W F BEZUIDENHOUT ................................ APPELLANT and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ................................ RESPONDENT Coram: FARLAM, CLOETE and HEHER JJA Heard: 8 NOVEMBER 2007 Delivered: 29 NOVEMBER 2007 Summary: Criminal procedure – appeal – special entry – application for – duty of judge; Criminal procedure – appeal – further evidence – application to admit – duty of judge; Criminal procedure – trial – application for postponement after conviction to consult expert in relation to sentence – refusal – approach of court. Neutral citation: This judgment may be referred to as Bezuidenhout v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] SCA 161 (RSA). _____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT __________________________________________________________________ HEHER JA
(e) you have the to be released from detention if the interests of justice permit, subject to reasonable conditions. (4) You can exercise all the abovementioned rights at any during your detention.’ Exhibit E was in the form of a page from a book. The original was removed from the book and given to the appellant. A copy was retained. [41] The appellant asked Nortje for permission to make two telephone calls, one to his employer, the other to his parents. He made them in Nortje’s presence. He asked his employer to arrange legal representation for him. It was not suggested in cross-examination that the appellant was dictated to by Nortje in this regard or that his freedom of action was in any degree affected or influenced by Nortje. [42] The appellant was detained in a cell at the police station overnight. The following morning Nortje at about 07h30 took a warning statement in Afrikaans (Exhibit F), which he and the appellant signed on each page. The appellant also initialled various deletions made by Nortje. Paragraphs 3,4 and 5 are material: ‘ 3 Ek het die verdagte as volg ingelig: Die doel van hierdie onderhoud is om u die geleentheid te gee om ‘n verklaring te maak rakende die beweringe teen u en om sekere vrae aan u te stel rakende die beweringe dat u betrokke was by die pleging van die misdryf(we). U het die reg om deurentyd tydens hierdie onderhoud te swyg en is nie verplig om enige verklaring te maak of enige vrae te beantwoord nie. Enige verklaring wat u maak en enigiets wat u sê, sal neergeskryf word en kan as getuienis in ‘n hof gebruik word. Indien u verkies om ‘n verklaring te maak of om die vrae te beantwoord, sal sodanige verklarings of antwoorde aan die Prokureur-generaal of die staatsaanklaer voorgelê
1Sefatsa and Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal and Another (A) at 843F-844B; S v Heslop (SCA) at 46G. 2R v Matsego and Others (A) at 415A-D; S v Naidoo (A) at 629H; Kroon v S 1997 [2] All SA 330 (SCA) at 333b-e. 3R v Knight at 345; R v Velshi (A) at 561D 4S v Majola (A) at 131H-132A, 133 in fine. 5See R v Matshego supra at 415D 6Section 3(2)(a) of the .
7See R v Mogale (A) at 161D-E. Although Kriegler and Kruger, Hiemstra, Suid-Afrikaanse Strafproses 6 ed 895 describe such a report as ‘superfluous’ – because judgments and rulings usually contain motivated reasons for decisions reached – an instance such as the present, in the reasons delivered ex tempore fall well short of providing an adequate explanation for the decision, provides a continuing raison d’etre for compliance with the dictates of the section. It may, of course, depending on what has preceded the report, be necessary to do no more than affirm the court’s already expressed reasons. 8Section 317 (5) 9Cf S v Tsawane and Another (A) at 273H-I. 10S v De Jager (A) at 613C-D; S v Wilmot (SCA) at para 31. 11Section 144(3)(a) of the Act. 12Shabalala and Others v Attorney-General of Transvaal ; (CC). [] []