The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:

1. The amendments proposed to section 10 of the Administration Amendment Act, 1929 (Act No. 9 of 1929), have alerted the Committee to the need to rationalise the Divorce Courts established in terms of that Act, by ensuring that they are integrated into the existing lower court structures as soon as possible. The Committee consequently requests the Department to speed up the rationalisation of the lower courts, one aspect of which will be to incorporate these Divorce Courts into the magistrates' courts system. The Department is to report back to the Committee on progress in this regard within four months after the adoption of this report.

2. Clause 3 of the Bill, as introduced, amends section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), by obliging presiding officers to take a pre-trial services report into account during bail proceedings if such a report is available. The purpose of a pre-trial services report is to assist the court in making a decision regarding the release of a person on bail. This amendment emanates from a request of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development after its oversight visits to the courts and which included a visit to some courts which have pre-trial services available. The Committee, while agreeing to the principle contained in the amendment, expressed the view that these pre-trial services and reports can be of immense value to the courts, especially in bail proceedings. If used to their full potential, they can contribute to the elimination of delays in the courts and can also facilitate the release of many awaiting-trial prisoners who are granted bail but who are not released because they cannot afford to pay the amount of money set as a bail condition. This could go some way in addressing the problem of prison overcrowding. The Committee consequently requests the Department–

(a) to undertake a feasibility study of rolling out the existing four pilot projects sites relating to pre-trial services with the view to eventually having comprehensive pre-trial services available at all courts in the country, where such services are justified; and

(b) possibly, in conjunction with the South African Law Reform Commission, to –

(i) investigate what statutory authority will be necessary to implement these services on a nation-wide basis; and

(ii) submit appropriate legislation to Parliament.

The Department must report back to the Committee regarding the progress made as soon as possible, but not later than at the beginning of the 2004 session of Parliament.

3. At present section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), in the case of serious offences, requires a panel of psychiatrists to be appointed for purposes of inquiring into the capacity of an accused person to understand criminal proceedings pending against him or her or into the criminal capacity of an accused person, where mental incapacity is an issue. This panel must consist of at least three psychiatrists, one from a psychiatric hospital designated by the court, one appointed by the court who is not in the full time service of the State and one appointed by the court for the accused. This section also requires the Department of Health to compile and keep a list of psychiatrists who are prepared to conduct the inquiries in question, which list must be made available to the registrars of all High Courts and clerks of all magistrates' courts. During its deliberations on the Bill, as introduced into Parliament, the Committee was requested to consider the insertion of a clause in the Bill which is intended to address very real practical problems being experienced with the application of this section. The Committee was informed that there are very few psychiatrists who are willing to make themselves available for purposes of the section, notwithstanding a recent increase in the tariffs paid to them for their services. The list kept by the Department of Health also seems to be a source of concern, the information contained therein, sometimes being outdated. The amendment tabled before the Committee for consideration was intended to introduce a measure of flexibility in respect of the panel, giving the court a discretion to deviate from having three psychiatrists in all serious cases. The Committee, while understanding the urgency of the matter, is of the opinion that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, in conjunction with the relevant role-players, should be requested to table a report before the Committee at the earliest opportunity but not later than three months from the date of adoption of this report, in which the following is included:

(i) information on how often the list referred to in section 79(9) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, is updated;

(ii) information on the difficulties experienced by the Department of Health in keeping the list;

(iii) the manner in which the difficulties could possibly be addressed;

(iv) the nature of the difficulties experienced by the National Prosecuting Authority in applying the said section 79 in practice;

(v) information on section 79 prior to its amendment in 1998 and why the amendments were brought about in that year; and

(vi) appropriate amending legislation, if necessary, which has been the subject of proper consultation.

The Committee is of the view that if amendments do in fact prove to be necessary after the above issues have been attended to, such amendments should be promoted as soon as possible, possibly at the beginning of 2004.

Report to be considered.