Criminal Trial and advocacy, Theme 1 Flashcards
📜 Which section of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) confirms the right to legal representation?
🔍 Section 73 of the CPA confirms this fundamental right, aligning with Section 35(3)(f) of the Constitution.
⚖️ Who has the right to legal representation under the Constitution?
🏛️ Detained persons, accused persons, and sentenced prisoners all have the right to legal representation, including State-appointed lawyers if substantial injustice would result.
🔔 When must a person be informed of their right to legal representation?
📢 They must be informed on the first occasion after detention, as per Section 35(2)(c) and 35(3)(g) of the Constitution.
👶 Why is legal representation particularly important for youth offenders?
🛡️ Because it aligns with the “best interests of the child” principle under Section 28 of the Constitution.
🚨 What are the consequences of denying an accused the opportunity to obtain legal representation?
⚠️ The conviction and sentence may be quashed, depending on whether the court exercised its discretion properly (📖 Zackey 1945 AD 505; Yelani 1986 (3) SA 802 (E)).
⚖️ What did the court rule in S v Solomons 2004 (1) SACR 137 (C) regarding legal representation?
⚠️ It is dangerous to assume that an accused does not want legal representation; courts must ensure the accused makes an informed decision.
🔄 Can an accused person delay the trial indefinitely to obtain legal representation?
⏳ No, while courts should be tolerant, this right cannot be abused. Unreasonable delays will not be allowed if they prejudice the State (S v Mathikinca 2016 (1) SACR 240 (WCC)).
🔗 When does an accused person become entitled to the assistance of a legal adviser?
📅 An accused person is entitled to the assistance of a legal adviser from the time of their arrest, whether with or without a warrant, subject to prison management laws.
⚖️ Under what conditions is an accused entitled to legal representation during criminal proceedings?
👨⚖️ An accused has the right to be represented by a legal adviser unless a specific law prohibits that legal adviser from appearing at the proceedings.
📢 At what specific stages must an accused be informed of their right to legal representation?
📝 An accused must be informed of this right at the following stages:
(a) At the time of arrest 🚔
(b) When served with a summons (Section 54) 📜
(c) When receiving a written notice (Section 56) ✉️
(d) When an indictment is served (Section 144(4)(a)) ⚖️
(e) At their first court appearance 👨⚖️
They must also be informed that they may apply for legal aid if they cannot afford a lawyer.
⏳ Does the accused have a right to time to obtain legal assistance?
✅ Yes! Every accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal assistance.
⚠️ What happens if an accused refuses or fails to appoint a legal adviser within a reasonable time?
⏳ If the delay is due to their own fault, the court may:
1️⃣ Order the trial to proceed without legal representation, unless it would cause substantial injustice.
2️⃣ Assign a State-funded legal adviser under the Legal Aid South Africa Act, 2014.
3️⃣ Order that the costs of legal representation be recovered from the accused.
4️⃣ Allow the accused to conduct their own defense if they prefer.
👶 How does the law protect accused persons under 18 during criminal proceedings?
🧒 Under the Child Justice Act, 2008, an accused under 18 may receive assistance from:
✅ A parent,
✅ An appropriate adult, or
✅ A guardian.
The court may also allow any other person to assist an accused if it deems it necessary.
Section 35(3)(f) of the CONSTITUTION
Every accused has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to choose, and to be represented, by a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly
Section 35(3)(g) of the CONSTITUTION
Every accused has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at the state expense, if substantial injustice would result, and to be informed of this right promptly
Mahlongwana v Kwatinidubu Town Committee 1991
In the case of Mahlongwana v Kwatinidubu Town Committee 1991 (1) SACR 669 (E), the court addressed the issue of unlawful detention by municipal authorities. The plaintiff was arrested and, due to a lack of available police cells, was detained overnight in a municipal police van. The court held that such detention was unlawful, emphasizing that municipal officials do not possess the authority to detain individuals merely because the South African Police Service cannot or will not exercise its powers of detention. This case underscores the principle that only designated law enforcement agencies have the legal authority to detain individuals, and any deviation from this protocol can lead to a violation of personal liberties.
Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto and Another 2010
- Facts (F) 📝
The case involved the arrest and detention of the respondent, Sekhoto, by police officers without a warrant. He was arrested under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which allows an officer to arrest someone without a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a Schedule 1 offense. Sekhoto challenged the lawfulness of his arrest, arguing that the police did not properly exercise their discretion. - Legal Question (L) ⚖️
Was Sekhoto’s arrest and detention lawful, or did the police act unreasonably and arbitrarily in exercising their discretion under section 40(1)(b) of the CPA? - Applicable Law (A) 📜
Section 40(1)(b) of the CPA: Police officers may arrest a person without a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person committed a Schedule 1 offense.
The Constitution of South Africa: Protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of liberty (Section 12).
Case Law: The court considered previous rulings on the discretionary powers of police officers when making arrests. - Application (A) 🏛️
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled that:
Reasonable suspicion is enough for a lawful arrest under section 40(1)(b). Police do not need additional justification beyond this.
However, the officer must still exercise discretion on whether arrest is necessary or whether less restrictive means (such as a summons) could be used.
The mere fact that an arrest is lawful does not mean it is always justified—police officers must use their discretion fairly and in line with constitutional principles.
- Conclusion (C) ✅
The SCA held that Sekhoto’s arrest was lawful, as the police had a reasonable suspicion that he committed a Schedule 1 offense. However, the court emphasized that arrest should not be automatic—police must always consider whether detention is truly necessary.
Key Takeaway 🚔
While police have the power to arrest without a warrant, they must still exercise discretion in deciding whether arrest is the best course of action. Courts will scrutinize whether an arrest was necessary in each case.
When should arrests normally take place?
✅ Arrests should normally take place in terms of a warrant. However, in exceptional cases, an arrest may be made without a warrant under circumstances mentioned in sections 40 and 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act. ⚖️🚔
Does the Constitution prohibit police officers from arresting suspects?
✅ No, the Constitution does not prevent police officers from arresting suspects. However, police should consider less invasive options to bring a suspect to court when possible. 📜⚖️
Which case emphasized the need for discretion in arrests?
✅ The case of Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto & Another 2011 (1) SACR 315 (SCA) emphasized that while arrests can be made, police should use discretion and consider whether a less restrictive method (such as a summons) could be used instead. 🚔⚖️
Under which Act can arrests also take place apart from the Criminal Procedure Act?
✅ Arrests can also take place under the Immigration Act 13 of 2002, which allows for the detention and deportation of illegal foreigners. 🌍🚨
❓ What did the Constitutional Court decide in Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs & Others (2017)?
✅ The Constitutional Court ruled that sections 34(1)(b) and (d) of the Immigration Act were unconstitutional. Now, a detainee must be brought before a court within 48 hours, and detention must be procedurally and substantively fair. ⚖️👨⚖️
❓ Can a private person obtain a warrant for arrest?
✅ No, warrants for arrest are not issued to private persons. Therefore, all private arrests are without a warrant. 🚫📜
❓ What is the difference between an arrest in flagrante delicto and an arrest based on reasonable suspicion?
In flagrante delicto (caught in the act) 🏃♂️💨: The powers of peace officers are wider, allowing for immediate arrest.
Reasonable suspicion 🤔: Requires the officer to have a valid basis for believing an offense was committed before making an arrest.