S v Thomas en Ander (SS12/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 534 (30 November 2011)

S v Thomas en Ander (SS12/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 534 (30 November 2011)

The court held that the constitutional principle of open justice should be maintained and that in camera proceedings are only justified in exceptional circumstances. The State's application for a closed hearing was dismissed, but the court ordered that the identities of the previous two witnesses and details of the witness protection programme must not be disclosed or published. The court found a practical way to balance the protection of witness identities with the public's right to open court proceedings. Any breach of these protective orders would constitute contempt of court and a criminal offence under the relevant statutes.

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 534
Parties
Applicant: Die Staat; Respondent: George Thomas; Respondent: Jason Stynder; Respondent: Fred Williams; Respondent: Peter McNiel; Respondent: Derrick Claasen; Respondent: Giovanni Kannemeyer; Respondent: Alfonso van Heerden; Respondent: Herman Wakefield; Respondent: Mogammat Stemmet; Respondent: Jerome Karlmeyer; Respondent: Ashley Appollis; Respondent: Kenneth Lavita; Respondent: Howard Jansen; Respondent: Ronald Swarts; Respondent: Gregory Meyer; Respondent: Ashraf Ryklief; Respondent: Rodney Joubert; Respondent: Ashwin Charles; Respondent: Reyaaz Dennis
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Case Number
SS12/2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application / Application Under Sections 153, 154, and 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
The State's application for in camera proceedings was dismissed. Protective orders regarding witness identities and publication bans were granted.
Judges
Fortuin R
Legal Topics
Open Court Principle, Witness Protection, Publication Ban, Identity Protection
Criminal Law Open Court Principle Witness Protection Publication Ban Identity 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Die Staat

Applicant

George Thomas

Respondent

Jason Stynder

Respondent

Fred Williams

Respondent

Peter McNiel

Respondent

Derrick Claasen

Respondent

Giovanni Kannemeyer

Respondent

Alfonso van Heerden

Respondent

Herman Wakefield

Respondent

Mogammat Stemmet

Respondent

Jerome Karlmeyer

Respondent

Ashley Appollis

Respondent

Kenneth Lavita

Respondent

Howard Jansen

Respondent

Ronald Swarts

Respondent

Gregory Meyer

Respondent

Ashraf Ryklief

Respondent

Rodney Joubert

Respondent

Ashwin Charles

Respondent

Reyaaz Dennis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application / Application Under Sections 153, 154, and 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an order for in camera proceedings under section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the identities of previous witnesses and details of the witness protection programme should be protected from disclosure.
  3. 3 Whether publication of information relating to protected witnesses should be prohibited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the constitutional principle of open justice should be maintained and that in camera proceedings are only justified in exceptional circumstances. The State's application for a closed hearing was dismissed, but the court ordered that the identities of the previous two witnesses and details of the witness protection programme must not be disclosed or published. The court found a practical way to balance the protection of witness identities with the public's right to open court proceedings. Any breach of these protective orders would constitute contempt of court and a criminal offence under the relevant statutes.

Court Disposition

The State's application for in camera proceedings was dismissed. Protective orders regarding witness identities and publication bans were granted.

Orders

  • The State's application under section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed; the testimony of Cockrell will be heard in open court.
  • Witness Cockrell and any court official are prohibited from disclosing the identities of the previous two witnesses or any details of the witness protection programme.