Held, further that failure to inform the accused properly of his right to consult there and then with a legal representative violates a fundamental right of the accused. Held, further that in as much as is no hard and fast rules possible in regard to adequacy of warnings related to legal representation, the least that the justice of the peace should have done is to record the appellant’s reaction to the warning. Held, further that the statement of the confession speaks for itself, the justice of the peace failed to meaningfully advise the appellant of his right to legal representation. Held, further that the admission of the confession relied on by the trial court to convict the appellant infringed the appellant’s right to a fair trial granted by Art 12(1) of the Constitution. Held, further therefore that the admission of the confession had to be excluded. Held accordingly that the appeal by the appellant against his conviction had to succeed and both the conviction and sentence had to be set _________________________________________________________________ APPEAL JUDGMENT _________________________________________________________________ MAINGA JA (SHIVUTE CJ concurring): This appeal was heard by a full bench of this court (Shivute CJ presiding) on 01 November 2012. The Chief Justice allocated the writing of the judgment to
Held, further that failure to inform the accused properly of his right to consult there and then with a legal representative violates a fundamental right of the accused. Held, further that in as much as is no hard and fast rules possible in regard to adequacy of warnings related to legal representation, the least that the justice of the peace should have done is to record the appellant’s reaction to the warning. Held, further that the statement of the confession speaks for itself, the justice of the peace failed to meaningfully advise the appellant of his right to legal representation. Held, further that the admission of the confession relied on by the trial court to convict the appellant infringed the appellant’s right to a fair trial granted by Art 12(1) of the Constitution. Held, further therefore that the admission of the confession had to be excluded. Held accordingly that the appeal by the appellant against his conviction had to succeed and both the conviction and sentence had to be set _________________________________________________________________ APPEAL JUDGMENT _________________________________________________________________ MAINGA JA (SHIVUTE CJ concurring): This appeal was heard by a full bench of this court (Shivute CJ presiding) on 01 November 2012. The Chief Justice allocated the writing of the judgment to
Engelbrecht%20v%20S%20(SA%2005-2012)[2017]%20NASC%20(14%20July%202017).docx