South Africa Case Law

Sayed and Others v S (530/2017)

Sayed and Others v S (530/2017) [2017] ZASCA 156; 2018 (1) SACR 185 (SCA) (24 November 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

530/2017

Judges

Ponnan, Petse, Willis, Lamont, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal refused condonation for the late filing of the notice of appeal and the appeal record, finding the explanation for the delay wholly inadequate and the degree of non-compliance extreme. The court held that the appellants' attorney neglected his duties and that the responsibility for compliance with court rules ultimately rests with the litigant. The special plea of autrefois acquit was rejected because the previous acquittal was not on the merits but due to gross irregularities in the initial trial, which rendered the proceedings invalid and allowed for a retrial. T…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Autrefois Acquit
• Stay Of Prosecution
• Judicial Bias
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Rights

S v Masilo (15/2016)

S v Masilo (15/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 23 (11 February 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

15/2016

Judges

K.J Moloi, S. Chesiwe

On special review, the High Court set aside the withdrawal of a criminal charge after plea, holding the accused was entitled to a verdict and the prosecution had to proceed lawfully.

• Withdrawal Of Charge
• Intimidation Act
• Plea And Verdict
• Autrefois Acquit
• Withdrawal-of-charge
• Criminal-procedure-act

Plaatjies v Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal (043/2013)

Plaatjies v Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal (043/2013) [2013] ZASCA 66 (27 May 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

043/2013

Judges

Mthiyane, Shongwe, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Meyer

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the double jeopardy rule, as reflected in s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution and the common law, only prevents retrial where the previous acquittal or conviction was on the merits. Where a conviction is set aside due to a technical irregularity, such as the failure of the trial magistrate to sit with assessors, the accused is not protected from retrial. The court found that the Constitutional Court has already settled the point in the Basson cases, confirming that s 35(3)(m) does not extend the double jeopardy rule to technical acquittals. The appellant's arg…

Source excerpt

• Double Jeopardy
• Autrefois Acquit
• Fair Trial Rights
• Development Of Common Law

Director of Public Prosecutions, Kwazulu-Natal v Regional Magistrate, Vryheid and Others (AR 397/2007)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Kwazulu-Natal v Regional Magistrate, Vryheid and Others (AR 397/2007) [2009] ZAKZPHC 10 (24 March 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 397/2007

Judges

Levinsohn, Gyanda, Lopes

The High Court found that the verdict of not guilty was not based on the merits but was triggered by procedural irregularities, specifically the Magistrate's flawed decision to release the key witness, expunge his incomplete testimony, and close the State's case without allowing proper expert enquiry into the witness's fitness to testify. The Court held that this constituted a gross irregularity in the proceedings, which prevented the prosecution from presenting its case and undermined the interests of justice. The accused's constitutional protection against double jeopardy did not apply beca…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Acquittal
• Double Jeopardy
• Gross Irregularity
• Fair Trial Rights
• Autrefois Acquit

S v Gouws (A136/2008)

S v Gouws (A136/2008) [2008] ZAGPHC 42; 2008 (2) SACR 640 (T) (19 February 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A136/2008

Judges

J N M Poswa, N M Mavundla

The court held that the prosecutor's decision to close the State's case without calling witnesses did not amount to a formal stopping of prosecution under section 6(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as there was no express invocation of that section or indication of acting under its authority. The magistrate acted properly in acquitting the accused due to lack of evidence, and there was no irregularity in the proceedings. The court found that it is not the function of the trial court to enquire into the prosecutor's authority unless the prosecutor expressly purports to stop the prosecution un…

Source excerpt

• Stopping Of Prosecution
• Section 6 Criminal Procedure Act
• Acquittal After State Case Closed
• Magistrate Review
• Autrefois Acquit

S v Singh (308/88)

S v Singh (308/88) [1989] ZASCA 128; [1990] 1 All SA 400 (A) (29 September 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

308/88

Judges

Joubert, Smalberger, Vivier, Kumleben, Friedman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the proceedings under section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the magistrate's court do not constitute a trial or prosecution for the purposes of the special plea of autrefois acquit. The magistrate's court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence, and the proceedings were merely preliminary, intended to clarify issues before a trial in a competent court. The Attorney-General's decision not to prosecute at that stage did not amount to an acquittal on the merits, nor did it preclude subsequent prosecution. The appellant was not in jeopardy during the se…

Source excerpt

• Autrefois Acquit
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Plea Procedure
• Jurisdiction
• Acquittal On Merits