R v Mfuduka and Another
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | De Villiers AJ |
Judgment Date | 22 September 1960 |
Citation | 1960 (4) SA 770 (C) |
Hearing Date | 22 September 1960 |
Court | Cape Provincial Division |
A De Villiers, A.J.:
The two accused persons have been indicted in respect of the alleged murder of Sidney Frederick Richardson on the 15th June, 1960, at Hout Bay, and their case has been set down for trial for to-day. Having been informed beforehand of two preliminary applications to be made by counsel for the defence, I sat without assessors to dispose of those applications first.
B The first of these applications was made by Mr. Steyn who appears pro deo for the accused No. 1. This application is for a postponement of the trial until the November criminal sessions of this Court and for an order meanwhile committing the accused No. 1 to the Valkenburg Mental Hospital for observation as to his sanity or otherwise. Mr. Steyn, in C his argument in support of this application, emphasised that he was not presenting to the Court an enquiry in terms of either sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act or sec. 28 of the Mental Disorders Act; but that he was merely as pro deo counsel asking for the assistance of the Court with a view to obtaining evidence for a possible defence of insanity and D also with a view to possible consideration of the question whether the accused No. 1 could understand the nature of the proceedings in so far as such a question might arise when the accused is called upon to plead.
In support of his application Mr. Steyn informed the Court of his own impressions, formed during consultation with the accused No. 1, E impressions which he stated induced him to believe that there were strong prima facie reasons why proper advice should be obtained from a psychiatrist as to the sanity or otherwise of the accused No. 1, advice which he in his position as pro deo counsel could not obtain in the ordinary course, as would be possible for the defence in other circumstances. By way of precedent Mr. Steyn referred the Court to a F decision of the Natal Provincial Division, given in similar circumstances, in R v Linda, 1959 (1) SA 103 (N), and he also referred to an unreported decision in this Court in which the procedure followed in Linda's case was adopted without objection from the Crown. This was the case of R v Gwija, decided by WATERMEYER, J, on the 13th June, 1960, in this Court. In further support substantively of his G application, Mr. Steyn referred to certain aspects of the evidence given at the preparatory examination, evidence which, he submitted, lent further colour to the suggestion that there ought to be a proper investigation as to the sanity of the accused No. 1 by a psychiatrist. I will presently refer to one or two of those features.
H Mr. Heyns, in opposing the application on behalf of the Crown, stressed that an application of this nature ought not to be made at the last minute without good reason for the adoption of such a course, and he further stressed that more information in support of the application ought to be put before the Court by way of evidence or by way of reference to indications afforded by evidence given at the preparatory examination than is the position in the present case. He referred the Court to warnings to this effect given by OGILVIE THOMPSON, J., as he
De Villiers AJ
then was, in Rex v Isaacs, 1947 (2) SA 494 (C), and Rex v Swart, 1949 (1) P.H. H.65.
I am in complete agreement with Mr. Heyns' submission that applications A of this nature ought to be substantiated, if at all possible, by medical evidence. Mr. Heyns pointed out that facilities were available to pro deo counsel in Cape Town to arrange through the office of the Attorney-General for some medical and even psychiatric assistance for pro deo counsel in a situation such as that in which Mr. Steyn finds B himself in this case, particularly where counsel was not requested to act pro deo at the very last minute. It is most inconvenient, with a view to the despatch of the ordinary business of the criminal sessions of this Court, and also for outside persons who are involved in such trials, to be faced at the very last minute with an application of this nature. Such an application ought to be made at the earliest opportunity C and ought not necessarily to be held over until the day upon which the case has been set down for trial. And...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S v Bapela and Another
...such as R v Nzuza and Another 1952 (4) SA 376 (A), R v McMillan and Another 1958 (3) SA 800 (E) and R v B Mfuduka and Another 1960 (4) SA 770 (C), or if he had only afforded counsel for the State, who was obviously caught by surprise, a proper opportunity to consult authority and to argue t......
-
S v Groesbeek en 'n Ander (1)
...Rex v Dekker and Others, supra op bl. 465, en Rex v Ramsay and Another, 1960 (4) SA 647 (D) G op bl. 649. In Rex v Mfuduka and Another, 1960 (4) SA 770 (K) op bl. 755, is daar op gewys dat benadeling nie gereedheidshalwe veronderstel moet word nie waar dit 'n niejurie verhoor is. Ek sal hie......
-
S v Libaya en 'n Ander
...problem het onlangs praktiese toepassing gevind in R. v. McMillan and Another, 1958 (3) S.A. 800 (O.D.), en R. v. Mfuduka and Another, 1960 (4) S.A. 770 (K). In die omstandighede wat in hierdie gevalle voorgekom het, is beslis E dat dit wenslik was dat die Hof al die feite voor horn sou he ......
-
S v Pietersen
...question as to who is the guilty person'. (R v Nzuzu and Another 1952 (4) SA 377 (A) at 380G; see also R v Mfuduka and Another 1960 (4) SA 770 (C) at 774B.) In view of the foregoing, I made the following ruling: J 2002 (1) SACR p336 H J Erasmus AJ (i) An accused who gives evidence against a......
-
S v Bapela and Another
...such as R v Nzuza and Another 1952 (4) SA 376 (A), R v McMillan and Another 1958 (3) SA 800 (E) and R v B Mfuduka and Another 1960 (4) SA 770 (C), or if he had only afforded counsel for the State, who was obviously caught by surprise, a proper opportunity to consult authority and to argue t......
-
S v Groesbeek en 'n Ander (1)
...Rex v Dekker and Others, supra op bl. 465, en Rex v Ramsay and Another, 1960 (4) SA 647 (D) G op bl. 649. In Rex v Mfuduka and Another, 1960 (4) SA 770 (K) op bl. 755, is daar op gewys dat benadeling nie gereedheidshalwe veronderstel moet word nie waar dit 'n niejurie verhoor is. Ek sal hie......
-
S v Libaya en 'n Ander
...problem het onlangs praktiese toepassing gevind in R. v. McMillan and Another, 1958 (3) S.A. 800 (O.D.), en R. v. Mfuduka and Another, 1960 (4) S.A. 770 (K). In die omstandighede wat in hierdie gevalle voorgekom het, is beslis E dat dit wenslik was dat die Hof al die feite voor horn sou he ......
-
S v Pietersen
...question as to who is the guilty person'. (R v Nzuzu and Another 1952 (4) SA 377 (A) at 380G; see also R v Mfuduka and Another 1960 (4) SA 770 (C) at 774B.) In view of the foregoing, I made the following ruling: J 2002 (1) SACR p336 H J Erasmus AJ (i) An accused who gives evidence against a......