gevalle waar 'n kind 16 jaar ofouer is maar onder 18 jaar en gevonnis word tot tronhstrafwat nie in geheel opgeskort word nie of direkte verblyf in n kinder/jeugsorgsentrum, onderhewig is aan hersiening. Dan kan seker geredeneer word dat die verwysing na Hoofstuk 30 van die Strafproseswet eerder slaan op die prosedure van hiersiening daarom ook die verwysing na Artikel 304 van die Strafproseswet spesiftek en dat hierdie gevalle onderhewig is aan hersiening ongeag of die beskuldigde regsverteenwoordig is al dan nie. Juis die opskrif van die artikel, "oittomatiese hersiening in sekere sake " maak die uitleg van artkel 85 meer ingewikkeld. "
[2] I agree with the Magistrate whose opinion is expressed above. The relevant section of the Children's Act could have been clearer. It is so that the field of application of automatic review is considerably limited by the provisions that cases where the accused person enjoyed legal representation and those that are on appeal either against conviction or sentence are not subject to review. The instant matter, however, concerned a minor. Section 85 (1) of the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 provides as follows:
"85.(1) The provisions of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act dealing with the review of criminal proceedings in the lower courts apply in respect of all children convicted in terms of this Act: Provided that if a child was, at the time of the commission of the alleged offence-
(a) under the age of 16 years; or
(b) 16 years or older but under the age of 18 years, and has been sentenced to any form of imprisonment that was not wholly suspended, or any sentence of compulsory residence in a child and youth care centre providing a programme provided for in section 191 (2) (j) of the Children s Act. the sentence is subject to review in terms of section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act by a judge of the High Court having jurisdiction, irrespective of the duration of the sentence. "
[3] The High Court is the upper guardian of ail minors within its jurisdictional area. For that reason and that one alone I am of the view that cases provided for or referred to in section 85 of the Act under consideration should always be the subject of automatic review in the ordinary cause regardless of whether or not the said minor child was legally represented at trial. The instant matter is therefore hereby reviewed and the proceedings are found lo be in accordance with justice.
DLODLO, J
SAMELA, J
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.