Recent Case: Constitutional application

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: (2000) 13 SACJ 394
• Author: Saras Jagwanth
• Date: 24 May 2019
• Pages: 394-398
• Published date: 24 May 2019

394



SACJ • (2000) 13 • SAS

Constitutional Application

SARAS JAGWANTH

University of Cape Town

Interpretation

Interpretation — right to a fair trial

In

Director of Public Prosecutions, Natal v Magidela

2000 (1) SACR 458 (SCA)

the High Court had reserved a question of law under s 319(1) of the Criminal

Procedure Act 51 of 1977 for determination by the Supreme Court of Appeal

(SCA). The issue before the SCA was whether accused persons had the right

to remain silent after they had pleaded guilty in terms of s 119 of the Criminal

Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and if so, whether they had a right to be so

informed before making the plea. Answering both questions in the

affirmative, Melunsky AJA held that the rights to a fair trial went beyond

those specifically listed in s 25(3) of the interim Constitution and a court is

required to conduct criminal trials in the light of basic requirements of

fairness and justice. The court held, however, that the mere fact that an

accused person had not been informed of the right to remain silent did not in

itself render the record of the plea proceedings inadmissible. A breach of a

constitutional right does not automatically result in the trial being unfair 'as

fairness is an issue that has to be decided on the facts of each case' (at 466c).

The SCA thus declined to make an order because the question of law in this

case depended on factual findings which the trial court had not made.

However, in

S v Pienaar

2000 (2) SACR 141 (C) Buys J found that the

failure of the magistrate to inform an Afrikaans-speaking accused of his right

(2000) 13 SACJ 394

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd