Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

SPR 411 > Chapter 13 – Trial Courts > Flashcards

Chapter 13 – Trial Courts Flashcards

(61 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Who presides over district and regional courts?

A

Magistrates
Explanation: District and regional courts are led by Magistrates, who oversee legal proceedings and ensure justice is administered fairly.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

When can a Magistrate summon assessors in a court trial?

A

Before any evidence has been led or during consideration of community-based punishment.

Magistrates may summon one or two assessors at any point before evidence is presented or when determining appropriate punishment for a convicted person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Under Section 93ter(1)(a), when is it mandatory for a judicial officer to summon two assessors?

A

When the accused is charged with murder.

Explanation: In regional court murder trials, the judicial officer must summon two assessors unless the accused requests to proceed without them. However, the judicial officer still has the discretion to summon them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What happens if assessors are absent in a trial where the accused did not request a trial without them?

A

The court is not properly constituted, and any conviction or sentence must be set aside.

Explanation: If assessors are required but absent, the trial is deemed legally defective, and any outcome must be overturned

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What factors should judicial officers consider when deciding if assessors are needed?

A

Answer: Cultural, social, and educational background; nature and seriousness of the offence; community interests.

Explanation: These aspects help determine whether assessors are necessary for ensuring fair proceedings and reflecting societal values.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

When do assessors commence their functions in court proceedings?

A

After the plea has been recorded.

Explanation: Assessors start their official role once the accused has entered a plea, ensuring they participate appropriately in the trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Who decides matters of fact in trials involving assessors?

A

Answer: The majority of assessors.

Explanation: Assessors collectively determine factual issues in the case, while the judicial officer handles legal interpretations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Who decides matters of law in trials involving assessors?

A

The judicial officer.

Explanation: Matters of law, such as procedural rules and legal interpretations, remain the responsibility of the judicial officer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are valid reasons for the recusal of an assessor?

A

➢ (1) The assessor has a personal interest in the proceedings
concerned.
➢ (2) There are reasonable grounds for believing that there is likely to be a conflict of interests as a result of the assessor’s participation in the proceedings concerned.
➢ (3) There are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a
likelihood of bias on the part of the assessor.
➢ (4) The assessor is (for any reason) absent.
➢ (5) The assessor has died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Who can request the recusal of an assessor?

A

Answer: Either the prosecutor or defense counsel. Explanation: Both parties have the right to challenge an assessor’s impartiality if there are valid concerns.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What must the presiding officer provide when granting a request for an assessor’s recusal?

A

Answer: Reasons for granting the application.
Explanation: The judicial officer must explain why the assessor was removed to maintain transparency and fairness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What happens if an assessor absconds during a trial without good reason?

A

Answer: This amounts to a fatal irregularity that vitiates the proceedings.
Explanation: If the trial continues without the required assessors, it becomes legally flawed and must be reconsidered.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What options are available after an assessor is recused?

A

Answer: Proceedings may continue, be postponed, or start anew (de novo).
Explanation: The court decides the best course of action based on the interests of justice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does the term “de novo” mean in legal proceedings?

A

Answer: To start the proceedings anew.
Explanation: This means restarting the trial from the beginning, usually after a major procedural issue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is considered a fatal irregularity under Section 93ter(1)(a)?

A

Answer: Non-compliance with the provision to summon assessors in a murder trial.
Explanation: Failing to summon assessors when required by law constitutes a serious legal error that can invalidate the proceedings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mngeni case

A

▪ If assessors abscond during a trial without good reason and
the magistrate continues with the trial without them, this
amounts to a fatal irregularity which vitiates the
proceedings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q
A

Who presides over a criminal trial in the High Court? Answer: One judge or one judge sitting with one or two assessors. Explanation: High Court criminal trials are overseen by a judge, who may be assisted by one or two assessors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q
A

What discretion does the presiding judge have regarding assessors? Answer: The presiding judge has discretion to decide whether assessors are part of the process. Explanation: The judge can choose to include assessors based on the needs of the trial, ensuring procedural fairness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q
A

What is the primary advantage of assessors in a High Court trial? Answer: They provide procedural safeguards aimed at achieving a fair trial. Explanation: Assessors contribute to fairness by offering expertise and ensuring balanced decision-making.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q
A

Who can serve as an assessor in a High Court trial? Answer: Advocates, magistrates, attorneys, or professors of law. Explanation: Assessors are individuals with expertise in justice or relevant matters, as determined by the presiding judge.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q
A

What is the role of the director of public prosecutions in appointing assessors? Answer: The trial judge relies on recommendations from the director of public prosecutions or their staff. Explanation: The judge considers these recommendations when selecting assessors to ensure their suitability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q
A

What decisions do assessors participate in during a trial? Answer: Assessors participate in all decisions on questions of fact. Explanation: Assessors contribute to factual determinations, while legal questions remain the judge’s responsibility.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q
A

What happens when there are two assessors in a trial? Answer: The majority can outvote the judge on issues of fact. Explanation: When two assessors are present, their majority decision on factual matters prevails over the judge’s opinion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q
A

What happens when there is only one assessor in a trial? Answer: The judge’s decision prevails on issues of fact. Explanation: In cases with one assessor, the judge’s decision takes precedence on factual matters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What does “de novo” mean in the context of a trial? Answer: To start the proceedings anew. Explanation: If an assessor dies or becomes unable to act, the judge may order the trial to begin again from the start.
26
What happens if an assessor becomes mentally incompetent during a trial? Answer: Mental incompetence can be established objectively, and the assessor may be removed. Explanation: As per the case of Kroon, mental competence is assessed objectively to determine the assessor's ability to continue.
27
Can pressing commitments elsewhere constitute an inability to act as an assessor? Answer: No, pressing commitments elsewhere do not qualify as an inability to act. Explanation: The case of Gqeba established that external commitments are not valid grounds for an assessor's inability to act.
28
Can the court proceed without an assessor if the accused consents?
Answer: No, the court cannot proceed without an assessor, even with the accused's consent. Explanation: The case of Daniels clarified that the court must have the assessor present, regardless of the accused's agreement.
29
What must a judge do before deciding that an assessor is unable to act? Answer: The judge must hear the parties on how the proceedings will continue. Explanation: As per Malindi, the judge must consult the parties before determining the assessor's inability to act and deciding the next steps.
30
What was the issue in the case of Gumbi? Answer: The trial judge became incapacitated due to illness before pronouncing the verdict. Explanation: In Gumbi, the trial was improperly continued by a new judge without starting de novo, leading to a failure of justice.
31
What was the ruling in the case of Gumbi? Answer: The court held that there had been a gross departure from established rules of procedure, constituting a failure of justice. Explanation: The continuation of the trial without restarting de novo violated procedural rules, invalidating the trial's outcome.
32
What is the general rule regarding judicial officers and their interest in a case? Answer: No person who has an interest in or harbors prejudice in respect of the matter should adjudicate on it. Explanation: This ensures impartiality and fairness in judicial proceedings, as bias or interest could compromise justice.
33
What legal framework applies to recusal since the CPA is silent on the matter? Answer: Common law rules and constitutional imperatives. Explanation: These frameworks provide the necessary guidelines for recusal in the absence of specific provisions in the CPA.
34
What does Article 13 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provide? Answer: Tests for the recusal of judges. Explanation: Article 13 outlines the ethical and professional standards for judges, including when recusal is necessary.
35
When must a judge recuse themselves? Answer: If there is a reasonably perceived conflict of interest or reasonable suspicion of bias based on objective facts. Explanation: Recusal is required to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and public confidence in its fairness.
36
When should an application for recusal be made? Answer: At the commencement of the trial, or during the trial if not possible earlier. Explanation: Timely applications ensure that potential bias is addressed before it affects the trial's outcome.
37
What are the requirements for the test of judicial bias? Answer: There must be a suspicion that the judicial officer might be biased. The suspicion must be that of a reasonable person in the position of the accused. The suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspicion must be one which the reasonable person would, not might, have held. Explanation: These criteria ensure that claims of bias are objectively assessed and not based on mere speculation.
38
Section 3: Important Case Law and Rules What does the case of Roberts establish about communication? Answer: The presiding judicial officer should have no communication with either party except in the presence of the other party. Explanation: This rule prevents any perception of partiality or unfair advantage.
39
What is the general rule for magistrates or judges aware of their own partiality? Answer: They must recuse themselves mero motu (on their own initiative). Explanation: This ensures that justice is not compromised by personal feelings or motives.
40
What does the case of Bailey establish about magistrates who were previously prosecutors? Answer: Magistrates who were previously involved as prosecutors in the case must recuse themselves. Explanation: Prior involvement in the case creates a conflict of interest and undermines impartiality.
41
What does the case of Sibeko say about taking confessions? Answer: A presiding officer who previously took a confession from the accused must recuse themselves. Explanation: This ensures the presiding officer remains impartial and uninfluenced by prior knowledge of the case.
42
What principle does the case of Herbst emphasize about suspicion of bias? Answer: No reasonable person should have grounds to suspect that justice will not be administered impartially. Explanation: This principle ensures public confidence in the judiciary's fairness.
43
What does the case of Malindi state about the truth of bias? Answer: The perception of bias, not the actual truth of bias, is what matters. Explanation: Judicial impartiality is judged based on how it is perceived by reasonable parties, not the judge's actual intentions.
44
What does the case of Basson establish about bias? Answer: There is a presumption against bias, and cogent evidence is required to dislodge this presumption. Explanation: This protects judicial officers from frivolous claims of bias while ensuring genuine concerns are addressed.
45
Section 4: Aftermath of Recusal What happens to a trial if a judicial officer is recused? Answer: The trial becomes void, and a new trial may be instituted. Explanation: As per Magubane, recusal invalidates the trial, requiring it to start de novo (anew).
46
What does the case of Burns establish about refusal to recuse? Answer: Refusal to recuse, when appropriate, is grounds for review after conviction. Explanation: This ensures that justice is served even if the judicial officer initially refuses to step down.
47
What must judicial officers base their decisions upon? Answer: Evidence heard in open court in the presence of the accused. Explanation: Judicial officers must rely solely on evidence presented during the trial to ensure fairness and transparency.
48
Can judicial officers communicate with either party outside the presence of the other party? Answer: No, judicial officers must not communicate with either party except in the presence of both parties. Explanation: This rule prevents any perception of bias or unfair advantage in the proceedings.
49
Can judicial officers take note of documentary evidence not tendered in court? Answer: No, they may not take note of any documentary evidence not tendered as evidence. Explanation: Only evidence formally presented in court is admissible to ensure procedural integrity.
50
Section 2: The Oath What is required for evidence to be admissible in court? Answer: Evidence must be given upon oath or solemn affirmation to speak the truth. Explanation: This requirement ensures that witnesses understand the seriousness of their testimony and its legal implications.
51
What happens if a witness is not properly placed under oath or admonished to speak the truth? Answer: Their testimony lacks the status and character of evidence and is inadmissible. Explanation: Proper administration of the oath or admonishment is essential for the testimony to be legally valid.
52
What must be done if a witness does not understand the nature and import of the oath? Answer: The court must determine if they understand the difference between truth and lies, and admonish them to tell the truth. Explanation: This process ensures that witnesses who cannot take an oath still provide truthful testimony.
53
Section 3: Enquiry for Admonishment What is the first step in determining if a witness can be admonished? Answer: Determine if they understand the nature and import of the oath. Explanation: This step ensures that the witness comprehends the significance of their testimony.
54
What happens if a witness does not understand the nature of the oath? Answer: The court must determine whether they understand the difference between truth and lies. Explanation: This ensures that the witness can still provide truthful testimony even if they cannot take an oath.
55
What must be done if a witness positively understands the difference between truth and lies? Answer: They must be admonished to tell the truth. Explanation: Admonishment is used for witnesses who cannot take an oath but can distinguish between truth and falsehood.
56
Section 4: Administration of the Oath Who administers the oath in terms of Section 162(1)? Answer: The presiding judicial officer or, in the case of a superior court, the presiding judge or registrar. Explanation: This ensures that the oath is administered by an authorized official in accordance with legal requirements.
57
Can the prosecutor administer the oath? Answer: No, the prosecutor may not administer the oath. Explanation: As established in Bothma, only judicial officers or registrars are authorized to administer the oath.
58
Who else can administer the oath in the presence of the judge or magistrate? Answer: An interpreter. Explanation: Section 165 allows interpreters to administer the oath under the supervision of the presiding officer.
59
Section 5: Testimony of Witnesses What principle does the case of Hendricks establish about witness testimony? Answer: Witnesses must be allowed to give evidence in their own words, way, and tempo. Explanation: This approach ensures that witnesses can express themselves fully and truthfully, especially those less knowledgeable or sophisticated.
60
Why is it important for witnesses to testify in their own way and tempo? Answer: It helps ascertain the truth, particularly for less knowledgeable or sophisticated witnesses. Explanation: Allowing witnesses to testify freely ensures their testimony is accurate and reliable.
61
What did the case of Le Grange and Others v S establish about judicial interrogation? Answer: The manner and nature of interrogation may indicate that the judge was not objective and impartial. Explanation: Judicial officers must remain neutral and avoid actions that could suggest bias or partiality during interrogation

SPR 411 (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions