Reuben Heslop v The State

The appellant was convicted of three counts of culpable homicide by Mailula J, sitting with assessors, on 13 August 1996 and sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of six years on 5 November 1996. On the same day sentence was imposed, leave to appeal was sought and granted without opposition from the State, as there were good prospects of success on appeal. The appeal record was only received by the registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal on 19 May 2005, more than nine and a half years after the conviction and sentence. Heads of argument were filed on behalf of the appellant on 25 August 2005 by Adv Miller of the Johannesburg Justice Centre. The respondent filed heads of argument on 6 October 2005 and the appeal was set down for hearing on 2 March 2006. However, in a letter dated 1 November 2005, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions advised the President of the Court that Adv Miller was unable to trace the appellant and had been unable to obtain a power of attorney.

• What is the appropriate remedy when an appeal cannot proceed due to the inability to trace the appellant and the absence of a power of attorney
• What measures should be taken to investigate and address systemic delay in the transmission of appeal records
• What accountability measures should apply when heads of argument are filed without proper authorization from the client

The appeal was struck off the roll. The registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal was directed to: (1) write to the registrar of the Johannesburg High Court requesting a full and detailed explanation for the delay in transmitting the appeal record, identifying the person(s) responsible; and (2) write to Adv Miller at the Johannesburg Justice Centre requesting an explanation as to how heads of argument were filed without a power of attorney from the appellant and what steps had been taken to trace the appellant.

An appeal must be struck off the roll where counsel cannot proceed due to the inability to trace the appellant and the absence of a power of attorney authorizing representation. The court has an inherent supervisory jurisdiction to investigate and require explanations for systemic failures in court administration, including inordinate delays in the transmission of appeal records. Legal representatives must have proper authorization through a power of attorney before filing court documents on behalf of a client, and the court may require explanations where this fundamental requirement has been breached.

The court observed that there were 'undoubtedly good prospects of success on appeal,' which made the State's decision not to oppose the granting of leave to appeal unsurprising. This observation highlights the unfortunate irony that an appellant with meritorious grounds of appeal was unable to have those grounds heard due to systemic failures and the inability to locate him. The court also noted that by the time the letter disclosing the lack of power of attorney was received, judges had already been assigned, records distributed, and it was too late to set down another matter for the hearing date, implicitly criticizing the late disclosure of this critical information.

This case is significant for highlighting the serious consequences of systemic delays in the criminal appeal process and the importance of proper professional conduct in legal representation. The case demonstrates the court's willingness to investigate and hold accountable those responsible for administrative failures that undermine the proper administration of justice. The nine and a half year delay in transmitting the appeal record represents a serious failure of the justice system, particularly given that the appellant had good prospects of success on appeal and was serving a six-year prison sentence. The case also underscores the fundamental requirement that legal representatives must have proper authority (power of attorney) before acting on behalf of clients, and the professional consequences of failing to do so. It serves as a precedent for the court's supervisory role over court administration and the legal profession.