S v S.I.N (A1029/11, PSH 122/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 217; 2012 (2) SACR 317 (GNP) (14 December 2011)

S v S.I.N (A1029/11, PSH 122/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 217; 2012 (2) SACR 317 (GNP) (14 December 2011)

The High Court found that although Ms Mhlanga did not possess the statutory qualifications required for intermediaries, her appointment was made in good faith and she performed her duties competently. There was no evidence of a breakdown in communication, irregularity, or breach of procedure during the trial. Section 170A(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that evidence presented through an unqualified intermediary is not automatically inadmissible; the trial court must make a finding on admissibility, considering the intermediary's lack of qualification, the reliability of the evidence, the mental stress to the witnesses if evidence is presented anew, and the interests of justice....

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 217
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: S I N
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2011
Case Number
A1029/11, PSH 122/11
Procedural Posture
Special Review / High Court Review of Magistrate's Proceedings
Outcome
The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Court to make a finding in terms of section 170A(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the admissibility of the evidence and the validity of the proceedings.
Judges
S P Mothle, M F Legodi
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Act Section 170a, Admissibility of Evidence, Intermediary Qualification, Child Witness Protection
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Act Section 170a Admissibility of Evidence Intermediary Qualification Child Witness Protection

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

S I N

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Review / High Court Review of Magistrate's Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of an intermediary lacking statutory qualifications vitiates the criminal proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented through an unqualified intermediary is admissible under section 170A(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the minor witnesses suffered undue mental stress or suffering during the trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that although Ms Mhlanga did not possess the statutory qualifications required for intermediaries, her appointment was made in good faith and she performed her duties competently. There was no evidence of a breakdown in communication, irregularity, or breach of procedure during the trial. Section 170A(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that evidence presented through an unqualified intermediary is not automatically inadmissible; the trial court must make a finding on admissibility, considering the intermediary's lack of qualification, the reliability of the evidence, the mental stress to the witnesses if evidence is presented anew, and the interests of justice....

Court Disposition

The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Court to make a finding in terms of section 170A(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the admissibility of the evidence and the validity of the proceedings.

Orders

  • The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Court to make a finding in terms of section 170A(5) of Act 51 of 1977.