Highlighting the higher courts’ obligation to protect vulnerable groups when magistrates fail to conduct the competency test properly

Nondumiso Phenyane
{"title":"Highlighting the higher courts’ obligation to protect vulnerable groups when magistrates fail to conduct the competency test properly","authors":"Nondumiso Phenyane","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article uses a series of judgments to highlight that the review or appeal courts’ strict and formalistic application of the competency test and s 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 has been as detrimental to the rights and interests of vulnerable complainants as the contested rules themselves. The article examines matters where review or appeal courts set aside rape convictions because magistrates failed to conduct the competency test properly. It argues that, while the courts could not avoid setting aside the wrongful convictions, this should not have led to a compromise of vulnerable complainants’ right to protection. In addition to setting the convictions aside, the higher courts should have adopted an approach that helped to mitigate the risks faced by the complainants. Therefore, the article suggests that higher courts which are called upon to decide such matters should use the following approach in the future. First, they should use the results of the competency test as an item of evidence and should evaluate the reliability of the complainants’ evidence only at the end of the trial. Where a matter goes on review or appeal because a magistrate failed to conduct the competency test entirely or adequately, the higher courts should evaluate the complainant’s testimony before deciding whether to exclude it. In instances where there is a possibility that the complainant’s testimony is reliable, the higher courts should remit the matter to the magistrate to address the procedural error. However, in instances where the complainant’s evidence is unreliable, and remittal is not possible, the courts should set the conviction aside and assign a social worker to oversee the complainant’s protection after the release of the accused. Setswana: Athikele eno e dirisa metseletsele ya dikatlholo go bontsha gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di dirisa teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e gagametseng le s 164(1) ya Molao wa Tsamaiso ya Bosenyi wa bo51 wa 1977 o nnile kotsi go ditshwanelo le dikgatlhego tsa bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang fela jaaka melawana e e ganetsanang ka boyona. Athikele eno e tlhatlhoba dintlha tseo mo go tsona dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di beelang kwa thoko dikatlholo tsa petelelo ka ntlha ya gore magiseterata o reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e nepagetseng. E bolela gore, le fa dikgotlatshekelo di ka se kgone go tila go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo tse di fosagetseng, seno se ne se sa tshwanela go lebisa go tshwaelo ya tshwanelo ya tshireletso ya bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang. Mo godimo ga go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di ne di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o thusitseng go fokotsa dikotsi tse bangongoregi ba neng ba lebane natso. Ka jalo, athikele eno e tshwaela gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo tseo di tshwanetseng go atlhola merero e e jalo di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o latelang mo isagweng. Sa ntlha, di tshwanetse go dirisa dipholo tsa teko ya bokgoni jaaka bopaki e bile di tshwanetse go sekaseka boikanyego jwa bopaki jwa bangongoregi fela kwa bokhutlong jwa tsheko. Fao morero o sekasekiwang gape kgotsa o ikuelwa ka gonne magiseterata a reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka botlalo kgotsa ka tsela e e tshwanetseng, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di tshwanetse go sekaseka bopaki jwa mongongoregi pele di swetsa gore di tla bo gana. Mo makgetlong a go nang le kgonagalo ya gore bopaki jwa mongongoregi bo a ikanyega, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di tshwanetse go busetsa morero go magiseterata go bo rarabolola. Le fa go le jalo, mo makgetlong a mo go ona bopaki jwa mongongoregi bo sa ikanyegeng, mme go ka se kgonege gore a busediwe kgolegelong, dikgotlatshekelo di tshwanetse go beela thoko katlholo le go neela modirediloago tiro ya go okamela tshireletso ya mongongoregi morago ga go gololwa ga molatofadiwa.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article uses a series of judgments to highlight that the review or appeal courts’ strict and formalistic application of the competency test and s 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 has been as detrimental to the rights and interests of vulnerable complainants as the contested rules themselves. The article examines matters where review or appeal courts set aside rape convictions because magistrates failed to conduct the competency test properly. It argues that, while the courts could not avoid setting aside the wrongful convictions, this should not have led to a compromise of vulnerable complainants’ right to protection. In addition to setting the convictions aside, the higher courts should have adopted an approach that helped to mitigate the risks faced by the complainants. Therefore, the article suggests that higher courts which are called upon to decide such matters should use the following approach in the future. First, they should use the results of the competency test as an item of evidence and should evaluate the reliability of the complainants’ evidence only at the end of the trial. Where a matter goes on review or appeal because a magistrate failed to conduct the competency test entirely or adequately, the higher courts should evaluate the complainant’s testimony before deciding whether to exclude it. In instances where there is a possibility that the complainant’s testimony is reliable, the higher courts should remit the matter to the magistrate to address the procedural error. However, in instances where the complainant’s evidence is unreliable, and remittal is not possible, the courts should set the conviction aside and assign a social worker to oversee the complainant’s protection after the release of the accused. Setswana: Athikele eno e dirisa metseletsele ya dikatlholo go bontsha gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di dirisa teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e gagametseng le s 164(1) ya Molao wa Tsamaiso ya Bosenyi wa bo51 wa 1977 o nnile kotsi go ditshwanelo le dikgatlhego tsa bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang fela jaaka melawana e e ganetsanang ka boyona. Athikele eno e tlhatlhoba dintlha tseo mo go tsona dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di beelang kwa thoko dikatlholo tsa petelelo ka ntlha ya gore magiseterata o reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e nepagetseng. E bolela gore, le fa dikgotlatshekelo di ka se kgone go tila go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo tse di fosagetseng, seno se ne se sa tshwanela go lebisa go tshwaelo ya tshwanelo ya tshireletso ya bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang. Mo godimo ga go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di ne di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o thusitseng go fokotsa dikotsi tse bangongoregi ba neng ba lebane natso. Ka jalo, athikele eno e tshwaela gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo tseo di tshwanetseng go atlhola merero e e jalo di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o latelang mo isagweng. Sa ntlha, di tshwanetse go dirisa dipholo tsa teko ya bokgoni jaaka bopaki e bile di tshwanetse go sekaseka boikanyego jwa bopaki jwa bangongoregi fela kwa bokhutlong jwa tsheko. Fao morero o sekasekiwang gape kgotsa o ikuelwa ka gonne magiseterata a reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka botlalo kgotsa ka tsela e e tshwanetseng, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di tshwanetse go sekaseka bopaki jwa mongongoregi pele di swetsa gore di tla bo gana. Mo makgetlong a go nang le kgonagalo ya gore bopaki jwa mongongoregi bo a ikanyega, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di tshwanetse go busetsa morero go magiseterata go bo rarabolola. Le fa go le jalo, mo makgetlong a mo go ona bopaki jwa mongongoregi bo sa ikanyegeng, mme go ka se kgonege gore a busediwe kgolegelong, dikgotlatshekelo di tshwanetse go beela thoko katlholo le go neela modirediloago tiro ya go okamela tshireletso ya mongongoregi morago ga go gololwa ga molatofadiwa.
强调当地方法官未能正确进行能力测试时,高等法院有义务保护弱势群体
本文使用一系列判决来强调,审查或上诉法院对能力测试和1977年《刑事诉讼法》第51条第164(1)条的严格和形式主义的适用,与有争议的规则本身一样,损害了弱势申诉人的权利和利益。这篇文章探讨了复查或上诉法院因地方法官未能正确进行能力测试而撤销强奸定罪的情况。它认为,虽然法院无法避免撤销错误的定罪,但这不应导致损害易受伤害的申诉人的受保护权。除了撤销定罪外,高等法院本应采取一种有助于减轻申诉人面临的风险的办法。因此,这篇文章建议,将来被要求决定这类事项的高级法院应采用下列方法。首先,他们应将能力测试的结果作为一项证据,并应仅在审判结束时评估投诉人证据的可靠性。如果由于地方法官未能完全或充分地进行能力测试而对某一事项进行审查或上诉,高级法院应在决定是否排除申诉人的证词之前对其进行评估。在申诉人的证词有可能是可靠的情况下,高等法院应将此事转交治安法官处理程序错误。但是,如果申诉人的证据不可靠,且不可能予以减刑,法院应撤销定罪,并指派一名社会工作者在被告获释后监督对申诉人的保护。语:Athikele eno e dirisa metseletsele丫dikatlholo去bontsha戈尔dikgotlatshekelo谢霆锋di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di dirisa teko丫bokgoni ka tsela e e gagametseng le s 164(1)丫Molao wa Tsamaiso丫Bosenyi wa bo51 wa 1977 o nnile kotsi去ditshwanelo le dikgatlhego tsa bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang fela jaaka melawana e e ganetsanang ka boyona。我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是。他说:“我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是。”我的意思是,我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思。卡哈洛,这是一个很好的例子,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛,他的名字叫卡哈洛。我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是。我们有更多的例子来说明这个问题,比如,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子,我们有一个很好的例子。我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是说,我的意思是我的意思。我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思是,我的意思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信