S v Lekhetho

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation2002 (2) SACR 13 (O)

S v Lekhetho
2002 (2) SACR 13 (O)

2002 (2) SACR p13


Citation

2002 (2) SACR 13 (O)

Case No

36/2002

Court

Orange Free State Provincial Division

Judge

Wright J and Musi J

Heard

March 14, 2002

Judgment

March 14, 2002

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Trial — Presiding officer — Conduct of — Magistrate inviting accused to address court on conviction, and later on sentence, by asking: 'What do you have to say? — Crass manner in which accused invited to address court betraying magistrate's disinterest in G whatever accused might have wanted to say.

Trial — Cross-examination — By accused — Explanation of right to cross-examine — Magistrate advising undefended accused that he was 'given the opportunity to cross-examine and by so doing you will be showing the court that she was not telling the truth' — Explanation not constituting full explanation of import of right to cross-examine — Accused told he could cross-examine, but not what it H meant — He was not told how to go about it nor that he may put his version to witnesses for State — Irregularity committed.

Trial — Addressing court on verdict — Duty to explain accused's rights at stage of addressing court on conviction delegated to interpreter — Such an irregularity. I

Headnote : Kopnota

During a criminal trial the magistrate advised an undefended accused that he was 'given the opportunity to cross-examine and by so doing you will be J

2002 (2) SACR p14

showing the court that she was not telling the truth'. The magistrate further invited the accused to address the A court on conviction, and later on sentence, by asking: 'What do you have to say?' A fuller explanation was made by the interpreter.

Held, that the explanation to the accused could not constitute a full explanation of the import of the right to cross-examine. He was told he could cross-examine, but not what it meant. He was not told how to go about it nor that he may put his B version to the witnesses for the State. (Paragraph [6] at 16a - b.)

Held, further, that the duty to explain the accused's rights at the stage of addressing the court on conviction had been delegated to the interpreter, which was in itself an irregularity. Moreover, the crass manner in which the accused had been invited to address the court betrayed the magistrate's disinterest in whatever C the accused might have wanted to say. (Paragraphs [7] and [12] at 16f - g and 17e - g.)

Held, accordingly, that the irregularitites committed during the trial seriously tainted the trial, such that it could not be said that the accused had been accorded a fair trial.

Annotations:

Cases cited

Reported cases

S v Abrahams and Another 1989 (2) SA 668 (E): applied D

S v Gwebu 1988 (4) SA 155 (W): applied

S v Hlongwane 1982 (4) SA 321 (N): applied

S v Kester 1996 (1) SACR 461 (B): E applied

S v Khambule 1991 (2) SACR 277 (W): applied

S v Modiba 1991 (2) SACR 286 (T): applied

S v Philemon 1997 (2) SACR 651 (W): applied

S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T): applied

S v Raphatle 1995 (2) SACR 452 (T): applied

S v Rudman; S v Johnson; S v Xaso; Xaso v Van Wyk NO and Another 1989 (3) SA 368 (E): applied F

S v T 1990 (1) SACR 57 (T): applied.

Case Information

Review. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

Judgment

Musi J:

[1] The accused was charged with two counts of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm in the magistrate's court for the district of Witsieshoek, held at Makoane. He pleaded guilty to the first count and not guilty on the second. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. He was not legally represented. H

[2] In response to questions put to him in terms of s 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the Act), the accused indicated that he was acting in self-defence when he hit the complainants with stones. A plea of not guilty was accordingly entered in terms of s 113 of the Act. The magistrate indicated that the I admissions made up to that stage would be noted as formal admissions, apparently in terms of s 220 of the Act. No such admissions were, however, noted, let alone that the accused's consent was sought to the recording of any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • S v Lesala and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...the period of suspension of invalidity. In my view, the position of the applicants in this case is not much different from that of J 2002 (2) SACR p13 Musi the applicant in Steyn and the following words of Madlanga AJ at 74H are equally applicable to A them 'In my view this is not an approp......
  • S v Maxwell
    • South Africa
    • North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
    • 5 March 2012
    ...See S v Modiba 1991 (2) SACR 286 (T); S v Khambule 1991 (2) SACR 277 (W); S v Raphatle 1995 (2) SACR 452 (T) and S v Lekheto 2002 (2) SACR 13 (O). Despite his comments to having assisted the accused, the learned magistrate did not do so, despite their obviously faltering attempts at cross-e......
  • S v Crowther
    • South Africa
    • Western Cape Division, Cape Town
    • 11 March 2016
    ...witness. This would at least give the accused the impression that he is being fairly treated during the trial." [7] In S v Lekhetho 2002 (2) SACR 13 (O) at para [10] and [11] the court emphasized the duty of the presiding officer to explain the accused's right to cross-examination as "[10] ......
  • S v Botes
    • South Africa
    • KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg
    • 11 September 2020
    ...J concurring) [18] The duties of a presiding officer in assisting an unrepresented accused have been summarised in S v Lekhetho 2002 (2) SACR 13 (O) para 9-11 as '[9] There rests a duty on a judicial officer conducting a criminal trial to treat an accused even-handedly and courteously and t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • S v Lesala and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...the period of suspension of invalidity. In my view, the position of the applicants in this case is not much different from that of J 2002 (2) SACR p13 Musi the applicant in Steyn and the following words of Madlanga AJ at 74H are equally applicable to A them 'In my view this is not an approp......
  • S v Maxwell
    • South Africa
    • North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
    • 5 March 2012
    ...See S v Modiba 1991 (2) SACR 286 (T); S v Khambule 1991 (2) SACR 277 (W); S v Raphatle 1995 (2) SACR 452 (T) and S v Lekheto 2002 (2) SACR 13 (O). Despite his comments to having assisted the accused, the learned magistrate did not do so, despite their obviously faltering attempts at cross-e......
  • S v Crowther
    • South Africa
    • Western Cape Division, Cape Town
    • 11 March 2016
    ...witness. This would at least give the accused the impression that he is being fairly treated during the trial." [7] In S v Lekhetho 2002 (2) SACR 13 (O) at para [10] and [11] the court emphasized the duty of the presiding officer to explain the accused's right to cross-examination as "[10] ......
  • S v Botes
    • South Africa
    • KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg
    • 11 September 2020
    ...J concurring) [18] The duties of a presiding officer in assisting an unrepresented accused have been summarised in S v Lekhetho 2002 (2) SACR 13 (O) para 9-11 as '[9] There rests a duty on a judicial officer conducting a criminal trial to treat an accused even-handedly and courteously and t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Recent Case: Criminal procedure
    • South Africa
    • Juta South African Criminal Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 24 May 2019
    ...that unrepresented accused will understand such concepts as 'cross-examination' or 'opportunity to address the court'. In S v Lekhetho 2002 (2) SACR 13 (0) the presiding magistrate informed the accused that he was being given the opportunity of cross-examining and by so doing you will be sh......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT