South Africa Case Law

Mashisane v S (A 115/14)

Mashisane v S (A 115/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1014 (11 December 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A 115/14

Judges

Molopa-Sethosa, Semenya

The trial court misdirected itself by ignoring the probation officer's recommendations and failing to refer the appellant for mental observation before sentencing, despite credible allegations of mental illness. The appellant was 16 years old at the time of the offence and attended a special school, with evidence suggesting possible mental retardation. The court was obliged to order an enquiry in terms of sections 78(2) and 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act once doubt about the appellant's mental status arose. The failure to do so infringed the appellant's right to a fair trial and constituted…

Source excerpt

• Mental Illness And Criminal Responsibility
• Child Justice Act
• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Sentencing
• Rape
• Section 78 And 79 Cpa

Maluka v S (A197/2013)

Maluka v S (A197/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 862; 2015 (2) SACR 273 (GP) (31 October 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A197/2013

Judges

N Kollapen, S Thobane, D Dosio

The Full Bench held that while the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for an automatic review of orders made under Section 78(6)(a)(ii)(aa), the deprivation of liberty resulting from such orders is significant and potentially indefinite. The absence of an automatic review mechanism creates a risk of serious prejudice, particularly for vulnerable and indigent individuals who may lack the means to challenge such orders. Although the High Court possesses broad review powers, reliance on appeals or applications under the Mental Health Care Act is insufficient to safeguard the rights of those…

Source excerpt

• Mental Illness And Criminal Responsibility
• Automatic Review Mechanism
• Deprivation Of Liberty
• Constitutional Rights
• Magistrates Court Orders

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

S v Relela, S v Olyn (B390/99, G400/99)

S v Relela, S v Olyn (B390/99, G400/99) [2000] ZANWHC 5 (16 February 2000)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

B390/99, G400/99

Judges

M.T.R. Mogoeng, B.E. Nkabinde

The court held that the magistrates correctly applied sections 77(6) and 78(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act by finding the accused not capable of understanding proceedings and not criminally responsible due to mental illness, and ordering their detention. The phrase 'pending the signification of the decision of a judge in chambers' does not require immediate judicial confirmation of the magistrates' orders; it only becomes relevant when the Director of Public Prosecutions presents a report for further directions regarding the accused's release or continued detention. There is no basis for re…

Source excerpt

• Mental Illness And Criminal Responsibility
• Detention Pending Judge Decision
• Magistrate Powers
• Reviewability Of Orders