South Africa Case Law

Van Eeden v S (CA&R87/2017)

Van Eeden v S (CA&R87/2017) [2018] ZANCHC 29; 2018 (2) SACR 218 (NCK) (18 May 2018)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R87/2017

Judges

C J Olivier, L P Tlaletsi

The court held that Mr Zietsman, having been interdicted from practice and lacking a fidelity fund certificate, was prohibited by law from representing the accused in criminal proceedings. This prohibition rendered his appearance a fatal irregularity under section 73(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, regardless of whether prejudice to the accused was shown. The irregularity was so fundamental that it vitiated the proceedings and undermined the proper administration of justice and public trust. The court disagreed with prior judgments that did not consider the statutory prohibition in the cont…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Appearance
• Fidelity Fund Certificate
• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings
• Fair Trial Rights
• Professional Misconduct

Masinga v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (AR 517/2013)

Masinga v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (AR 517/2013) [2015] ZAKZPHC 24 (7 May 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 517/2013

Judges

Ploos van Amstel, Nkosi

The court found that the failure to obtain written authorisation from the DPP for the prosecution of the applicant, a magistrate, was an irregularity as required by policy directives issued under the NPA Act and the Constitution. However, the acting DPP had given oral authorisation after being fully informed of the evidence, and the applicant did not raise the issue until appeal. The irregularity was not so fundamental as to per se amount to a failure of justice. The evidence supported the charge of attempted murder, and the acting DPP would have authorised the prosecution in writing had it b…

Source excerpt

• Prosecution Policy Directives
• Failure Of Justice
• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings
• Attempted Murder
• Magistrate Prosecution

Ndleve v Director of Public Prosecutions North Gauteng, Pretoria and Another (A877/11)

Ndleve v Director of Public Prosecutions North Gauteng, Pretoria and Another (A877/11) [2013] ZAGPPHC 108 (22 April 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A877/11

Judges

T.V. Ratshibvumo, H. Fabricius

High Court review set aside a regional criminal trial after prior convictions were disclosed to the magistrate before conviction, requiring a trial de novo.

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings
• Fair Trial Rights
• Disclosure Of Previous Convictions
• Judicial-recusal
• Criminal-procedure

S v Mtjikane, S v Prechand and Another, S v George, S v Makhunoane (36/2012, 37/2012, 38/2012, 39/2012)

S v Mtjikane, S v Prechand and Another, S v George, S v Makhunoane (36/2012, 37/2012, 38/2012, 39/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 48 (22 March 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

36/2012, 37/2012, 38/2012, 39/2012

Judges

Rampai, Claassen

The High Court set aside four criminal proceedings after finding the accused were represented by a candidate attorney without a valid right of appearance.

• Right Of Appearance
• Misrepresentation By Candidate Attorney
• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings
• Setting Aside Proceedings
• Disciplinary Action Against Attorneys
• Right-of-appearance

S v Phala (20110161)

S v Phala (20110161) [2011] ZAECGHC 74 (30 November 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

20110161

Judges

M Makaula, E Revelas

Automatic review set aside a guilty plea conviction after the magistrate failed to inform the accused of legal representation rights and inadequately questioned him.

• Right To Legal Representation
• Plea Procedure
• Section 112 1 B Criminal Procedure Act
• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings
• Right-to-legal-representation
• Guilty-plea-procedure

S v Matthews and Another (83/10)

S v Matthews and Another (83/10) [2010] ZANCHC 71 (17 December 2010)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

83/10

Judges

JI Henriques, HJ Lacock

The district court did not have the necessary punitive jurisdiction to convict the accused of robbery with aggravating circumstances, as the prescribed minimum sentence exceeds its sentencing powers. The plea explanation failed to admit all essential elements of the charge and was merely a repetition of the charge sheet, lacking sufficient factual detail. The accused were not properly advised of the seriousness of the charge or the implications of the Minimum Sentencing Act. The proceedings were grossly irregular and not in accordance with justice, warranting the setting aside of the convicti…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 304a
• Minimum Sentencing Act
• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Courts
• Plea Explanation Requirements
• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings

Meyer v Groenewald and Another (A412/2007)

Meyer v Groenewald and Another (A412/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 20 (21 April 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A412/2007

Judges

Cillié, R, Moloi, WND R

Review application dismissed in a pending criminal trial. The court held there was no reviewable irregularity in refusing discharge on charges 2 and 27.

• Review Of Interlocutory Orders
• Admissibility Of Secondary Evidence
• Discharge Application
• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings
• Criminal-law
• Review-of-interlocutory-orders

S v Motha (644/93)

S v Motha (644/93) [1994] ZASCA 170 (24 November 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

644/93

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Vivier, Harms

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that all three eyewitnesses for the State gave testimony at trial that materially differed from their prior police statements. The prosecutor failed to disclose these discrepancies and did not make the statements available for cross-examination, constituting a serious irregularity. This irregularity directly impacted the reliability and credibility of the identification evidence against the appellant. As there was no remaining admissible evidence identifying the appellant as the shooter, the conviction and sentence could not be sustained. The appeal was uphel…

Source excerpt

• Irregularity In Criminal Proceedings
• Identification Evidence
• Cross Examination Rights