S v Van Breda (SS17/16) [2017] ZAWCHC 120 (31 October 2017)

S v Van Breda (SS17/16) [2017] ZAWCHC 120 (31 October 2017)

The court found that the accused failed to demonstrate any real risk of substantial prejudice to the administration of justice or to his fair trial rights as a result of continued broadcasting. The objections raised were not sufficiently significant or substantial to warrant limiting the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and open justice. The court exercised its discretion and refused the application to suspend broadcasting, noting that the order could be revisited if circumstances changed.

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 120
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Henri Christo Van Breda
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Case Number
SS17/16
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application to Suspend Livestreaming and Broadcast During Accused's Testimony
Outcome
Application to bar the broadcast of the accused's evidence is refused.
Judges
Desai
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Freedom of Expression, Fair Trial Rights, Media Broadcasting, Section 16 Constitution
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Open Justice Freedom of Expression Fair Trial Rights Media Broadcasting Section 16 Constitution

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Henri Christo Van Breda

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Application to Suspend Livestreaming and Broadcast During Accused's Testimony

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcast and livestreaming of the accused's testimony should be suspended due to alleged potential prejudice.
  2. 2 Whether the accused's speech impediment justifies limiting media coverage during his evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the accused's fair trial rights are jeopardised by continued broadcasting.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused failed to demonstrate any real risk of substantial prejudice to the administration of justice or to his fair trial rights as a result of continued broadcasting. The objections raised were not sufficiently significant or substantial to warrant limiting the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and open justice. The court exercised its discretion and refused the application to suspend broadcasting, noting that the order could be revisited if circumstances changed.

Court Disposition

Application to bar the broadcast of the accused's evidence is refused.

Orders

  • The application to suspend livestreaming and television broadcast during the accused's testimony is refused.
  • This order may be revisited at any stage should the need arise.