Sydow en Andere v S (A66/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 66; [2003] 1 All SA 118 (C); 2003 (2) SACR 302 (C) (22 November 2002)

Sydow en Andere v S (A66/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 66; [2003] 1 All SA 118 (C); 2003 (2) SACR 302 (C) (22 November 2002)

The court found that the complainant's evidence was inadmissible because it was given through an interpreter who was not sworn in as required by the rules governing interpretation in criminal proceedings. Although the interpreter was a registered sworn translator, her general oath as a translator did not suffice for her role as an ad hoc interpreter in the specific criminal trial. The irregularity was technical in nature and resulted from the magistrate's error, not from any fault of the parties. In terms of section 322(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the convictions and remit the matter to the trial court for reconsideration, allowing the...

Citation
[2002] ZAWCHC 66
Parties
Appellant: Shamiel Sydow; Appellant: Riedewaan Sydow; Appellant: Ashaley Davids; Appellant: Brian Davids; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Case Number
A66/2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Convictions set aside; matter remitted to the trial court for reconsideration after proper admission of the complainant's evidence.
Judges
HJ Erasmus, Moosa
Legal Topics
Fair Trial Rights, Admissibility of Evidence, Interpretation Services, Criminal Procedure, Technical Irregularity
Criminal Law Fair Trial Rights Admissibility of Evidence Interpretation Services Criminal Procedure Technical Irregularity

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shamiel Sydow

Appellant

Riedewaan Sydow

Appellant

Ashaley Davids

Appellant

Brian Davids

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants received a fair trial.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's evidence was inadmissible due to the interpreter not being sworn in.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' version of events could reasonably be true.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant's evidence was inadmissible because it was given through an interpreter who was not sworn in as required by the rules governing interpretation in criminal proceedings. Although the interpreter was a registered sworn translator, her general oath as a translator did not suffice for her role as an ad hoc interpreter in the specific criminal trial. The irregularity was technical in nature and resulted from the magistrate's error, not from any fault of the parties. In terms of section 322(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the convictions and remit the matter to the trial court for reconsideration, allowing the...

Court Disposition

Convictions set aside; matter remitted to the trial court for reconsideration after proper admission of the complainant's evidence.

Orders

  • The convictions of the appellants are set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the trial court with the instruction to consider reopening the case for the complainant's evidence to be heard in a manner that remedies the defect in the initial admission of her testimony.