Respondent

Comments

1

Magistrate: Pretoria North

No comment.

2

Magistrate: Randburg

Supports the Bill.

3

Magistrate: Durban

Fully supports the Bill. There has also been a steady increase in the number of applications for free copies of transcriptions on behalf of indigent prospective appellants. Current legislation and the role of the Legal Aid Board have expanded the base of the recourse by appeal procedures and it seems exorbitant to have two systems in place at the same time in the current economic situation.

4

Magistrate: Pretoria

Agree with the proposed amendments. It should be considered to qualify the method of bringing a matter "to the notice of a judge" as contemplated in the new section 304(1)(a).

5

Magistrate: Port Elizabeth

Supports the Bill

6

Judge President: Pietermaritzburg

Supports the Bill.

7

Magistrate: Kempton Park

Supports the Bill.

8

Judge President: Grahamstown

Does not support the Bill. The automatic review procedure is a very important function which ensures that justice is being done and is of particular benefit to newly appointed magistrates.

9

Director of Public Prosecutions: Free State

No comments.

10

Regional Court President: Cape Town

Supports the Bill – the abolition of the review system is long overdue.

11

Magistrate: Pietermaritzburg

It may be desirable to retain the automatic review system in respect of aspirant magistrates serving their period of probation.

12

Magistrate: Johannesburg

Supports the Bill.

13

Regional Court President: Pretoria

Supports the Bill.

14

Acting Judge President: Kimberley

Supports the Bill.

15

Judge President: Umtata

Does not support the Bill, for the following reasons:
(a) Training of magistrates is a very important facet of the automatic review process.
(b) Directors of Public Prosecutions normally keep an index set of review judgements, which assists greatly to achieve uniformity in all magistrates’ courts, especially on sentencing.
(c) Reviews allow judges to remain in contact with what is going on in the area.
The Judge President further proposes the following:
(a) Costs of reviews could be limited by only requiring the judgement to be typed.
(b) Only sentences above six months’ imprisonment, imposed by magistrates with less than five years’ experience, should be subjected to automatic review.

16

Chief Justice (Committee of Judges of Appeal)

Does not support the Bill, for the following reasons:
(a) even if a "very small percentage of findings" are altered on review, the number of convictions being set aside or sentences being reduced is significant. It might be said of appeals that only a small number succeed, but that can not possibly detract from the need for an appellate system. Automatic reviews is a corrective mechanism. It is a form of State-sponsored legal aid and should be kept in place.
(b) Judges do not consider reviews during court hours, but at night or over weekends.
(c) The prosecuting authority does not spend a significant amount of time preparing and arguing review cases -–such cases are rarely argued.
It is proposed that, in order to save transcription costs, the transcription should be limited to the magistrate’s questioning at the plea stage, the explanation of the accused’s rights, evidence given in response to questions by the court and the judgement and sentence.

17

Director of Public Prosecutions: Cape Town

1. If the automatic review system is abolished, the Act should oblige a magistrate to inform an undefended accused that, if he or she feels that an injustice relating to the proceedings has been committed during the course of the trial, he or she must lodge his or her objections with the clerk of the magistrates court, who must forward it to the High Court.
2. It is proposed that the Act should further be amended so as to make provision that the prosecution could instantly refer a matter for review to a High Court if it is of the opinion that a magistrate has made a clearly incorrect ruling or judgement on the law or on facts.

18

Judge President: Bloemfontein

1. Does not support the Bill, for the following reasons:
(a) An injustice will be done to those accused whose convictions or sentences would otherwise have been interfered with on review.
(b) Reviews are considered outside court hours.
(c) Budgeting matters do not fall within the province of judicial consideration and provision for these costs should be made in the interest of justice.
2. It is proposed that, should automatic reviews be abolished, the following alternatives should be considered:
(a) An accused should have the right to request to have his or her case reviewed, and should be informed of this right at the end of the trial.
(b) Automatic reviews could be limited to cases where the magistrate has less than five years’ experience.

19

Law Society of South Africa (CPA1)

Does not support the Bill. It may be considered to raise the limitations dealing with matters that have to go on automatic review and as provided for in section 302 of the principal Act.

20

20. Judge President: Cape Town (Oral representation to Portfolio Committee)

Does not support the Bill. During 1997, 250 convictions were set aside on review, and the number for 1998 is 200. The system should be retained on a limited basis by increasing the ambit of non-reviewable sentences, e.g. by decreasing the seniority requirement from 7 to 5 years. It may also be considered to submit only cases where the convicted person, in response to a (prescribed) explanation by the magistrate of the right to have the matter reviewed, chooses to exercise such right.