About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAGPJHC 97
|
|
In Re Harding's Inquest (162/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 97 (26 August 2011)
IN
THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
REPORTABLE
(In
SACRs and the electronic reports only)
DATE:26/08/2011
REVIEW CASE: HIGH
COURT REF NO: 162/2011
MAGISTRATE’S
SERIAL NO. 15/2011
ROODEPOORT INQUEST NO.
231/2009
HONEYDEW CAS 8/11/2007
In
the matter of the Inquest of VINITA GAIL HARDING
JUDGMENT: REVIEW
WILLIS
J:
[1]
On 16 September, 2010, the learned magistrate at the Roodepoort
Magistrate’s Court, Mr M.J. Thobela, held an inquest
in terms
of the Inquests Act, No. 58 of 1959 (“the Act”) into the
death of Vinita Gail Harding (“the deceased”).
[2]
The deceased did not die of natural causes. She had died of aldicab
poisoning. Aldicab is a form of pesticide. It is acutely
toxic. It is
colloquially known “Chinese two step”. One of the issues
which the learned magistrate had to consider
was whether the deceased
had committed suicide or whether she had been poisoned by someone
else.
[3]
At the end of the inquest the magistrate held that he was unable to
make a finding as to who may have been responsible for the
death of
the deceased.
[4]
In recording his finding the magistrate said that the death occurred
on 31 October 2007. He was immediately corrected on this
point by
counsel for the State. The post mortem examination had been performed
on 30 October 2007. The learned magistrate, after
having some debate
with counsel, then recorded that he was unable to say when the
deceased died. On the official J56 form in which
he recorded his
finding he wrote next to paragraph (b) which provides for the date of
death to be recorded, “Unable to state
date”.
[5]
The magistrate has now referred the matter to this Court for review
in terms of section 18 of the Act. He has referred to section
16 (2)
(c) of the Act which provides that the judicial officer conducting
the inquest shall record a finding as to the date of
death. The
magistrate now considers that he should have recorded the date of
death as having been 26 October 2011 and has asked
that this Court
correct his finding in this regard by making such substitution as
this Court may deem fit.
[6]
It is clear from the evidence led at the inquest that the deceased
must have died either on 25 or 26 October 2007.
[7]
Although section 16 (2) (c) of the Act refers to “the date of
death” this does not require a finding as to the exact
day upon
which the deceased person died. There will be situations where this
will be impossible. It seems clear that judicial
officers holding
inquests are to do the best they can, on the evidence available to
them, in making such findings. If the evidence
justifies recording
merely an approximate date, it is not only quite in order to record
as much but, in my opinion, proper to do
so. Likewise, where it is
clear that a death could not have occurred before or after certain
dates, this should be recorded accordingly.
In the present case, the
magistrate should have recorded that the deceased died either on 25
or 26 October 2007. These are the
dates which should have been
recorded in the inquest finding.
[8]
I am fortified in this view by reference to the case of Claassens v
Landdros, Bloemfontein
1964 (4) SA 4
(O), in which De Villiers J and
Smuts AJ (as they both then were) emphasised the public interest in
there being pertinent findings
recorded by the magistrate conducting
an inquest in terms of the Act.
[9]
The following is the order of this Court:
The
finding by the magistrate as to the date of death of the deceased, as
recorded in paragraph (b) of Form J56, is amended to read
“On
either 25 or 26 October 2007.”
DATED
AT JOHANNESBURG THIS 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011.
N.P.WILLIS
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
I
agree.
F.H.
D. VAN OOSTEN
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT