Recent Case: Criminal procedure

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Published date: 04 July 2019
• Author: Managay Reddi
• Pages: 104-118
• Date: 04 July 2019

Criminal procedure

MANAGAY REDDI

University of KwaZulu-Natal

1 Contempt of court

Section 108 of the Magistrate’s Court Act 32 of 1944 (hereaf ter Act

32 of 1944) empowers courts to convict and sentence a person for

contempt of court. The applicable provision, contained in s 108(1) of

Act 32 of 1944, reads as follows:

‘If any person, whether in custody or not, wilfully insults a judicial ofcer

during his sitting or a clerk or messenger or other ofcer during his

attendance at such sitting, or wilfully interrupts the proceedings of the court

or otherwise misbehaves himself in the place where such court is held,

he shall (in addition to his liability to being removed and detained as in

subsection (3) of section 5 provided) be liable to be sentenced summarily

or upon summons to a ne not exceeding R2000 or in default of payment

to imprisonment without the option of a ne. In this subsection the word

“court” includes a preparatory examination under the law relating to criminal

procedure.’

However, this power may not be exercised lightly, and its invocation

must comply with the exacting guidelines that have emerged from the

courts over the years. (See for instance S v Van Niekerk 1970 (3) SA 655

(T); S v Van Staden 1973 (1) SA 70 (SWA); S v Harber 1988 (3) SA 396

(A); and S v Molapo 2004 (2) SACR 417 (T))

In S v Bresler 2002 (2) SACR 18 (C), Satchwell J, in outlining the

ambit of the offence, elucidated that its purpose was to serve and

protect ‘the moral authority of the judicial process as such’ (25a-b).

Therefore, according to the learned judge, the objective of the

offence is not the protection of individual interests such as self-

esteem, feelings, or dignity of the members of t he court, nor even the

reputation, status or standing of the cour t but the protection of the

interests of the administration justice. This view echoes t hat of the

Constitutional Court in S v Mamabolo (ETV and Others Inter [vening])

2001 (1) SACR 686 (CC) where the court stated that in determining

whether an act amounts to a contempt of court, ‘the test is whether the

offending conduct, viewed contextually, really was likely to damage

the administr ation of justice’ (at para [45]).

However, remarkably, in S v Meiring 2019 (1) SACR 227 (GJ)

which concerned the review of a contempt of court in facie curi ae

conviction, the decision of the magistrate’s court evidently respected

neither the relevant provisions of s 108 nor the guidelines that had

104 SACJ . (2019) 1

(2019) 32 SACJ 104

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd