Law Reports
S v Moloi (117/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 74 (12 …

S v Moloi (117/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 74 (12 June 2014)

Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Review — Proceedings set aside due to potential bias — The accused, Lablia Jonathan Moloi, faced charges of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft in the Harrismith Magistrate's Court. During the proceedings, the presiding magistrate recognized that he had previously conducted a bail application where information about the accused's prior convictions was disclosed. Citing concerns of potential bias and the need for justice to be perceived as impartial, the magistrate requested the High Court to set aside the proceedings and order a trial de novo before a different magistrate. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.

Full Judgment Text (Click to expand)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAFSHC 74
|

S v Moloi (117/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 74 (12 June 2014)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review
No: 117/2014
In the
review between:
THE
STATE
and
LABLIA
JONATHAN MOLOI
CORAM:
KRUGER et C.J. MUSI, JJ
JUDGMENT:
KRUGER, J
DELIVERED
ON:
12 JUNE 2014
REVIEW JUDGMENT
[1]
This is a special review in terms of section 204 of Act 51 of 1077.
The accused appeared before the magistrate at Harrismith
on 10 June
2014 on two charges of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
The accused was legally represented and pleaded
not guilty to
both counts. At the end of the proceedings on 10 June, after
the evidence of three witnesses had been led,
when postponing the
case, the presiding magistrate noticed that he had done a formal bail
application in this matter on 17 April
2014. During that
application certain information, pertaining
inter alia
to
whether the accused had previous convictions, was placed on record.
In line with the decisions in
S v Bruinders
2012 (1)
SACR 256
(WCC) and
S v Nkuna
2013 (2) SACR 541
(GNP)
the magistrate believes that under the circumstances he should
request this court to set aside the proceedings before him
and order
that the trial start
de novo
before another magistrate.
[2] The
magistrate is correct. There appears to be some prejudice to
the state because three witnesses will have to testify
again. There
is also some prejudice to the accused because the proceedings on 10
June 2014 have to be set aside. It
is however important that
justice be seen to be done, and that there should be no perception
that the presiding officer could be
influenced by previous knowledge
relating to the accused.
ORDER
1. The proceedings on 10 June 2014 are set aside.
2. It is directed that the trial re-commence
de novo
before another presiding officer.
_____________
A.
KRUGER, J
I
agree.
_____________
C.J.
MUSI, J

Back to Law Reports