S v Willemse

The accused, Royden Christopher Willemse, pleaded not guilty to culpable homicide, reckless driving, and driving under the influence of liquor or drugs. He admitted to driving a Honda Ballade on 3 April 2016 on Chavonnes Road, Caledon, at high speed and colliding with pedestrians, causing one's death. He had consumed alcohol before driving. The accused raised necessity as a defence, claiming he fled from aggressive individuals at a pub. The plea proceedings incorporating admissions were held before a contract magistrate whose fixed-term contract subsequently ended. Her contract was not renewed, and she emailed the Head of the Magistrates' Court stating she could no longer finalise the matter. The Head of Court referred the matter to the High Court for special review to obtain direction on how the part-heard matter should proceed.

• Whether a part-heard criminal matter presided over by a contract magistrate whose term has expired can be continued before another magistrate under section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
• Whether formal admissions made during plea proceedings constitute 'evidence adduced' as contemplated in section 118 of the CPA.
• Whether the contract magistrate's unavailability entitled the matter to be referred for special review and allocation to another magistrate.

The matter was remitted back to the magistrate for the district of Caledon to be continued before any other magistrate of the same court.

Admissions made during plea proceedings under section 115 or section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act do not constitute 'evidence adduced' as envisaged in section 118 of the CPA. A plea is not evidence, and formal admissions are probative material rather than evidence given under oath. Where a presiding officer who took a plea of not guilty is no longer available and no evidence has yet been adduced, the matter may be continued before any other magistrate of the same court under section 118.

The court expressed sharp disapproval of the contract magistrate's conduct, stating her email was inconsistent with appreciation of the gravitas of the judicial oath. The court stated the attitude raised serious questions about her fitness to be ordained with judicial authority. The court further observed that Chief Magistrates, Senior Magistrates and Heads of Magistrates Courts should engage in serious induction of those recommended for appointment, emphasizing that judicial authority is not removed by the end of a shift and responsibility extends beyond the fixed term to disposal of matters.

This case provides clarity on the distinction between formal admissions and 'evidence adduced' for purposes of section 118 of the CPA, affirming that admissions made during plea proceedings do not prevent a matter from being transferred to another magistrate. It also reinforces the responsibilities of contract magistrates under sections 9(6) and 9(7) of the Magistrates' Courts Act and serves as a stern reminder of the enduring nature of judicial obligations beyond fixed-term appointments.