S v Siyotula (CA247/2001) [2002] ZAECHC 9; 2003 (1) SACR 154 (E) (24 April 2002)

S v Siyotula (CA247/2001) [2002] ZAECHC 9; 2003 (1) SACR 154 (E) (24 April 2002)

The court found that the use of an unsworn interpreter constituted an irregularity, rendering the accused's evidence inadmissible and requiring it to be struck from the record. However, the irregular interpretation of the evidence of Le Roux and Steinhous did not result in a miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused, given his professional familiarity with courtroom proceedings and his understanding of the languages used. The court held that the irregularity could be cured by re-interpreting the admissible evidence to the accused in open court by a competent sworn interpreter, with the opportunity for further cross-examination. The accused's defence case would then proceed...

Citation
[2002] ZAECHC 9
Parties
Applicant: Siseka Siyotula; Respondent: The State
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2002
Case Number
CA247/2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Special Review of Part Heard Criminal Trial
Outcome
Irregularity occasioned by the use of an unsworn interpreter is capable of being cured; the accused's evidence is inadmissible and struck from the record; the trial is to proceed with remedial steps.
Judges
RJW Jones, JJ Nepgen, JD Pickering
Legal Topics
Irregular Interpretation, Admissibility of Evidence, Fair Trial Rights, Unsworn Interpreter, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Irregular Interpretation Admissibility of Evidence Fair Trial Rights Unsworn Interpreter Miscarriage of Justice

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siseka Siyotula

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Special Review of Part Heard Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of an unsworn interpreter during trial proceedings constitutes an irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence interpreted by an unsworn interpreter and the oath administered by such interpreter are admissible.
  3. 3 What remedial steps are appropriate to cure the irregularity without prejudicing the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the use of an unsworn interpreter constituted an irregularity, rendering the accused's evidence inadmissible and requiring it to be struck from the record. However, the irregular interpretation of the evidence of Le Roux and Steinhous did not result in a miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused, given his professional familiarity with courtroom proceedings and his understanding of the languages used. The court held that the irregularity could be cured by re-interpreting the admissible evidence to the accused in open court by a competent sworn interpreter, with the opportunity for further cross-examination. The accused's defence case would then proceed...

Court Disposition

Irregularity occasioned by the use of an unsworn interpreter is capable of being cured; the accused's evidence is inadmissible and struck from the record; the trial is to proceed with remedial steps.

Orders

  • The evidence given by the accused is declared inadmissible and struck from the record.
  • The matter is remitted to the magistrate for the evidence of Le Roux and Steinhous to be interpreted to the accused by a competent sworn interpreter, with opportunity for further cross-examination, re-examination, or examination by the court.