Alfred Jan Bezuidenhout v The State

The appellant was charged in the Regional Court, Vosloorus with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm after shooting and killing Mr Bisani Tshukela on 26 November 2016. It was common cause that the appellant shot the deceased with an unlicensed .38 special calibre revolver and that the deceased was unarmed. The appellant, who conducted his own defence, claimed the shooting occurred accidentally during a struggle when the deceased attempted to wrest the firearm from him while he was defending his property. The State relied mainly on the evidence of a single eyewitness who did not see the actual shooting, as well as expert evidence suggesting the shot was not fired at close range. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment. Applications for leave to appeal and to adduce further evidence under s 309B(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act were refused by the trial court and the High Court.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside. The appellant’s conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Regional Court, Vosloorus, for the trial to start de novo before a different presiding officer.

The case underscores the duty of trial courts to actively safeguard the fairness of proceedings where an accused is unrepresented, particularly when complex expert evidence is involved. It affirms that procedural compliance alone is insufficient and that substantive fairness under s 35(3) of the Constitution is paramount. The judgment also clarifies the application of s 309B(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act in light of constitutional fair-trial rights.