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
S v Thabethe and Others (15/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 317 (7 August 2024)
The High Court struck the criminal matter from the roll after finding the State’s failure to provide accessible electronic discovery caused unreasonable delay and incurable prejudice.
Mdluli v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (04243-2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 221 (4 March 2024)
The High Court found that the applicant was represented throughout his trial by a person who did not have the right of appearance, constituting a fatal irregularity. This irregularity is so fundamental that it nullifies the entire trial proceedings, as established by precedent. The court rejected pragmatic considerations and held that only properly admitted legal practitioners may represent accused persons in criminal trials. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the Director of Public Prosecutions was directed to decide whether to institute fresh proceedings. The applicant may not…
Source excerpt
Essop v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (7122/19P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 57 (5 October 2020)
The High Court dismissed an application for a permanent stay of a retried murder prosecution, holding that the applicant had not shown significant prejudice.
S v Swapi and Others (14/14,RCZ 300/13, 6/2014) [2015] ZAECBHC 23 (1 September 2015)
The court found that Mr Mafeke, who represented accused no. 3, was not admitted as an attorney and had no right of appearance at the trial. This constituted an irregularity rendering the proceedings against accused no. 3 a nullity. However, accused nos 1 and 2 were represented by a qualified attorney, and all parties, including the prosecution, supported separation of trials. The court distinguished the present case from prior authority (Gwantshu), holding that it is not necessary to set aside the entire proceedings where only one accused is affected by the irregularity, provided that no prej…
Source excerpt
Ntulini v Regional Court Magistrate, Bloemfontein and Another (A125/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 131 (28 August 2014)
The court held that the amendment to the charge sheet did not constitute a substitution of the offence but was a permissible amendment to align the charge with the law applicable at the time of the offence. The applicant was charged with statutory rape under the 2007 Act, but the offence occurred in 2004, before the Act commenced. The amendment reverted the charge to common law rape, for which indecent assault is a competent verdict. The applicant suffered no prejudice, as his defence would have been the same had he been charged with common law rape from the outset. He had legal representatio…
Source excerpt
S v Madito and Others (151/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 156 (8 August 2013)
The High Court found that the referral of the case to the regional court for sentencing was improper, as the district magistrate did not exercise independent judgment and acted solely on the prosecutor's request, contrary to section 116(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. There was no evidence that the seriousness of the offence or previous convictions warranted a sentence exceeding the jurisdiction of the district court. Regarding accused no 1, the court held that he was not prejudiced by his age, as he turned 18 the day after the plea, was assisted by an attorney, and the trial was in camera.…
Source excerpt
S v Mpambanso (2/2006) [2013] ZAECBHC 4; 2013 (2) SACR 186 (ECB) (3 April 2013)
The High Court refused the State’s attempt to consolidate multiple fraud counts into one charge, holding that the State had not shown the accused would suffer no prejudice.
Moiloa and Others v S (A139/11) [2011] ZAFSHC 115 (7 July 2011)
High Court bail appeal upheld after finding the Regional Court misapplied the onus and relied on unsupported public-order concerns.
S v Magwete (A277/10) [2010] ZAGPPHC 540 (13 April 2010)
On special review, the High Court amended two theft charges to match the evidence, found no prejudice to the accused, and confirmed the remaining convictions and sentence.
Mazibuko and Another v S (8774/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 61; 2010 (1) SACR 433 (KZP) (19 November 2009)
The court held that 'exceptional circumstances' under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act require circumstances that weigh exceptionally heavily in favour of the accused, rendering the case for bail exceptionally strong or compelling. The magistrate's approach was correct, except for setting the bar as nearly impossible. The appellants failed to prove any factor to an exceptional degree. Their affidavits regarding personal circumstances were contradicted by the investigating officer and lacked documentary support. The alleged weakness of the State's case was not substantiated beyo…
Source excerpt
Explore more
