---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

CASE NO: A905/2015

DATE: 30/10/2017

Not reportable

Not of interest to other judges

In the matter between:

SIPHO JOHAN MABUZA                                                                               First Appellant

SIBUSISO WELCOME MKHWANAZI                                                       Second Appellant

THULANI DAVID MPUNGOSE                                                                      Third Appellant

THOKOZANI LION SHOYISA                                                                     Fourth Appellant

LINDELA VILAKAZI                                                                                       Fifth Appellant

and

THE STATE                                                                                                        Respondent

JUDGMENT

JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZENJ

[1] The appellants were convicted on one count of robbery in the Piet Retief Regional Court and sentenced by the presiding magistrate, Mr Hallatt, to five years imprisonment.

[2] The appellants applied for leave to appeal only against sentence, which leave was denied by the court a quo.

[3] On petition for leave to appeal against only sentence, Tolmay J and Nkosi AJ refused leave to appeal the sentence, but granted leave to appeal the conviction. From the judgment, it appears that leave was granted in terms of the provisions of section 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 ("the Act").

[4] Ms Augustyn, counsel for the appellants submitted that, although section 309C of the Act will only become applicable once an application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the court a quo in terms of section 309B, the court still has an inherent right to review the procedure of a lower court in terms of the provisions of section 22 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.

REVIEW

[5] The grounds of review contained in section 22 are:

"a. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of the court;

b. Interest in the cause, bias, malice or corruption on the part of the presiding judicial officer;

c. Gross irregularity in the proceedings;

d. The admission of inadmissible evidence or incompetent evidence or the rejection of admissible or competent evidence. "

[6] Ms Augustyn submitted that the court a quo displayed bias conduct during the trial which conduct caused the trial to be unfair to such an extent that the proceedings were irregular and should be set aside.

[7] Mr Maritz, counsel for the state, agreed with the legal position, but submitted that the court a quo should first be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations of bias. I am of the view that the record speaks for itself and anything that is added or explained at this stage will not alter the events that unfolded during the trial. At the end of the day, an objective analysis of the trial record should be undertaken to ascertain whether a perception of bias is displayed by the court a quo's conduct.

Court a quo's conduct

[8] Prior to examining the court a quo's conduct, it is incisive to have regard to the conduct that is expected of a presiding officer. In S v Leepile 2016 (1) SACR 513 NWM at paragraph [18), the court summarised the conduct that is expected of a presiding officer as follows:

"Although a presiding officer is sometimes obliged to ask witnesses questions, it is important to guard against conduct which could create the impression that he or she was descending into the arena of conflict or that he or she was partisan or had pre-decided issues which should only be decided at the end of the trial. Nor should a presiding officer put attacking propositions to an accused. Such conduct can create the impression that the presiding officer is acting as a cross-examiner, associating himself with the state's case against the accused. See S v Maseko 1990 (I) SACR 107A at 118 c-f and S v Mafa and Others [2008] ZAGPHC 38; 2008 (2) SACR 653 W ([2008] 2 All SA657) at para 37. The presiding officer should also guard against personal opinion and views. See S v Mabuza 1991 (I) SACR 636 (0)."

[9] A short summary of the charge and evidence in support thereof will suffice for present purposes. The five appellants were charged with housebreaking with the intention to rob and with robbery with aggravating circumstances. The incident occurred on 7 June 2014 and involved the alleged robbery of two pairs of takkies (sneakers).

[10] In their plea explanation, the appellants admitted that they went to the complainant's house to collect two pairs of takkies. The third appellant's girlfriend requested him to collect the takkies from the complainant's house and after soccer practice the other four appellants accompanied the third appellant to the complainant's house to collect the takkies. Upon their arrival, the third appellant asked the complainant for his girlfriend's two pairs of takkies, she handed the takkies over and they left. They were shortly thereafter arrested by the police.

[11] According to the complainant, the first, second, fourth and fifth appellants forced their way into her house at 20:00 on 7 June 2014. Once inside the house, the following transpired:

"... they said to me they are actually coming from Limpopo. They said they were their brothers who were there, and they are now arrested."

Who were they, where, at your place? - Yes, at my place, yes. Yes, so these people who were arrested, they said there are takkies that remained there in my house. Those who were arrested, before they are released these takkies, they must get these takkies so they are coming for these takkies. I told these people that the police took the other people together with the takkies. The police took them. "

[12] The four intruders were not satisfied and upon further prompting, the complainant told them that she did receive two pairs of takkies from the arrested people as a present. They took the two pairs of takkies, but insisted that she should show them where the other takkies were. Notwithstanding a thorough search of her house no further takkies could be found.

[13] When asked who the people were who gave her the takkies, she answered:

"They said they are selling stuff at Johannesburg. They asked to sleep at my home with their Luggage. The following day, before they left, the police came, and took them with their luggage. "

[14] During cross-examination it was put to the complainant that the third appellant is the boyfriend of the complainant's neighbour, Zinhle and that he merely requested the complainant to hand over the takkies, which she did. The complainant admitted that Zinhle is her neighbour and the girlfriend of the third appellant, but denied that he spoke to her on the evening in question.

[15] After re-examination of the witness, the court a quo posed the following scenario to the witness:

HOF: Dit klink vir die Hof asof die volgende dalk gebeur het, het hierdie persone dalk gekom omdat hulle geweet het hierdie persone wat gearresteer is het gesteelde goed, en dat hulle die gesteelde tekkies wou terugkry?-

Toe die polisie nou hierdie mense kom haal het, die gemeenskap, al die gemeenskap het daar gekyk wat gebeur. Hulle word vandag gevat dan die volgende dag het ek 'n rusie gehad saam met Zinhle in die oggend. In die oggend het ek 'n rusie gehad saam met Zinhle, so laat in die middag toe kom hierdie beskuldigdes.

……………………

HOF: ls Zinhle miskien Jamilie van daardie persone wat oorgeslaap het daar by u wat die tekkies gelos het vir u? ----Nee. "

[16] These remarks indicate that the presiding officer had, after listening to the evidence of the first state witness, not only pre-decided that the robbery had occurred but that he furthermore expressed his own personal view on the events that led to the robbery.

[17] This was not the only indication that the presiding officer associated himself with the state's case.

[18] The second state witness was the boyfriend of the complainant. He in essence confirmed her version and added the following:

"They said they wanted some takkies their brothers left there. They said their brothers are arrested, so they are coming to fetch these takkies so that their brothers may be released."

[19] The court a quo asked the second state witness who uttered the words supra and he replied that it was the first appellant.

[20] The state closed its case and the first appellant elected to testify. At the conclusion of the re-examination, the court a quo took the first appellant to task. The following appears from the record:

"HOF: Meneer, wat wel gebeur het is dat julle besef het, dit is wat die tweede getuie s , meer spesifiek u, hy s u broer is gearresteer waarskynklik vir besit van gesteelde goed, en hy het vir die klaagster van hierdie tekkies gegee, en die polisie soek hierdie tekkies, en julle het of dit gaan haal by haar om dit vir die polisie terug te gee of om dit te laat wegraak sodat die polisie nie by haar kan uitkom, en verdere getuienis teen hom ingewin kan word nie. --- Ek weet niks van enige broer wat gearresteer was, nee.

HOF: Ja, daar sal inligting wees daaroor, meneer. U moet maar vir die Hof die waarheid vertel want julle storie maak nie sin nie. Waaroor gaan vier groat mans in huis in om tekkies te gaan haal, beskuldigde 3 kon mos geklop het, en ges het kan ek die tekkies kry wat my suster, my meisie vir jou geleen het? -- Ja, beskuldigde 3 het die tekkies gevra daar, ja.

HOF: En u was buite? -- Ek was buite, ja

HOF: Nou hoe kon die klaagster, en die tweede getuie u identifiseer as u buite in die donkerte staan op plaas? - Nee, naby die huis waar ons gestaan het, daar was seuns wat op vuur gesit het.

HOF: Ja, meneer, dit is danker, dit is plaas, dit is buite, al is daar vuur. As u nooit in die huis ingegaan het nie, hoekom s sy u was in die huis? -- Ja, toe Thulani hierdie tekkies gevra het, ek sien mos die tweede getuie het uitgekom, en ek het hom gesien.

HOF: Verstaan ek u nou reg, was julle in die omgewing, en toe kry beskuldigde 3 oproep ofry julle al die pad hier van waar Julie bly of van Piet Retiefafom soontoe te gaan om die tekkies te gaan haal? Ons was op Ajax, ons wou Piet Retief toe kom

HOF: En hoekom kies die klaagster u uit om te s u het iets aan haar gedoen maar sy s nie vir die Hof beskuldigde 5 het iets gedoen nie, hoekom tree sy so snaaks op?- Ja, nee, dit verbaas my ook.

HOF: Sy ken nie een vanjulle nie, net vir beskuldigde 3. Ja, ek sien u kan dit ook nie... (tussenbei)-Nee, ek wonder ook

HOF: Ja, mens kan daaroor wonder, hoekom doen iemand so iets watjou nie ken nie. Is dit een van die ander beskuldigdes se broers wat gearresteer is met hierdie gesteelde goed? - Nee, ek weet nie. Ek ken die broers van hierdie beskuldigdes. Ek weet niks van die ander mans wat daar was. "

[21] In conducting himself in the aforesaid manner, the presiding officer violated every conceivable rule applicable to the conduct expected of a fair and unbiased presiding officer. The presiding officer:

1. descended into the arena of conflict;

2. was partisan;

3. posited attacking propositions to the first appellant; and

iv. acted as cross-examiner.

[22] His conduct did not improve. After re-examination of the second appellant was concluded, the presiding officer had the following exchange with him:

HOF: Weet u dalk wie die persone is wat toe daar by die klaagster gearresteer is deur die polisie? - Nee, ek weet net van ons, ek weet nie van die ander nie.

HOF: U het gehoor wat s die tweede getuie wat ges  is toe julle daar by die klaagster se huis kom oor die tekkies wat hulle soek sodat die polisie miskien hulle broer kan vrylaat? -- Nee, ek weet niks. Ek weet niks daarvan.

HOF:Het u gehoor dat hy dit getuig het? - Ek het net gehoor, ja.

HOF:Het iemand so ges daar op die toneel?-Nee, niemand.

HOF:So u was doof, en blind toe u daar op die toneel was want u het niks gesien nie, en u het ook niks gehoor nie? -- Ek het gesien, en gehoor maar hulle het nie so ges nie. "

[23] The third appellant was subjected to the same treatment. The record reads as follows:

HOF: U sal seker ook vir die Hofs u weet nie wie is die persone wat daar by die klaagster se huis gebly het of wie die polisie gearresteer het nie, oorgebly het nie? - Ek ken hulle nie.

HOF: Is dit dalk u meisie se broer?

TOLK: Ekskuus?

HOF:Dit is nie dalk u meisie se broer nie?

TOLK Ekskuus, Edelagbare, ek het ook nie gevolg nie.

HOF Hy s hy weet ook nie wie die mense is wat daar by die klaagster se huis oorgebly het, en vir haar die goed gegee het omdat sy hulle daar laat slaap het nie.-Ja, nee, ek ken hulle nie.

HOF Dit is nie familie van hom of broer van hom nie? - Nee, ek ken hulle nie eers.

HOF Dit is nie dalk u meisie se broer? Dit is nie dalk u meisie se broer wat daar oorgeslaap het by die klaagster nie?

TOLK Meisie se broer?

HOF Zinhle, sy meisie se broer. Is dit nou Zinhle, ja.

TOLK Nee, ek is bietjie... (tussenbei).

HOF Mnr. Die Tolk, wat gaan aan?

TOLK Ai, no, I am lost Your Worship.

HOF Nee, nee, nee, jy is nie verlore nie. Ek sal jou help. Die persone wat daar oorgeslaap het is dalk sy meisie se broer. Onthou die getuie het getuig een van die beskuldigdes het daar ges dit is hulle, hulle kom die tekkies haal sodat hulle, hulle broer wat nou in die selle is kan help om miskien die goed vir die polisie terug te gee sodat hulle vrygelaat kan word. Nou vra ek, hy s hy ken nou nie die mense nie, nou vra ek vir hom die volgende vraag, dit is nie dalk sy meisie se broer wat daar by die klaagster geslaap het nie. ---

Nee, nee, dit is nie hulle, ek het net jong broer.

HOF Nee, dit is nie hulle? -- Ek het net jong broer.

HOF Ek wil nie weet ofdit sy broer is nie, of dit dalk sy meisie se broer is wat gearresteer is deur die polisie. - Nee, Zinhle se broer is jonk. "

[24] The fourth and fifth appellants chose not to testify in their defence.

[25] Ms Augustyn, submitted that the fourth and fifth appellants might have chosen not to testify in view of the manner in which the first three appellants and the defence witness was ridiculed by the court a quo. Although such a conclusion will be mere speculation, it is definitely not farfetched.

CONCLUSION

[26] The conduct of the presiding officer in the court a quo, displays a clear bias in favour of the state's case. Section 35(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, grants the right to a fair trial to each and every accused person. The conduct of the presiding officer robbed the five appellants of this right.

[27] As a result the proceedings are reviewable in terms of section 22 of the Act.

ORDER

In the result, the following order is proposed:

1. The proceedings in the court a quo are reviewed and the conviction and sentence of the five appellants are set aside.

2. The registrar must forward a copy of the judgment to the Magisterial Services Commission and to the presiding officer, Mr Hallett.

_________________________

N JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

I agree and it is so ordered.

______________________

S MAKAMU AJ

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

APPEARANCES

Counsel for the Appellant:

Advocate Ms L. Augustyn

(012 401 9200)

Instructed by:

Legal Aid South Africa

Counsel for the Respondent:

Advocate G.J.C. Maritz

(012 351 6832/084 257 9436)

Instructed by:

Director of Public Prosecutions

---