Van Staden and Others v S (A283/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 55; 2014 (2) SACR 533 (WCC) (11 March 2014)

Van Staden and Others v S (A283/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 55; 2014 (2) SACR 533 (WCC) (11 March 2014)

The court held that the decisions by Hlophe JP refusing to translate the indictment into English were interlocutory rulings made during pre-trial conferences and did not constitute final judgments or orders. These rulings were not definitive of the parties' rights nor dispositive of any substantial portion of the relief claimed. The court emphasized that such directions are capable of reconsideration by the trial judge and do not render the presiding officer functus officio. The Criminal Procedure Act only allows appeals after conviction, except for bail matters, and there are no constitutional imperatives requiring interlocutory procedural rulings to be appealable. The appeal was...

Citation
[2014] ZAWCHC 55
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Erasmus Van Staden; Appellant: Marc Schoeman; Appellant: Gary Wybo Newmark; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Case Number
A283/13
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Pre Trial Rulings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
PB Fourie, E Baartman, JHM Traverso
Legal Topics
Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Translation of Indictment, Functus Officio, Constitutional Rights in Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Appealability of Interlocutory Orders Translation of Indictment Functus Officio Constitutional Rights in Criminal Procedure

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Erasmus Van Staden

Appellant

Marc Schoeman

Appellant

Gary Wybo Newmark

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Pre Trial Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to translate the indictment into English constitutes an appealable judgment or order.
  2. 2 Whether the decisions made by Hlophe JP at pre-trial conferences are final and dispositive of the rights of the parties.
  3. 3 Whether there are constitutional imperatives requiring such interlocutory rulings to be appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the decisions by Hlophe JP refusing to translate the indictment into English were interlocutory rulings made during pre-trial conferences and did not constitute final judgments or orders. These rulings were not definitive of the parties' rights nor dispositive of any substantial portion of the relief claimed. The court emphasized that such directions are capable of reconsideration by the trial judge and do not render the presiding officer functus officio. The Criminal Procedure Act only allows appeals after conviction, except for bail matters, and there are no constitutional imperatives requiring interlocutory procedural rulings to be appealable. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.