LCR4803
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 3 April 2026
QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) empowers a judicial officer,
upon request by a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or an authorised prosecutor, to
compel any person likely to provide material or relevant information regarding an alleged
offence to appear for examination.1 The provision is investigative in nature and is frequently
invoked where the State lacks sufficient evidence to identify perpetrators or substantiate
allegations.
In the present scenario, a journalist receives leaked documents exposing alleged police
corruption. During criminal proceedings, the court issues a s 205 subpoena compelling
disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity. The journalist resists on grounds of confidentiality.
The central issue is whether the journalist is legally obliged to comply and whether
professional ethical codes offer a defence.
Scope and Operation of Section 205 CPA
Section 205(1) authorises a judge or magistrate, upon request by the DPP, to require the
Terms of use
attendance of any person “likely to give material or relevant information” concerning an
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,orand
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) empowers a judicial officer,
upon request by a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or an authorised prosecutor, to
compel any person likely to provide material or relevant information regarding an alleged
offence to appear for examination.1 The provision is investigative in nature and is
frequently invoked where the State lacks sufficient evidence to identify perpetrators or
substantiate allegations.
In the present scenario, a journalist receives leaked documents exposing alleged police
corruption. During criminal proceedings, the court issues a s 205 subpoena compelling
disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity. The journalist resists on grounds of
confidentiality. The central issue is whether the journalist is legally obliged to comply and
whether professional ethical codes offer a defence.
Scope and Operation of Section 205 CPA
Section 205(1) authorises a judge or magistrate, upon request by the DPP, to require the
attendance of any person “likely to give material or relevant information” concerning an
alleged offence.2 The provision applies even where the identity of the perpetrator is
unknown.
The subpoena compels attendance and testimony. Failure to comply may result in arrest
and punishment.3 The hearing is typically conducted in camera, and while the Act is silent
on legal representation, the courts have recognised a right to legal representation in such
proceedings.4
Section 205 must be read with section 15 of the Regulation of Interception of
Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002
(RICA), which confirms that other statutory mechanisms such as s 205 remain available
but may not be used on an ongoing interception basis.5
1
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 s 205.
2
ibid s 205(1).
3
ibid s 205(2).
4
Smit v Van Niekerk 1976 (4) SA 304 (E); S v Heyman 1966 (4) SA 598 (A).
5
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70
of 2002 s 15.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 3 April 2026
QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) empowers a judicial officer,
upon request by a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or an authorised prosecutor, to
compel any person likely to provide material or relevant information regarding an alleged
offence to appear for examination.1 The provision is investigative in nature and is frequently
invoked where the State lacks sufficient evidence to identify perpetrators or substantiate
allegations.
In the present scenario, a journalist receives leaked documents exposing alleged police
corruption. During criminal proceedings, the court issues a s 205 subpoena compelling
disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity. The journalist resists on grounds of confidentiality.
The central issue is whether the journalist is legally obliged to comply and whether
professional ethical codes offer a defence.
Scope and Operation of Section 205 CPA
Section 205(1) authorises a judge or magistrate, upon request by the DPP, to require the
Terms of use
attendance of any person “likely to give material or relevant information” concerning an
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,orand
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) empowers a judicial officer,
upon request by a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or an authorised prosecutor, to
compel any person likely to provide material or relevant information regarding an alleged
offence to appear for examination.1 The provision is investigative in nature and is
frequently invoked where the State lacks sufficient evidence to identify perpetrators or
substantiate allegations.
In the present scenario, a journalist receives leaked documents exposing alleged police
corruption. During criminal proceedings, the court issues a s 205 subpoena compelling
disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity. The journalist resists on grounds of
confidentiality. The central issue is whether the journalist is legally obliged to comply and
whether professional ethical codes offer a defence.
Scope and Operation of Section 205 CPA
Section 205(1) authorises a judge or magistrate, upon request by the DPP, to require the
attendance of any person “likely to give material or relevant information” concerning an
alleged offence.2 The provision applies even where the identity of the perpetrator is
unknown.
The subpoena compels attendance and testimony. Failure to comply may result in arrest
and punishment.3 The hearing is typically conducted in camera, and while the Act is silent
on legal representation, the courts have recognised a right to legal representation in such
proceedings.4
Section 205 must be read with section 15 of the Regulation of Interception of
Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002
(RICA), which confirms that other statutory mechanisms such as s 205 remain available
but may not be used on an ongoing interception basis.5
1
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 s 205.
2
ibid s 205(1).
3
ibid s 205(2).
4
Smit v Van Niekerk 1976 (4) SA 304 (E); S v Heyman 1966 (4) SA 598 (A).
5
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70
of 2002 s 15.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
