Maritz v The State

The appellant, Jan Gysbert Maritz, a practising attorney, was charged in the Free State Division of the High Court with 18 counts of sexual assault and statutory rape. During the trial he initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty and made admissions under s 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, leading to his conviction on 16 counts. Pending sentencing, issues arose regarding bail, including revocation and later reinstatement by a full court. Before sentencing, the appellant applied for the recusal of the presiding judge, Naidoo J, alleging bias based on her revocation of bail, her alleged status as a gender-based violence activist, an alleged request for a victim impact report, and alleged prior communication with another judge about his case. The High Court dismissed the recusal application, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal with leave.

The appeal against the refusal of the recusal application was dismissed.

The case reinforces the high threshold required to establish a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias in South African law. It underscores the presumption of judicial impartiality, clarifies that dissatisfaction with judicial decisions does not equate to bias, and cautions against the strategic use of recusal applications to derail criminal proceedings, particularly after conviction.