Sehlabaka and Anothe v S (A67/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 134 (25 August 2011)

Sehlabaka and Anothe v S (A67/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 134 (25 August 2011)

The court found that the interpreter used during the trial was not competent, resulting in inaccurate and unreliable translation of the complainants' evidence. This gross irregularity struck at the root of the appellants' right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. The permanent interpreter relied on the casual interpreter's translation, compounding the problem. The record showed numerous instances of distorted and nonsensical interpretation, indicating that the appellants may not have understood the proceedings. The magistrate erred in accepting the interpretation as adequate. The failure to provide a competent interpreter invalidated the proceedings, and the appellants did...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 134
Parties
Appellant: P Sehlabaka; Appellant: V Mofolo; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2011
Case Number
A67/2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted on Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside due to gross irregularity and invalid proceedings.
Judges
E M Kubushi, K J Moloi
Legal Topics
Corruption, Fair Trial Rights, Competent Interpreter, Gross Irregularity, Setting Aside Conviction
Criminal Law Corruption Fair Trial Rights Competent Interpreter Gross Irregularity Setting Aside Conviction

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P Sehlabaka

Appellant

V Mofolo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of an incompetent interpreter rendered the proceedings invalid and infringed the appellants' right to a fair trial.
  2. 2 Whether the state proved the identity of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in admitting affidavit evidence as hearsay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interpreter used during the trial was not competent, resulting in inaccurate and unreliable translation of the complainants' evidence. This gross irregularity struck at the root of the appellants' right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. The permanent interpreter relied on the casual interpreter's translation, compounding the problem. The record showed numerous instances of distorted and nonsensical interpretation, indicating that the appellants may not have understood the proceedings. The magistrate erred in accepting the interpretation as adequate. The failure to provide a competent interpreter invalidated the proceedings, and the appellants did...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside due to gross irregularity and invalid proceedings.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The convictions and sentences are set aside.