Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ockhuys v S (CA & R 6/2021) [2021] ZANCHC 48 (3 September 2021)
High Court bail appeal dismissed in a murder case where the appellant failed to show that the interests of justice permitted release on bail.
S v Ryk (CA & R 49/2019) [2019] ZANCHC 35 (30 August 2019)
Special-review judgment on whether a guilty plea should have stood after psychiatric evidence raised doubt about the accused’s capacity to follow proceedings.
Shabalala v S (A420/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 544 (28 January 2016)
The appeal was upheld on the basis that multiple procedural irregularities occurred during the trial, including the improper administration of the oath to witnesses, failure to properly address the psychiatric report and mental observation process, and infringement of the appellant's rights to a fair trial and dignity. The presiding magistrate failed to comply with statutory requirements regarding the administration of the oath, which rendered the evidence inadmissible. Additionally, the process for mental observation was not properly followed, as the appellant was not given an opportunity to…
Source excerpt
S v Ralane (A222/14) [2015] ZAECBHC 42 (21 July 2015)
The magistrate failed to comply with section 79(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act by not appointing the required panel of three psychiatrists for the mental observation of the accused charged with a serious violent offence. No application was made by the prosecutor to dispense with the third psychiatrist, as permitted by the relevant circular. This procedural irregularity invalidated the proceedings conducted by the magistrate from 13 May 2015 onwards. The matter must be remitted to the magistrate to be dealt with in accordance with the statutory requirements.
Source excerpt
Malatji v S (A259/10) [2013] ZAGPPHC 105 (18 April 2013)
The trial court was obliged to refer the appellant for mental observation under section 78(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, given the disclosure of his prior detention as a State President's patient and the reasonable possibility of diminished criminal capacity. The failure to do so constituted a material irregularity. Additionally, the regional court failed to appoint two assessors as required by section 93ter of the Magistrate Court Act, despite the appellant's election to be tried with assessors. This procedural irregularity further vitiated the proceedings. The cumulative effect of these…
Source excerpt
Explore more
