S v Gopal

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

S v Gopal
1993 (2) SACR 584 (A)

1993 (2) SACR p584

Citation	1993 (2) SACR 584 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Hefer AR, Eksteen Ar, Harms Wn AR
Heard	September 13, 1993
Judgment	September 17, 1993
Counsel	Jan A du Plessis namens die appellant; WR Malan namens die Staat

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Appèl — Na Appèlafdeling — Semble: Teenstrydigheid tussen bepalings van Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 ten aansien van appèlle en art 21(1) saamgelees met art 22(2) van Wet op die Hooggeregshof 59 van 1959 ongewens.

Headnote : Kopnota

C Semble: Die teenstrydigheid tussen die bepalings van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 ten aansien van appèlle en art 21(1) saamgelees met art 22(2) van die Wet op die Hooggeregshof 59 van 1959 is ongewens. Indien 'n persoon in die landdroshof aan 'n misdryf skuldig bevind word en sy appèl na die Provinsiale (of Plaaslike) Afdeling van die Hooggeregshof misluk, mag hy alleen met die nodige verlof na die Appèlafdeling appelleer. As hy egter D sou nalaat om sy eerste appèl na behore voort te sit en dit nodig is om kondonasie te verkry en dié aansoek misluk, het hy 'n outomatiese reg van appèl teen die afwys van sy aansoek na die Appèlafdeling. Dit geld selfs indien sy aansoek vanweë 'n gebrek aan vooruitsigte op appèl afgewys is. En sou die Appèlafdeling argumentsonthalwe bevind dat die Hof a quo verkeerd was in sy beoordeling van die kanse op sukses, en die appèl E slaag, moet die strafappèl dan waarskynlik deur die Appèlafdeling bereg word met die wete dat daardie Hof reeds 'n oordeel, alhoewel dit nie bindend is nie, oor die meriete uitgespreek het.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

F Appeal — To Appellate Division — Semble: Conflict between provisions of Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 relating to appeals and s 21(1) read with s 22(2) of Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 is undesirable.

Headnote : Kopnota

Semble: The conflict between the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 relating to appeals and s 21(1) read with s 22(2) of the G Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 is undesirable. If a person is convicted in a magistrate's court of an offence and his appeal to the Provincial (or Local) Division of the Supreme Court is unsuccessful, he can appeal to the Appellate Division only with the necessary leave. If however he neglects to prosecute his first appeal properly and it becomes necessary to obtain condonation and that application fails, he has an automatic right of H appeal to the Appellate Division against the dismissal of his application. This applies even if his application is dismissed on the grounds that he has insufficient prospects of success. And if, for the sake of argument, the Appellate Division finds that the Court a quo was incorrect in its assessment of the prospects of success and the appeal succeeds, the criminal appeal must then probably be decided by the Appellate Division in I ...