Stanfield and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Abrahams N.O and Another (40248/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 429; 2020 (1) SACR 232 (GP) (17 September 2019)

Stanfield and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Abrahams N.O and Another (40248/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 429; 2020 (1) SACR 232 (GP) (17 September 2019)

The court held that the applicants' reliance on PAJA to review the NDPP's decision was incompetent, as prosecutorial decisions are expressly excluded from administrative action under section 1(ff) of PAJA. The only permissible review is on the grounds of legality and rationality, which was not properly pleaded or substantiated by the applicants. The NDPP acted within statutory powers under section 22(3) of the NPA Act and section 111 of the CPA, and was entitled to specify the place of trial. The majority of accused and the investigation team are based in the Western Cape, making Khayelitsha a rational and convenient forum. The applicants failed to demonstrate any prejudice or unfairness,...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 429
Parties
Applicant: Ralph Israel Stanfield; Applicant: Nicole Tracey Johnson; Applicant: Francisca Stanfield; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Shaun Kevin Abrahams N.O.; Respondent: Advocate Quentin Appels N.O. National Prosecuting Authority Cape Town
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Case Number
40248/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of the striking-out application and costs of two counsel.
Judges
Potterill
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Discretion, Jurisdiction Transfer, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Rule of Law Review
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Prosecutorial Discretion Jurisdiction Transfer Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Rule of Law Review

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Israel Stanfield

Applicant

Nicole Tracey Johnson

Applicant

Francisca Stanfield

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Shaun Kevin Abrahams N.O.

Respondent

Advocate Quentin Appels N.O. National Prosecuting Authority Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the NDPP to consolidate and transfer the applicants' criminal trial to Khayelitsha Regional Court is reviewable under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the NDPP's decision was irrational or failed to consider relevant facts.
  3. 3 Whether the NDPP had the statutory authority to specify the place of trial under section 22(3) of the NPA Act and section 111 of the CPA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants' reliance on PAJA to review the NDPP's decision was incompetent, as prosecutorial decisions are expressly excluded from administrative action under section 1(ff) of PAJA. The only permissible review is on the grounds of legality and rationality, which was not properly pleaded or substantiated by the applicants. The NDPP acted within statutory powers under section 22(3) of the NPA Act and section 111 of the CPA, and was entitled to specify the place of trial. The majority of accused and the investigation team are based in the Western Cape, making Khayelitsha a rational and convenient forum. The applicants failed to demonstrate any prejudice or unfairness,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of the striking-out application and costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to, jointly and severally, carry the costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel. The costs to include the costs of the striking-out application.