S v Radebe; S v Mbonani
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Citation | 1988 (1) SA 191 (T) |
S v Radebe;
S v Mbonani
1988 (1) SA 191 (T)
1988 (1) SA p191
Citation |
1988 (1) SA 191 (T) |
Court |
Transvaal Provincial Division |
Judge |
Goldstone J and Van Der Merwe J |
Heard |
May 15, 1987 |
Judgment |
May 18, 1987 |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde F
Criminal procedure — Trial — Irregularity — What constitutes — Duty of judicial officer to inform unrepresented accused of legal rights — Such includes right to legal representation, especially on G serious charge — Accused should be informed that he is entitled to apply to Legal Aid Board for assistance — Failure to do so may result in unfair trial in which there may be complete failure of justice — Absence of legal representation per se not necesessarily resulting in irregularity or unfair trial — Each case depends on its H own circumstances and facts.
Headnote : Kopnota
If there is a duty upon judicial officers to inform unrepresented accused of their legal rights, then there is no reason why the right to legal representation should not be one of them. Especially where the charge is a serious one which may merit a sentence which could be materially prejudicial to the accused, such an accused should be I informed of the seriousness of the charge and of the possible consequences of a conviction. Again, depending upon the complexity of the charge, or of the legal rules relating thereto and the seriousness thereof, an accused should not only be told of this right but he should be encouraged to exercise it. He should be given a reasonable time within which to do so. He should also be informed in appropriate cases that he is entitled to apply to the Legal Aid Board for assistance. A failure on the part of a judicial officer to do this, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case, may well be a complete failure J of justice. The
1988 (1) SA p192
A absence of legal representation per se or the absence of the suggested advice to an accused person per se will not necessarily result in such an irregularity or an unfair trial and the failure of justice. Each case will depend upon its own facts and peculiar circumstances.
First appellant had been convicted on a charge of motor car theft and had been sentenced to four years' imprisonment. Second appellant had been convicted on a charge of public violence and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The accused were first offenders and had been B unrepresented at their trials. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were set aside in each case as the lack of legal representation amounted to a misdirection.
Case Information
Appeals from convictions in a regional magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.
C C R de Wet for the appellant in Radebe's case.
C P van Vuuren for the appellant in Mbonani's case.
E Leonard for the State in Radebe's case.
M Venter for the State in Mbonani's case.
Cur adv vult.
D Postea (May 18).
Judgment
Goldstone J:
In both of these appeals, one of the main grounds raised on behalf of the appellants relates to the circumstances in which they found themselves without legal representation. In the case of Simon Mbonani, in addition to the issue being raised on appeal, it also forms E the subject-matter of a review. The principles relevant to the decision of both cases are similar and for that reason it was decided to hear them together.
Before considering the facts of the two cases I propose to consider the matter on principle. In S v Wessels and Another 1966 (4) SA 89 (C) at 91D - 92H Van Zyl J discussed the history in our law of the right to F legal representation. The learned Judge drew attention to the fact that it was only in 1819 that a person brought before a court on a criminal charge was entitled, as of right, to be defended by an attorney or advocate. After referring to the old authorities, Van Zyl J continued:
'From these authorities it appears that only after the accused had G been apprehended and brought before the Court and issue had been joined - that is, he had pleaded - could he request the Court to allow him to be represented by an advocate or an attorney. The wording of most of these passages, however, leaves one under the impression that generally speaking the Courts acceded to the accused's request to be represented. It is interesting to note that in discussing this aspect, Vroman (supra ) H quotes Baldus as saying that even the Devil has the right to be heard.'
This evolutionary process of broadening and extending the right to legal representation has continued and is still operating. In S v Heyman 1966 (4) SA 598 (A) Steyn CJ was concerned with the right to legal representation of a person summoned to be subjected to inquiry under the I Criminal Procedure Act (then s 212 of Act 56 of 1955). At 603H the learned Chief Justice, after referring to earlier decisions in our Courts, continued:
'I refer to these cases merely as indicating a trend, in my view a very natural and equitable trend, in the later reported cases, towards allowing legal assistance where the liberty of a person questioned is placed in jeopardy by a possible periodical committal to prison. They J suggested a growing practice of recognising the claim to be represented.'
1988 (1) SA p193
Goldstone J
A The right to full legal representation was given statutory recognition by s 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act 31 of 1917. Our present Act 51 of 1977 deals with this right in s 73(2) where it is provided that:
'An accused shall be entitled to be represented by his legal adviser at criminal proceedings, if such legal adviser is not in terms of any B law prohibited from appearing at the proceedings in question.'
The fundamental importance of this right is now beyond question. Indeed, over 20 years ago, in S v Seheri en Andere 1964 (1) SA 29 (A) Botha JA at 33H said:
'Oor die belangrikheid van die voordeel van regsbystand by die verhoor C van persone wat, veral weens 'n ernstige misdaad, aangekla word, kan daar geen twyfel bestaan nie.'
In that case, a Circuit Court refused an application for a postponement to enable the appellants to obtain counsel. Through their attorney's neglect counsel had not appeared. Botha JA held that the refusal of the postponement amounted to an irregularity. The question then arose as to D whether, on that ground, the appeal had to succeed. The question thereby posed was:
'Of die appellante deur die onreelmatigheid benadeel was sodat geregtigheid inderdaad nie geskied het nie.'
The learned Judge of Appeal then dealt with that question in the E following terms, at 36B - E:
'Om hierdie vraag te beantwoord kan na die getuienis wat teen die appellante aangevoer was, nie gekyk word nie, want, soos in R v Joannou 1957 (4) SA 385 (FC) op 387, aangetoon word, is daardie getuienis nie die getuienis wat waarskynlik aangevoer sou gewees het indien die F onreëlmatigheid nie plaasgevind het nie. By oorweging van die vraag is hierdie Hof dus beperk tot die aard van die verloop van die verhoor as gevolg van die onreëlmatigheid.
Ek het reeds gemeld dat nie een van die appellante die Staatsgetuies ondervra het nie, en dat nie een van hulle getuienis afgelê of getuies geroep het nie. Daar is geen aanduiding dat hulle versuim in hierdie opsig aan iets anders toegeskryf kan word nie dan dat hulle, toe hulle G hulself onverwags sonder hulle regsverteenwoordiger bevind, aan wie hulle hul verdediging toevertou het, nie voorbereid was om hul eie verdediging te behartig nie. Onder hierdie omstandighede was hulle klaarblyklik ernstig benadeel en het geregtigheid inderdaad nie geskied nie. Die appèl moet gevolglik slaag.'
The judgment of Jansen JA in S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) is H similarly instructive. There the accused had requested the magistrate for a second postponement in order to obtain an attorney. The charge related to the dealing in a substantial quantity of dagga in contravention of s 2(a) of Act 41 of 1971. The postponement was refused after the prosecutor, in opposing the grant of the postponement, informed the court that one of the two State witnesses was about to I leave for army duty on the border and would be unavailable for some five months. The appellant was given an adjournment until 11h30 on that morning and, when he still had no legal representative, the trial resumed. He was convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. In his judgment, Jansen JA held that the magistrate had misdirected himself in holding that the appellant had belatedly approached an attorney or J had failed to instruct him properly.
1988 (1) SA p194
Goldstone J
A Those conclusions were held to have been inferences unjustified in the absence of further clarification. The learned Judge of Appeal continues as follows as 558D - G:
'The court, in exercising its discretion to proceed with the trial, had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...representation. This 'positive content of the right to legal representation' was formulated by Goldstone J in S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T) at 196F-I. S v Radebe; S v Mbonani has been followed by Full Benches in a number of Provincial Divisions, and has been approved by the Ap......
-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...representation. This 'positive content of the right to legal representation' was formulated by Goldstone J in S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T) at 196F-I. S v Radebe; S v Mbonani has been followed by Full Benches in a number of Provincial Divisions, and has been approved by the Ap......
-
S v Mabaso and Another
...JA. G van Wyk for the first appellant at the request of the Court referred B to the following authorities: S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T); S v Kanyile and Another 1988 (3) SA 795 (N) at 815D - H, 816A; S v Gwebu 1988 (4) SA 155 (W); S v Morrison 1988 (4) SA 164 (T); S v Masjiya......
-
S v Davids; S v Dladla
...(Nienaber J dissenting) also set aside the conviction in the Davids appeal, but on application of the rule in S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T), rather than the principle in the Khanyile case, as it appeared that the accused in the latter appeal had never been informed about the e......
-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...representation. This 'positive content of the right to legal representation' was formulated by Goldstone J in S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T) at 196F-I. S v Radebe; S v Mbonani has been followed by Full Benches in a number of Provincial Divisions, and has been approved by the Ap......
-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...representation. This 'positive content of the right to legal representation' was formulated by Goldstone J in S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T) at 196F-I. S v Radebe; S v Mbonani has been followed by Full Benches in a number of Provincial Divisions, and has been approved by the Ap......
-
S v Mabaso and Another
...JA. G van Wyk for the first appellant at the request of the Court referred B to the following authorities: S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T); S v Kanyile and Another 1988 (3) SA 795 (N) at 815D - H, 816A; S v Gwebu 1988 (4) SA 155 (W); S v Morrison 1988 (4) SA 164 (T); S v Masjiya......
-
S v Davids; S v Dladla
...(Nienaber J dissenting) also set aside the conviction in the Davids appeal, but on application of the rule in S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T), rather than the principle in the Khanyile case, as it appeared that the accused in the latter appeal had never been informed about the e......
-
Aspects of minimum sentence legislation: Judicial comment and the courts' jurisdiction
...penalty dispensation). 102 Cf S v Mbambo 1999 (2) SACR 421 (W) at 425 ff. Apart from the standard authority in this regard (S v Radebe 1988 (1) SA 191 (T) and S v Mabaso 1990 (3) SA 185 (A)), the court also mentioned that an offender, who ran the risk of being sentenced to death, was former......
-
The Right to Legal Representation and Equality before the Law in Criminal Proceedings in Botswana
...13 SACJ 368 378-379 However, an accused should not be compel led to do so (S v Mbambo 1999 2 SACR 421 (W))55 S v Radebe; S v Mbon ani 1988 1 SA 191 (T); S v Mabaso 1990 3 SA 185 (A); PM Bekker, T Geldenhuy s, JJ Joubert, J P Swanepoel, SS Terblanche & SE Van der Mer we Criminal Procedure Ha......
-
2005 index
...387S v R 1995 (2) SACR 590 (A) ................................................................... 396S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T) ......................................... 217; 225S v Raikane 2005 (1) SACR 464 (T) ......................................................... 401......
-
Case Review: Criminal Procedure
...‘should not only be told of this right but he should be encouraged to exercise it’ (S v Radebe; S v Mbonani(S v Radebe; S v Mbonani( 1988 (1) SA 191 (T)). This entails entering into S v Radebe; S v Mbonani 1988 (1) SA 191 (T)). This entails entering into S v Radebe; S v Mbonania dialogue an......