THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case No:   043/2013
Not Reportable

In the matter between:

BOISILE AMOS PLAATJIES                                              APPELLANT

and

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,
TRANSVAAL                                                                       RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Plaatjies v DPP, Transvaal (043/ 2013 [2013] ZASCA
66 (27 May 2013)

Coram:
Mthiyane DP, Shongwe, Majiedt JJA, Van der Merwe
and Meyer AJJA

Heard:
7 May 2013
Delivered:
27 May 2013

Summary: The effect of s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution ─ whether the
legal position on the application of autrefois convict or autrefois acquit
has been changed by the provisions of s 35(3)(m) and whether the
common law should be developed to reflect this.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Prinsloo and
Makgoba JJ sitting as court of appeal):

The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

MTHIYANE DP (SHONGWE, MAJIEDT JJA, VAN DER MERWE
AND MEYER AJJA CONCURRING)

[1] This appeal brings into focus yet again the rule that an accused
person has the right not to be tried for an offence in respect of any act or
omission for which that person has previously been acquitted or
convicted,1 sometimes referred to as the double jeopardy rule. This case
has its origin in the regional court, Potchefstroom, where the appellant,
Mr Boisile Amos Plaatjies, stood trial on charges of murder, assault with
intent to do grievous bodily harm and unlawful possession of a firearm, in
contravention of s 2 read with ss 39(2) and 40 of the Firearms and
Ammunition Act 75 of 1969. The appellant was convicted on all counts
and was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment on count 1, 1 year’s
imprisonment on count 2 and 3 years’ imprisonment on count 3.

[2] The appellant appealed to the then Transvaal Provincial Division of
the High Court against both convictions and sentences. The appeal was

1 The common law right is expressed in the maxim ─ ‘nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa’
─ See Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Mtshweni 2007 (2) SACR 217 SCA para 28.

upheld and the convictions and sentences were set aside. The court (Van
Rooyen AJ with Van Zyl AJ concurring) found that the trial magistrate
had committed a fatal irregularity when he sat without assessors. He had
done so without first obtaining the appellant’s consent as required by s 93
ter (1) of the Magistrate’s Court Act 32 of 1944. The requirement is
expressed in the section as follows:
‘(1) The judicial officer presiding at any trial may, if he deems it expedient for the
administration of justice─
(a) before any evidence has been led, or
(b) in considering a community-based punishment in respect of any person who has
been convicted of any offence, summon to his assistance any one or two persons who,
in his opinion, may be of assistance at the trial of the case or in the determination of a
proper sentence, as the case may be, to sit with him as assessor or assessors: Provided
that if an accused is standing trial in the court of a regional division on a charge of
murder, whether together with other charges or accused or not, the judicial officer
shall at that trial be assisted by two assessors unless such an accused requests that the
trial be proceeded with without assessors, whereupon the judicial officer may in his
discretion summon one or two assessors to assist him.’

[3] The court held that because the proviso to the section2 was not
followed by the trial magistrate, the court was not properly constituted
and its judgment was therefore invalid. Consequently, the convictions and
sentences imposed on the appellant were set aside. The judgment was
handed down on 22 February 2005.

[4] The respondent reinstituted criminal proceedings against the
appellant on the same charges mentioned above in the regional court,
Potchefstroom, but before a different regional magistrate. At this trial on

2 Quoted in para 2 above.

4 December 2007 the appellant successfully entered a plea of autrefois
acquit.

[5] The Director of Public Prosecutions lodged an appeal to the then
Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court against the acquittal. On
appeal the respondent submitted that it was entitled to recharge the
appellant on the ground that he had not been acquitted on the merits but
on a technicality arising from the trial magistrate’s failure to sit with
assessors or to dispense with that requirement in compliance with s 93 ter
(1) of Act 32 of 1944. The appeal court (Prinsloo J with Magkoba J
concurring) found that when the appeal was decided by the learned
judges, Van Rooyen AJ and Van Zyl AJ in the earlier appeal, the merits
of the convictions were never considered. The learned judges in the court
a quo held that the appellant could be recharged on the same counts on
which he had been acquitted and relied for that conclusion on s 324 read
with s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 as well as on S v
Moodie 1962 (1) SA 587 (A) and S v Naidoo 1962 (4) SA 348 (A). The
judges also held that s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution, which provides that
an accused person has a right to a fair trial and which includes the right
‘not to be tried for an offence in respect of any act or omission for which
that person has previously been acquitted or convicted’, had not changed
the legal position, and the reinstitution of the charges was permitted as
the appellant had not been acquitted on the merits.

[6] The judges however granted leave to the appellant to appeal to this
court on four main grounds namely─
‘1. Another court may find that the legal position as to the subject of autrefois acquit
or convict may have been changed by the provisions of section 35(3)(m) of the
Constitution.

2. Another court may find that the first order by Magistrate Mabile is appealable and
not an interlocutory order because of the provisions and implications of section
35(3)(m) of the Constitution.
3. Another court could find that it would be fair and just to stop the prosecution of the
respondent in view of the long history and many delays with the case and in view of
the provisions of section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution read with section 38 of the
Constitution.
4. This court erred in not making reference to the merits of the three charges in
respect of which the respondent was convicted in the first trial.’

[7] In the appeal before us, the above grounds were not split but
consolidated by counsel for the appellant into one primary issue. He
submitted that the effect of s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution was to extend
the scope and ambit of the double jeopardy rule so as to cover cases
where merits were never considered in the earlier proceedings. Counsel
argued that, in the light of the provisions of s 35(3)(m), this court should
develop the common law in the exercise of its powers under s 39(2) of the
Constitution so as to extend the ambit and scope of the rule of autrefois
convict and autrefois acquit to cover cases where the court in the first
appeal has not examined the merits.

[8] The above submission on the appellant’s behalf overlooks the fact
that the Constitutional Court has already expressed itself on the point,
albeit in a slightly different context, in the two Basson3 cases. I will
return to the two cases later in the judgment and demonstrate that there is
no need to develop the common law in this regard. I think the dicta in the
two Basson cases are sufficiently dispositive of the point. But before
dealing with the argument, it is necessary to set out the current legal

3 Reported as S v Basson 2004 (1) SACR 285 (CC) paras 64 and 65, and S v Basson 2007 (1) SACR
566 (CC) paras 255 and 256.

position as regards the application of the principle of autrefois convict
and autrefois acquit.

[9] Sections 106(1)(c) and (d) of Act 51 of 1977  provide that when an
accused pleads to a charge he or she may plead that he or she has already
been convicted of an offence of which he or she is charged or has already
been acquitted of the said offence. In the present matter the appellant
raised a plea in terms of s 106(1)(c) and (d), averring that he has already
been convicted at the first trial and already been acquitted on appeal
before Van Rooyen AJ and Van Zyl AJ.

[10] Section 324 of Act 51 of 1977 however permits the reinstitution of
the criminal proceedings on the same charge when a conviction is set
aside on the grounds that:
‘(a) that the court which convicted the accused person was not competent
to do so; or
(b) the indictment on which the accused was convicted was invalid or
defective in any respect; or
(c) that there has been any other technical irregularity or defect in the
procedure.’
The section goes on to state that this occurs as if the accused person had
not been previously arraigned, tried or convicted, provided ‘that no judge
or assessor before whom the original trial took place shall take part in
such proceedings’. Although the word judge is used here, this is equally
applicable to a magistrate.

[11] In S v Moodie it was held that if an irregularity in the procedure
which justifies the setting aside of a conviction by a court of appeal was
technical under s 370(c) of Act 56 of 1955 (now s 324(c) of Act 51 of

1977 and similarly worded) it precludes a valid consideration of the
merits, in other words if it makes it impossible for the court to give a
valid verdict on the merits.

[12] In S v Naidoo it was held that the section empowers a retrial where
a conviction and sentence have been set aside on appeal on the ground of
a technical irregularity or defect in the procedure (as was the case with
the previous s 370(c) of Act 56 of 1955). The court in Moodie held that
an irregularity is technical within the meaning of the sub-section if it is of
such a nature as to preclude a valid consideration of the merits of the
appeal; in other words if it is impossible for the court of appeal to give a
valid verdict on the merits (Moodie at 597 and Naidoo at 353H-354A). In
the case of Naidoo, Holmes JA explained why Moodie could be retried,
but not Naidoo. The judge pointed out that in each case there was an
irregularity in the first trial. Holmes JA held that irregularities vary in
nature and degree. According to him they fall into two categories. There
are irregularities, he continued, which are so gross in nature as to vitiate a
trial. In such a case the court of appeal must set aside the conviction
without reference to the merits. There remains, said the judge, neither a
conviction nor an acquittal on the merits and the accused person can be
retried in terms of s 370(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 56 of 1955.
That was the position in Moodie’s case in which the irregularity of the
Deputy Sheriff remaining closeted with a jury throughout their two hour
deliberations was regarded as so gross as to vitiate the whole trial (at
354D-F). On the other hand, continued the judge, there are irregularities
of a lesser nature, in which the court of appeal is able to separate the bad
from the good and to consider the merits of the case, including any
finding as to the credibility of witnesses. If in the result, he comes to the
conclusion that a reasonable trial court properly directing itself would

inevitably have convicted, the appeal stands to be dismissed and the
conviction stands as one on the merits. But if on the merits, it cannot
come to that conclusion, it should set aside the conviction and this
amounts to an acquittal on the merits. In such a case s 370(c) of the code
does not permit a retrial. That was the position in Naidoo’s case, in which
failure to swear an interpreter at one stage resulted in certain evidence
being regarded as inadmissible (354F-H).

[13] Turning to the question whether the legal position may have been
changed by s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution , the point is misconceived and
without merit, as the question has already been authoritatively settled in S
v Basson 2007 (1) SACR 566 (CC) para 255, which reads as follows:
‘The requirement that the previous acquittal must have been on the merits, or to put it
differently, that the accused must have been in jeopardy of conviction, means that, if
the previous prosecution was vitiated by irregularity, then it cannot found a plea of
autrefois acquit in a subsequent prosecution. That is because the accused was not
acquitted on the merits and was never in jeopardy of conviction because the
proceedings were vitiated by irregularity’. See also S v Basson 2004 (1) SACR
285 (CC) paras 64 and 65.

[14] To the extent that it is necessary to decide the second, third and
fourth ground on which leave was granted by the court below, seeing that
they have not been abandoned, I deal with them briefly in what follows. I
deal first with the question of whether the first order made by magistrate
Mabile was interlocutory and therefore not appealable. The record of the
proceedings before magistrate Mabile was so poorly transcribed that it is
difficult to make out what transpired. From what one is able to glean from
the record it seems that the magistrate Mabile rejected the plea of
autrefois acquit and ruled that the matter be referred to another magistrate

for retrial. The matter then came before another magistrate, Ms Juries
who upheld the plea of autrefois acquit. This led to the appeal which
came before Prinsloo J and Makgoba J. The proceedings before the
magistrate Mabile are therefore not relevant for purposes of this
judgment. The same applies to the question whether the order she made is
appealable or not.

[15] Turning to the question whether it would be fair and just to stop the
prosecution of the respondent, in view of the long history and many
delays in the case and in view of the provisions of s 35(3)(d) of the
Constitution read with s 38 of the Constitution, the point was not pressed
in an argument before us. The legal position is that an accused person
who seeks to bring an application for a permanent stay of the proceedings
is required to bring a substantive application before the court, alleging
that his or her right under s 35(d) have been infringed. (See S v Naidoo
2012 (2) SACR 126 (WCC)). In the present matter we do not have such
application. No evidence has been placed before us as to who is to blame
for the delay. It seems as if the appellant was to a large extent to blame
for the delay in finalising this matter. In my view the appellant must also
fail on this point.

[16] The final point on which leave was granted is that the court failed
to make reference to the merits of the three charges in respect of which
the appellant was convicted in the first trial. The point is difficult to
understand. At the first trial the merits were dealt with by the magistrate
and that was not the problem that led ultimately to the appellant being
recharged. The problem was that the magistrate in the first trial had sat
without assessors and the court was therefore not properly constituted.

The point made under this head is also without merit and falls to be
rejected.

[17] In the result the appeal must fail and the following order is made.
The appeal is dismissed.

______________________

K K MTHIYANE
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

APPEARANCES

For Appellant:
HL Alberts
Instructed by:
Pretoria Justice Centre (Legal Aid SA), Pretoria
Legal Aid Board, Bloemfontein

For Respondent:
L Pienaar (heads of argument prepared by FC
Roberts)
Instructed by:
Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria
Director of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

27 May 2013

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and
does not form part of the judgment.

PLAATJIES v DPP, TRANSVAAL (043/2013) [2013] ZASCA 66 (27 MAY
2013)

The SCA today dismissed an appeal by Mr Boisile Amos Plaatjies against a
decision to recharge and try him for murder, assault with intent to do grievous
bodily harm and unlawful possession of a firearm in contravention of s 2 of the
Firearm and Ammunition Act 75 of 1969. Mr Plaatjies had been convicted by a
regional magistrate in Potchefstroom and sentenced to 7 years for murder, 1
year for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and 3 years
imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm. The magistrate had
unfortunately sat without assessors as required by s 93 ter (1) of the
Magistrate’s Court Act 32 of 1944. Mr Plaatjies successfully appealed the
convictions and sentences on the ground that the magistrate had sat without
assessors in the adjudication of his case.

When he was recharged for the above same offences he pleaded that he had
already been convicted and acquitted on appeal. Another magistrate before
whom he stood trial upon being recharged acquitted him. The state appealed
against this ruling. The appeal court (Prinsloo J and Makgoba J) of the

Pretoria High Court upheld the appeal and determined that the appellant
could be retried as he had not been acquitted on the merits.

The learned judges (Prinsloo J and Makgoba J) rejected the argument that if
he is recharged his fair trial rights under s 3(3)(m) of the constitution would be
violated.

The SCA agreed with the decision of the learned judges of the Pretoria High
Court and dismissed the appeal.