S v Maputle and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

S v Maputle and Another
2003 (2) SACR 15 (SCA)

2003 (2) SACR p15

Citation	2003 (2) SACR 15 (SCA)
Case No	179/2002
Court	Supreme Court of Appeal
Judge	Marais JA, Navsa JA and Cloete JA
Heard	March 17, 2003
Judgment	March 26, 2003
Counsel	M Miller for the appellant.; M P Nengovhela for the State.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Trial — Irregularity in — What constitutes — Accused appearing in court in prison clothes — Cover sheet to proceedings B indicating that accused already sentenced — Untenable to argue that simply because judicial officer made privy to information prejudicial to accused, accused has not received fair trial which Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 guarantees — Section 35(5) contemplates that admissibility of evidence which will be prejudicial to accused will be adjudicated C upon by trial court — In process nature of evidence can well become known to court — Section doesn't contemplate that in such case trial is automatically rendered unfair — No distinction to be drawn between situation where prejudicial information inadvertently comes to attention of judicial officer and situation where this is done D deliberately — It is effect of disclosure and not intention with which it was done, which is relevant — Courts must do best they can to evaluate likely effects of particular procedure, based on reason, principle and common human experience.

Trial — The accused — Appearance of — Only instance where appearance of accused in prison garb and/or entry on cover sheet in magistrate's court which reflects E that accused is sentenced prisoner may be justified is where her or his trial involves offence committed in prison, or one related to her or his imprisonment.

Headnote : Kopnota

Even under the new constitutional dispensation it remains untenable to argue that simply because a judicial officer has been made privy to F information prejudicial to an accused, the accused has not received the fair trial which the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 guarantees. Section 35(5) contemplates that the admissibility of evidence which will be prejudicial to the accused will be adjudicated upon by the trial court. In the process the nature of the evidence could well become known to the court. Yet the section does G not contemplate that in such a case the trial is automatically rendered unfair. There is no distinction to be drawn between the situation where prejudicial information inadvertently comes to the attention of the judicial officer and the situation where this is done deliberately. It is the effect of the disclosure, and not the intention with which it was done, which is relevant. Courts must do the best they can to H evaluate the likely effects of a particular procedure, based on reason, principle and common human experience. (Paragraphs [11], [12] and [13] at 20e - i and 21c.)

The only instance where the appearance of an accused in prison garb and/or an entry on a cover sheet in the magistrate's court which reflects that the accused is a sentenced prisoner may be justified is where her or his trial involves an offence committed in prison, or one I related to her or his imprisonment. (Paragraph [15] at 21f - g.)

The appellant had appeared in a magistrate's court in prison clothing and the cover sheet to the proceedings before the magistrate reflected that the appellant was 'gevonnis' (sentenced). While this practice is not desirable, it does not amount to an irregularity which will vitiate the proceedings per se. J

2003 (2) SACR p16

Cases cited

Estelle v Williams 425 US 501 (1976): dictum at 504 approved and applied A

Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) (1996 (1) BCLR 1): referred to

Key v Attorney-General, Cape Provincial Division, and Another 1996 (2) SACR 113 (CC) (1996 (4) SA 187; 1996 (6) BCLR 788): referred to B

R v Alli Ahmed 1913 TPD 500: dictum at 503 applied

R v Essa 1922 AD 241: dictum at 246 - 7 applied

R v Matsego and Others 1956 (3) SA 411 (A): dictum at 418E applied

S v Maputle 2002 (1) SACR 550 (W): confirmed on appeal

S v Mgwenya 1931 AD 3: applied

S v Moodie 1961 (4) SA 752 (A): referred to C

S v Mthembu and Others 1988 (1) SA 145 (A): dicta at 155C - D & 155G - H applied

S v Pakkies 1985 (4) SA 592 (TkS): referred to

S v Papiyana 1986 (2) PH H115 (A): applied

S v Rens 1996 (1) SACR 105 (CC) (1996 (1) SA 1218; 1996 (2) BCLR 155): dictum in paras [7] and [25] applied D

S v Stevens 1961 (3) SA 518 (C): referred to

S v Twala (South African Human Rights Commission Intervening) 1999 (2) SACR 622 (CC) (2000 (1) SA 879; 2000 (1) BCLR 106): dictum in para [20] applied

S v Xaba 1983 (3) SA 717 (A): referred to

S v Yusuf 1968 (2) SA 52 (A): dictum at 57C - D applied E

S v Zuma and Others 1995 (1) SACR 568 (CC) (1995 (2) SA 642; 1995 (4) BCLR 401): dictum in para [16] applied.

Legislation cited

Statutes

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996, s 35(5): see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 2001 vol 5 at 1-149. F

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division (Cachalia J and Lewis J). The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

M Miller for the appellant.

M P Nengovhela for the State.

In addition to the authorities cited in the judgment of the Court, G counsel for the parties referred to the following:

Coetzee and Others v Attorney-General, KwaZulu-Natal, and Others 1997 (1) SACR 546 (D)

Coffin v United States 156 US 432 (1895)

Estelle v Williams 425 US 501 (1976) H

Fennesy v R 1907 TS 74

Hall v Cox 324 F Supp 786 (WD Va, 1971)

In re Truter [1890] 6 HCG 94

McFalls v Peyton 270 F Supp 577 (WD Va, 1967)

Oliver en 'n Ander v Prokureur-Generaal, Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling, en Andere 1995 (1) SA 455 (C)

R v Adoorham 1954 (3) SA 163 (N) at 165E - F I

R v Corbett 34 CRR 54

R v Dominic 1913 TPD 582

R v Lee 46 CRR 62

R v Masemang 1950 (2) SA 488 (A) at 493 - 4 J

2003 (2) SACR p17

R v Oakes (1986) 25 DLR (4th) 200 (SCC) A

R v Rose 1937 AD 461

Re Ciglen and the Queen (1975) 45 CCC (2d) 227

Re Ewing and Kearney and the Queen (1974) 18 CCC (2d) 356

S v Banana 2000 (2) SACR 1 (ZS)

S v Chogugudza 1996 (3) BCLR 427 (ZS)

S v Coetzee and Others 1997 (1) SACR 379 (CC) B

S v Hlati 2000 (2) SACR 325 (N) at 332b

S v Khanyile and Another 1988 (3) SA 795 (N)

S v Kubeka 1982 (1) SA 534 (W)

S v Lubbe 1981 (2) SA 854 (C)

S v Manyane and Others 2001 (1) SACR 115 (T) at 132f C

S v Masithela 1986 (3) SA 402 (O)

S v Mavuso 1987 (3) SA 499 (A)

S v Mkhise 1998 (2) SA 668 (A)

S v Msenti 1998 (1) SACR 401 (W)

S v Mthetwa 1972 (3) SA 766 (A)

S v Mushimba en Andere 1977 (2) SA 829 (A) D

S v Nkomo 1990 (1) SACR 682 (ZS)

S v Nombewa 1996 (2) SACR 396 (E)

S v Radebe 1973 (1) SA 796 (A) at 812H

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

S v Rall 1982 (1) SA 828 (A) E

S v Rudman; S v Johnson; S v Xaso; Xaso v Van Wyk NO and Another 1989 (3) SA 388 (E)

S v Sass and Others 1986 (2) SA 146 (NC) at 150D - J

S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A)

S v Shikunga 1997 (2) SACR 470 (NmS)

S v Tuge 1966 (4) SA 565 (A) at 658C - D F

S v Tyebela 1989 (2) SA 22 (A)

Scagell and Others v Attorney-General of the Western Cape and Others 1996 (2) SA 368 (CC).

Criminal...