S v Maluleke (A322/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 31 (21 April 2009)

50 Reportability
Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Right to fair trial — Conviction set aside for failure to allow opportunity for address — Accused convicted without affording prosecutor or defence attorney the chance to address the court on merits of the case — Prosecutor raised irregularity immediately after conviction — Court finds that the accused’s constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated, rendering the proceedings invalid — Conviction set aside and matter remitted for trial de novo before another magistrate.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 31
|

|

S v Maluleke (A322/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 31 (21 April 2009)

NOT REPORTABLE
HANDED DOWN: 21 APRIL 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
REVIEW
CASE NO: LR14/2009
HIGH COURT
REF NO: 135
MAGISTRATE:
LOUIS TRICHARDT
In the
matter between:
THE STATE
Versus
TSHUINDUKA
KEVIN MALULEKE ACCUSED
REVIEW JUDGMENT
VAN DER
MERWE, J
This matter was sent for special review in terms of the provisions
of section 304A of Act 51 of 1977. The reason for this special

review is that the magistrate proceeded to deliver judgment without
having afforded either the prosecutor or the defence attorney,
the
opportunity of addressing him on the merits of the matter. The
accused was convicted on counts 3 and 4. The prosecutor immediately

informed the magistrate that an irregularity had occurred in as much
as she and the defence had been deprived of the opportunity
of
addressing the court. The prosecutor therefore requested that the
matter be sent on special review, which was done.
The matter was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his
comments. A helpful memorandum was received from the staff
of the
Director. Advocates Ngobeni and Lakhi-Hatia both agree that the
accused’s constitutional rights to a fair trial has
been
affected by failing to afford him an opportunity to address the court
before judgment on the merits of the case. The validity
of the
proceedings has therefore been destroyed and the conviction should be
set aside.
I agree with this point of view.
The conviction is set aside and the matter is remitted to the
magistrates’ court for a trial
de novo
before another
magistrate.
__________________________
W J VAN DER MERWE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree,
___________________________
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT