, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Question 1
The offences were allegedly committed in Cape Town. However, A was arrested in Pretoria. Due to
the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP)
decides that A should first appear in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), where the trial will also be
conducted. Critically discuss the efficacy of this decision. (5)
The decision of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to have A first appear in the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA), where the trial will also be conducted, is constitutionally incompetent and legally
ineffective.
In terms of section 179 of the Constitution, the NDPP exercises prosecutorial authority on behalf of the
state.1 This includes the discretion to institute and conduct criminal proceedings. However, prosecutorial
discretion operates within the limits imposed by the Constitution and legislation. It cannot override
jurisdictional boundaries entrenched in the constitutional framework.
Section 166 of the Constitution establishes the hierarchy of courts in South Africa, placing the SCA above
the High Court but below the Constitutional Court.2 Section 168(3) explicitly provides that the SCA “may
decide appeals in any matter arising from the High Court” and certain constitutional matters referred to it.3
The wording of this provision clearly indicates that the SCA exercises appellate jurisdiction. It does not
possess original jurisdiction to conduct criminal trials.
Criminal trials for serious offences such as rape and murder fall within the original jurisdiction of the High
Court in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA).4 Nothing in the CPA authorises the SCA to
function as a court of first instance. Therefore, even if the NDPP considers the matter serious enough to
warrant the attention of a higher court, seriousness does not confer jurisdiction.
Furthermore, territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters is ordinarily determined by the place where the
offence was committed. Section 90 of the CPA provides that an accused may be tried within the area of
jurisdiction where the offence occurred.5 Since the alleged offences were committed in Cape Town,
1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 s 179.
2
ibid s 166.
3
ibid s 168(3).
4
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
5
ibid s 90.
Question 1
The offences were allegedly committed in Cape Town. However, A was arrested in Pretoria. Due to
the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP)
decides that A should first appear in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), where the trial will also be
conducted. Critically discuss the efficacy of this decision. (5)
The decision of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to have A first appear in the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA), where the trial will also be conducted, is constitutionally incompetent and legally
ineffective.
In terms of section 179 of the Constitution, the NDPP exercises prosecutorial authority on behalf of the
state.1 This includes the discretion to institute and conduct criminal proceedings. However, prosecutorial
discretion operates within the limits imposed by the Constitution and legislation. It cannot override
jurisdictional boundaries entrenched in the constitutional framework.
Section 166 of the Constitution establishes the hierarchy of courts in South Africa, placing the SCA above
the High Court but below the Constitutional Court.2 Section 168(3) explicitly provides that the SCA “may
decide appeals in any matter arising from the High Court” and certain constitutional matters referred to it.3
The wording of this provision clearly indicates that the SCA exercises appellate jurisdiction. It does not
possess original jurisdiction to conduct criminal trials.
Criminal trials for serious offences such as rape and murder fall within the original jurisdiction of the High
Court in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA).4 Nothing in the CPA authorises the SCA to
function as a court of first instance. Therefore, even if the NDPP considers the matter serious enough to
warrant the attention of a higher court, seriousness does not confer jurisdiction.
Furthermore, territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters is ordinarily determined by the place where the
offence was committed. Section 90 of the CPA provides that an accused may be tried within the area of
jurisdiction where the offence occurred.5 Since the alleged offences were committed in Cape Town,
1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 s 179.
2
ibid s 166.
3
ibid s 168(3).
4
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
5
ibid s 90.
