Criminal Procedure

• Citation: 2021/2022 YSAL 389
• Published date: 14 April 2023
• Pages: 389-442
• Author: le Roux-Kemp, A.
• Date: 14 April 2023

389

1. INTRODUCTION

For the year under review, there were no major legal developments or

noteworthy cases presenting new or alter native avenues for the development

of criminal procedure in South Africa. In selecting case law for discussion

here, a pragmatic approach was therefore applied: an effort was made to

cover a wide range of topics in criminal procedure, including arrest, bail,

provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act,1 various pleas in

terms of s 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act,2 and also a discussion of a

Constitutional Court decision on the constitutional invalidity of s 13(7) of

the South African Police Service Act.3 The cases selected for discussion

present either unique or interesting factual scenarios to which the law of

criminal procedure was applied, or important clarifications on matters

of import for criminal procedure, including the interpretation of various

legislative provisions. In two of these cases important dissenting opinions

are also highlighted.

2. LEGISLATION

2.1 CHILD JUSTICE ACT

The Minister of So cial Development, in terms of s 56(3)(a) of the Child Justice

Act,4 published the part iculars of each accredited diversion service provider

and diversion programme in GN 1909, GG 46059 on 18 March 2022.

*BA LLB LLD (Stell) CML BMus Hons BMus (SA); Associate Professor, University of

Lincoln (UK). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7186-7662.

1121 of 1998.

251 of 1977.

368 of 1995.

475 of 2008.

Criminal ProcedureCriminal Procedure

Andra le Roux-Kemp*

2021/2022 YSAL 389

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

YeArbooK oF south AFrICAN LAW

390

2.2 CRIMINAL LAW (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT ACT

The President proclaimed the coming into operation of s 2 of the Criminal

Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act5 in GG 45739 on 31 January

2022. Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act

inserts ss 36D and 36E into the Cri minal Procedure Act, which respectively

provide for police powers with regard to buccal samples, bodily samples

and crime scene samples, and sa mples for investigation purposes.

3. CASES

3.1 ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT IN TERMS OF SECTION 40(1)(b)

OR SECTION 42(1)(a)OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT

In Raduvha v Minister of Safety and Security,6 the Constitutional Court

summarise d police powers as follows:

Section 205(3) of the Constitution [of the Republic of South Africa,

1996] mandates the police to ‘prevent, combat and investigate cri me,

to maintain publ ic order, to protect and secu re the inhabitants of the

Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law’. In

short, the police are there to ensure that we can live, go about our

daily business and sleep peacefully in our homes at night. This is

a constitutional mandate. To assist them to carry out these onerous

constitutional responsibilities for the safety and security of our

people, the law grants them a var iety of powers, including the powers

to arrest and detain suspects, and enter and search premises and

people under certai n circumscribed ci rcumstances.7

In the first four cases discussed in this chapter, the focus is on the police

power to arrest, and specifically to arrest a suspect without a warrant.

These cases are important as arrest constitutes one of the most drastic

infringement s on the rights of an individual, ie the right not to be deprived

of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause, and t he right not to be restricted

in one’s freedom of movement.8

537 of 2013.

62016 (2) SACR 540 (CC).

7Para 3.

8A le Roux-Kemp ‘Criminal procedure’ 2017 Annual Survey of South African Law 360–361.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

CrImINAL proCedure391

3.1.1 A contravention of se ction 55 of the Criminal L aw (Sexual

Offences and Related Ma tters) Amendment Act properly falls

under Schedule 1 of the Cri minal Procedure Act for the pu rpose

of affectin g an arrest without a warrant a s contemplated in section

40(1)(b)of the Crimi nal Procedure Act

The deceased in Kami v Minister of Police9 claimed damages from the

Minister of Police and the National Di rector of Public Prosecutions (NDPP)

for unlawful arrest and detention, and malicious prosecution, arising from

a rape incident in respect of which the deceased was allegedly involved.

The complainant in the rape case testified th at she was approached by four

males, one of whom was the deceased, and that th ree of the males raped her.

When it was the turn of the deceased, he indicated that he would not rape

her as he knew her and they were cousin s. The deceased also persuaded the

other three men to apologise to the complainant for having assailed her.10

Following a pointing out by the complainant, the deceased was arrested

at his house on 23 September 2015, by a police officer without an arrest

warrant, and charged with having contravened the provisions of s 3 of the

Criminal Law (Sexua l Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act.11 The

deceased was brought before a magistrate on 28 September 2015, on which

day the matter was postponed to 2 October 2015. The deceased i nformed the

court that he wished to apply for bail and the prose cutor indicated that the

bail application would be opposed.12 The matter was further postponed to

5 October 2015, at which time bail was refused and the deceased, who had

remained in custody since his arrest, was remanded to 27 November 2017.

On 5 November 2015, the charges against the deceased were withdrawn.13

The deceased’s case against the fi rst and second defendants was essentially

that there was no prima facie case against him justifying the arrest, his

continued detention, or the opposing of hi s bail application.14 Only the claim

for damages against the al leged unlawful arrest will be di scussed here.

The first defendant denied t hat the deceased had been un lawfully arrested

and submitted that the decea sed had been arrested by a police officer in the

presence of his parents on a reas onable suspicion (on the basis contemplated

in s 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Proce dure Act) that he had committed a Schedule 1

offence, namely rape; that he had been informed of hi s constitutional rights;

that he was detained in accordance with s 50 of the Act; that he had been

charged within 48 hours of his arrest; that the decision to oppose bail was

taken by the relevant prosecutor after an assessment of the case docket;

9[2022] ZAECELLC 6.

10Para 3.

1132 of 2007. See para 10.

12Para 10.

13Para 12.

14Para 24.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd