South Africa Case Law

S v Samuels (15726/2015, SH3/65/15, 8/15)

S v Samuels (15726/2015, SH3/65/15, 8/15) [2015] ZAWCHC 144 (9 October 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15726/2015

Judges

A.G. Binns-Ward, L.J. Bozalek

The High Court held that there is no statutory or binding judicial requirement for magistrates to refer orders made under section 78(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act for automatic review. The practice suggested in S v Ramokoka and S v Maluka is not binding and is contrary to the established authority in this Division, particularly S v Blaauw. The accused was legally represented, and there was no indication of irregularity or concern in the proceedings. Therefore, the referral for special review was unnecessary, and magistrates should only refer such matters for review if there is a specific r…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 78
• Automatic Review
• Mental Health Care Act Section 47

S v Maphuko (A180/15)

S v Maphuko (A180/15) [2015] ZAECBHC 17 (30 June 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

A180/15

Judges

S M Mbenenge, D van Zyl

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s mental-observation proceedings because the panel was not properly constituted under section 79(1)(b) of the CPA.

• Mental Health And Criminal Responsibility
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 77
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 78
• Panel Constitution Under Section 79
• State Patient Admission
• Criminal-procedure-act-section-77

S v Ladodana (27/2014)

S v Ladodana (27/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 110 (30 April 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

27/2014

Judges

Meyer, Wepener

High Court review of a magistrate’s court mental-capacity matter. The conviction was set aside because the accused had not pleaded and the wrong CPA procedure was used.

• Mental Illness And Criminal Capacity
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 77
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 78
• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Serious Violence Offences
• Mental-illness-and-criminal-capacity

S v Luphuwana (DH 10/07)

S v Luphuwana (DH 10/07) [2013] ZAGPJHC 289; 2014 (1) SACR 503 (GJ) (6 November 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

DH 10/07

Judges

P Coppin, B Vally

The court set aside a magistrate’s section 78 order because the accused had not been charged or asked to plead before evidence was led.

• Mental Illness And Criminal Responsibility
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 78
• Domestic Violence Act
• Procedural Irregularity
• Unfitness To Plead
• Criminal-procedure-act