Prinsloo v Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag en Andere

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 01 January 2011
• Citation: 2011 (2) SA 214 (GNP)

Prinsloo v Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag en Andere
2011 (2) SA 214 (GNP)

2011 (2) SA p214

Citation	2011 (2) SA 214 (GNP)
Case No	SaakNr 71173/2009
Court	Noord Gauteng Hoë Hof, Pretoria
Judge	Du Plessis WnR
Heard	November 19, 2009; November 20, 2009
Judgment	Oktober 11, 2010
Counsel	LS de Klerk for the applicant.; TP Kruger for the respondents.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Konstitusionele reg — Menslike regte — Reg op vryheid en sekuriteit van die persoon — Publiek word grondwetlik beskerm teen ontneming van vryheid op arbitrêre wyse sonder enige rede — Kan nie toegelaat word dat daar C ligtelik en oorsigtelik met daardie reg gehandel word nie — Persoon mag nie aangehou word sonder verhoor indien dit nie konstitusioneel geregverdig is nie ingevolge wetgewing wat grondwetlik is — Borgtog meganisme wat daarop gemik is om inbreuk op reg van vryheid te minimaliseer, waar gearresteerde nog nie veroordeel is nie — Grondwet, art 12.

Koste — Koste de bonis propriis — Kan teen lid van Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens D beveel word waar hy geheel en al buite sy magte en mala fide, opsetlik, onredelik en onbehoorlik opgetree het.

Strafproses — Arres — Reg met betrekking tot arres — Plig om gearresteerde persoon binne 48 uur voor 'n hof te bring — Verstryking van 48 uur buite gewone hofure — Gearresteerde persoon moet dan voor hof gebring word E gedurende en nie later as einde van eerste hofdag na sy arrestasie — Doel van reël is om te vermy dat persoon oor naweek aangehou moet word en ook om te vermy dat persoon langer as wat noodsaaklik is, aangehou word waar hy nog nie skuldig bevind is nie — Strafproseswet 51 van 1977, s 50(1)(d).

Headnote : Kopnota

F Op 'n behoorlike uitleg van art 50(1)(d) van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977, moet 'n gearresteerde persoon, indien die 48 uur waarbinne hy volgens die artikel voor 'n hof gebring moet word verstryk buite gewone hofure of op 'n dag wat nie 'n gewone hofdag is nie, voor 'n hof gebring word gedurende en nie later as die einde van die eerste hofdag na sy arrestasie nie. Die doel van hierdie artikel is juis om 'n situasie uit te skakel dat 'n persoon oor 'n G naweek aangehou word. Die doel is nie dat die polisie 'n gearresteerde persoon vir so lank as moontlik moet aanhou, en soveel uur uit die 48 uur as moontlik nie. Die doel van die bepaling is juis om te vermy dat 'n persoon langer as wat noodsaaklik is, aangehou word, waar hy nog nie skuldig bevind is nie. (Paragrawe [22] en [24] op 221B en 221D – E.)

Artikel 12 van die Grondwet, 1996, beskerm die publiek teen die ontneming van H vryheid op 'n arbitrêre wyse sonder enige rede en verbied aanhouding sonder verhoor. Daar kan nie toegelaat word dat daar ligtelik en oorsigtelik met die reg op vryheid gehandel word nie. 'n Persoon mag nie aangehou word sonder verhoor indien dit nie konstitusioneel geregverdig is, ingevolge bestaande wetgewing wat 'n beperking op die grondwetlike reg plaas wat geregverdig is nie. Borgtog is juis 'n meganisme wat daarop gemik is om die I inbreuk op 'n beskuldigde se vryheid, op 'n stadium wanneer hy nog nie veroordeel is nie, te minimaliseer. Dit is 'n reg wat nie verontagsaam mag word nie. (Paragrawe [47] en [49] – [50] op 225B en 225D – E.)

Waar 'n regsbeampte 'n party word tot 'n geding, of waar hy mala fide optree, kan 'n hofbevel teen hom gemaak word dat hy die koste de bonis propriis moet betaal. Daar is geen rede waarom dieselfde beginsel nie kan geld teen J 'n lid van die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens wat geheel en al buite sy magte

2011 (2) SA p215

en mala fide, opsetlik, onredelik en onbehoorlik opgetree het nie. A (Paragrawe [51] en [55] op 225F – 226B en 226F – G.)

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Constitutional law - Human rights — Right to freedom and security of the person — Public constitutionally protected from arbitrary deprivation of freedom — Cannot permit that this right is dealt with lightly and B mindlessly — Person cannot be detained without trial unless it is constitutionally justified in terms of constitutionally valid legislation — Bail a mechanism that is intended to minimalise infringement of right to freedom of person who has not been convicted — Constitution s 12.

Costs - Costs de bonis propriis — Can be ordered against member of South C African Police Service where he has acted entirely beyond his powers and has acted mala fide, intentionally, unreasonably and improperly.

Criminal procedure - Arrest — Law relating to arrest — Duty to bring arrested person before court within 48 hours — Expiry of 48-hour period outside normal court hours — Arrested person then to be brought before court during and not later than end of first court day after his arrest — Object of D rule is to avoid arrested person being detained over weekend and to avoid person who has not been convicted being detained longer than necessary — Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 50(1)(d).

Headnote : Kopnota

On a proper interpretation of s 50(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, an arrested person must, if the 48 hours within which he must in E terms of the section be brought before court expires outside normal court hours, or on a day which is not a normal court day, be brought before a court during and not later than the end of the first court day after his arrest. The object of this section is precisely to eliminate a situation in which a person is detained over a weekend. The object is not that the police must detain a person for as long as possible and for as many of the 48 hours as F possible. The object of the provision is precisely the avoidance of detaining a person longer than necessary where he has not been convicted. (Paragraphs [22] and [24] at 221B and 221D – E.)

Section 12 of the Constitution, 1996, protects the public against the arbitrary deprivation of freedom without any cause, and prohibits detention without trial. It cannot be permitted that the right to freedom is dealt with lightly G and mindlessly. A person may not be detained without trial, unless it is constitutionally justified in terms of existing legislation which places a limitation on a constitutional right that is justified. Bail is precisely a mechanism that is intended to minimise the infringement of an accused's freedom at a time when he has not been convicted. It is not a right that can be ignored. (Paragraphs [47] and [49] – [50] at 225B and 225D – E.) H

Where a judicial officer becomes a party to litigation, or where he acts mala fide, a court can make an order that he pays the costs de bonis propriis. There is no reason why the same principle should not apply to a member of the South African Police Service who has acted entirely beyond his powers, and has acted mala fide, intentionally, unreasonably and improperly. (Paragraphs [51] and [55] at 225F – 226B and 226F – G.) I

Cases Considered

Annotations:

Reported cases

Attorney-General, Eastern Cape v Blom and Others 1988 (4) SA 645 (A): applied J

2011 (2) SA p216

Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others NNO 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC) (1996 (4) BCLR 449): considered A

Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC) (1995 (10) BCLR 1382): applied

Coetzeestroom Estate and GM Co v Registrar of Deeds 1902 TS 216: dictum at 223 applied B

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Ropes and Mattings (SA) Ltd 1945 AD 724: considered

Dadoo Ltd and Others v Krugersdorp Municipal Council 1920 AD 530: dictum at 552 applied

De Lange v Smuts NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC) (1998 (7) BCLR 779): applied C

Die Meester v Joubert en Andere 1981 (4) SA 211 (A): dictum at 224D – F applied

Fleming v Fleming en 'n Ander 1989 (2) SA 253 (A): applied

Freedom of Expression Institute and Others v President, Ordinary Court Martial, and Others 1999 (2) SA 471 (C) (1999 (3) BCLR 261): applied

Gellman v Minister of Safety and Security 2008 (1) SACR 446 (W): applied D

Kabinet van die Tussentydse Regering vir Suidwes-Afrika en 'n Ander v Katofa 1987 (1) SA 695 (A): considered

Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another 2004 (4) SA 125 (CC) (2004 (7) BCLR 775): considered

Le Roux v Minister of Safety and Security and Another 2009 (4) SA 491 (KZP) (2009 (2) SACR 252): applied E

Louw and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others 2006 (2) SACR 178 (T): dictum at 185 – 186 applied

MacLean v Haasbroek, NO, and Others 1957 (1) SA 464 (A): applied

Minister of Education and Another v Syfrets Trust Ltd NO and Another 2006 (4) SA 205 (C) (2006 (10) BCLR 1214; [2006] 3 All SA 373): considered F

Minister of Safety and Security v Glisson 2007 (3) SA 78 (E) (2007 (1) SACR 131): applied

Minister of Safety and Security v Van Niekerk 2008 (1) SACR 56 (CC) (2007 (10) BCLR 1102): applied

Minister van Wet en Orde v Matshoba 1990 (1) SA 280 (A): applied G

Minister van Wet en Orde en Andere v Dipper 1993 (3) SA 591 (A) (1993 (2) SACR 221): applied

Nel v Le Roux NO and Others 1996 (3) SA 562 (CC) (1996 (1) SACR 572; 1996 (4) BCLR 592): applied

Nonyake v Die Assistent Landdros, Bloemfontein, en die Staat 1964 (3) SA 672 (O): applied

Nyamakazi v President of Bophuthatswana 1992 (4) SA 540 (B) (1994 (1) BCLR 92): applied H

Parents' Committee of Namibia and Others v Nujoma and Others 1990 (1) SA 873 (SWA): applied

Potter and Another v Rand Townships Registrar 1945 AD 277: considered

Principal Immigration Officer and Minister of Interior v Narayansamy 1916 TPD 274: applied I

Prokureur-Generaal, Vrystaat v Ramokhosi 1997 (1) SACR 127 (O): applied

Regional Magistrate Du Preez v Walker 1976 (4) SA 849 (A): dictum at 856 applied

Rent Control Board and Another v South African Breweries Ltd 1943 AD 456: applied

S v Acheson 1991 (2) SA 805 (Nm): applied J

2011 (2) SA p217

S...