Stokes v The State

The appellant, an attorney, left South Africa in November 2000 and took up residence in the United States. After his departure, several criminal charges were laid against him in South Africa alleging the misappropriation of trust monies and related misconduct. South Africa sought his provisional arrest and extradition from the United States under an existing extradition treaty. The appellant waived his rights under the treaty and consented to his surrender, after which he was returned to South Africa. Upon return, he was indicted on one count of theft involving a general deficiency of trust monies (count 1) and one count of fraud alternatively theft relating to a R2 million investment by Robert Sevel (count 2). He applied to have the charges set aside under s 19 of the Extradition Act 67 of 1962, arguing that they were not offences in respect of which his extradition had been sought.

The appeal was dismissed in respect of count 1 and the alternative charge of theft under count 2. The appeal was upheld in respect of the main charge of fraud under count 2, and it was declared that the State may not proceed with the prosecution on that fraud charge.

The case is significant for clarifying the interpretation of s 19 of the Extradition Act 67 of 1962 and the South African application of the speciality principle. It establishes that only offences disclosed to the requested state and forming the basis of surrender may be prosecuted, particularly where extradition follows a waiver and provisional arrest. The judgment provides important guidance on how broadly offences may be framed in indictments following extradition.