cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,837
- Reaction score
- 30,089
State's argument
The Court in Seekoei, with reference to R v Gani and Others 1957 ... found that the Court of Appeal will have no option but to order a new trial if the Court of Appeal found that the Court a quo wrongly decided a point of law.
5.1. We respectfully argue that not only was the ratio based on an incorrect reading of Gani, but also an incorrect reading of the provisions of s322(4) of the Act.
5.2. We furthermore argue that s322(1)(b) and (c) of the Act specifically provided the Court of Appeal with a discretion. Section 322(4) adopts the word may and not must and is therefore discretionary
In Gani, the Court recognised that only if an order under the equivalent of s322(4) was given could a fresh trial be instituted. This, with respect, does not mean that the only option is a re-trial. An order under s322(4) is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
We re-iterate and respectfully submit that s322(1b) empowers the court of appeal to
...give such judgements as ought to have been given at the trial..
We respectfully argue that Seekoei was wrongly decided and if not, that the Constitutional Courts decision in S v Basson....provides a post constitutional interpretation of s319(1) which led the Court to find that the legislative history of s319(1) indicates that its purpose was, amongst others, to allow the State to appeal on a point of law by requesting the reservation of a question of law
The Court found at 621 a d that s319 was never intended to provide the State with a right to appeal a question of law in limited circumstances.
We respectfully argue that the Basson judgment renders the distinction between acquittal and / or conviction in Seekoei invalid.