South Africa Case Law

Mashilo and Another v Prinsloo (576/11)

Mashilo and Another v Prinsloo (576/11) [2012] ZASCA 146; 2013 (2) SACR 648 (SCA) (28 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

576/11

Judges

Mpati, Navsa, Nugent, Tshiqi, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 50(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not entitle police to detain an arrested person for the full 48 hours as a matter of course. The section requires that an arrested person be brought before court as soon as is reasonably possible, and the 48-hour period is a maximum, not a minimum. The extension of the 48-hour period applies only if it expires outside ordinary court hours or on a non-court day, but even then, the standard of reasonable expedition applies. The court found that the costs order against Mashilo was an obvious error, as the respond…

Source excerpt

• Detention Before Trial
• Interpretation Of Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Rights Of Arrested Persons
• Bail Application
• Costs Orders

Minister van Wet en Orde and Others v Dipper (721/91)

Minister van Wet en Orde and Others v Dipper (721/91) [1993] ZASCA 78; 1993 (3) SA 591 (AD); [1993] 4 All SA 674 (AD) ; [1993] 2 All SA 433 (A) (28 May 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

721/91

Judges

Hoexter, Smalberger, Milne, Eksteen, Harms

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act entitles an accused in custody to apply for bail at any time, including before the expiry of the 48-hour period specified in section 50. The refusal by the police to bring the respondent before a magistrate for a bail application, despite a request from his attorney and the magistrate's readiness to hear the application, constituted unlawful deprivation of liberty. The court endorsed the interpretation in Twayie and Another v Minister of Justice and Another, confirming that 'first appearance' includes voluntary app…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Detention
• Damages For Wrongful Arrest
• Bail Application Rights
• Interpretation Of Criminal Procedure Act

S v Malindi and Others (174/89)

S v Malindi and Others (174/89) [1989] ZASCA 175; [1990] 4 All SA 433 (AD) (15 December 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

174/89

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Smalberger, Kumleben, Nicholas

The court held that section 147(1) did not authorize removing an assessor on recusal grounds; the trial proceeded before an improperly constituted court.

• Recusal Of Assessor
• Proper Constitution Of Court
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Interpretation Of Criminal Procedure Act
• Material Irregularity
• Criminal-procedure-act

S v Barketts Transport (Edms) Bpk. t/a Trans SA and Another (122/86)

S v Barketts Transport (Edms) Bpk. t/a Trans SA and Another (122/86) [1987] ZASCA 111; [1988] 1 All SA 339 (A) (29 September 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

122/86

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Jacobs, Smalberger, Vivier

The court held that section 86(1) does not allow substitution of one offence for another in a charge sheet. The appeals were upheld and the convictions set aside.

• Amendment Of Charge Sheet
• Interpretation Of Criminal Procedure Act
• Substitution Of Offences
• Road Transport Permit
• Procedural Fairness
• Amendment-of-charge-sheet