LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Thesis (LLM. (Management and Development)) -- University of Limpopo, 2014 / Every accused person has the right to a fair trial which encompasses the right to adduce and challenge evidence in court. Whilst the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa confers the right to legal representation, an accused person may still opt to conduct his or her own defence. Once an unrepresented accused opts to conduct his or her own defence, the presiding officer then becomes obliged to assist the undefended accused to present his or her own case. South Africa adheres to the accusatorial / adversarial system. Under the accusatorial / adversarial system the presiding judicial officer is in the role of a detached umpire, who should not descend the arena of the duel between the state and the defence for fear of becoming partial or of losing perspective as a result of the dust caused by the affray between the state and the defence. Under the accusatorial/adversarial system, a presiding officer may find it challenging to assist an unrepresented accused or may inadequately assist him or her. This may be so because a fair trial is not determined by ensuring exercise of one of the rights to a fair trial but all the rights to a fair trial. This mini-dissertation, on the injunction of section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which makes provision for the rights to a fair trial, covers the different rights of an unrepresented accused. This is done alongside related provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and pertinent case law. The fat that an unrepresented accused has waived legal representation at the expense of the state and has opted to conduct his or her own defence should not be to his or her peril. The court has a constitutional injunction to protect and advance the rights of an unrepresented accused. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

The right to legal representation at labour proceedings of an administrative or quasi-judicial nature is not clear in our law, and has been the subject of contradictory debate in the South African courts since the1920’s. Despite the ambiguities and uncertainty in the South African common law, the statutory regulation of legal representation was not comprehensively captured in labour legislation resulting in even more debate, especially as to the right to be represented by a person of choice at these proceedings in terms of the relevant entrenched protections contained in the Bill of Rights. The Labour Relations Act 12 of 2002 (prior to amendment) is silent on the right to representation at in-house disciplinary proceedings. Section 135(4) of Act 12 of 2002 allows for a party at conciliation proceedings to appear in person or to be represented by a director or co employee or a member or office bearer or official of that party’s registered trade union. Section 138(4) of the same Act allows for legal representation at arbitration proceedings, but subject to section 140(1) which excludes legal representation involving dismissals for reasons related to conduct or capacity, unless all parties and the commissioner consent, or if the commissioner allows it per guided discretion to achieve or promote reasonableness and fairness. The abovementioned three sections were however repealed by the amendments of the Labour Relations Act 12 of 2002. Despite the repealing provision, Item 27 of Schedule 7 of the Amendment reads that the repealed provisions should remain in force pending promulgation of specific rules in terms of section 115(2A)(m) by the CCMA. These rules have not been promulgated to date. The common law’s view on legal representation as a compulsory consideration in terms of section 39 of the Constitution 108 of 1996 and further a guidance to the entitlement to legal representation where legislation is silent. The common law seems to be clear that there is no general right to legal representation at administrative and quasi judicial proceedings. If the contractual relationship is silent on representation it may be permitted if exceptional circumstances exist, vouching such inclusion. Such circumstances may include the complex nature of the issues in dispute and the seriousness of the imposable penalty ( for example dismissal or criminal sanction). Some authority ruled that the principles of natural justice supercede a contractual condition to the contrary which may exist between employer and employee. The courts did however emphasize the importance and weight of the contractual relationship between the parties in governing the extent of representation at these proceedings. Since 1994 the entrenched Bill of Rights added another dimension to the interpretation of rights as the supreme law of the country. On the topic of legal representation and within the ambit of the limitation clause, three constitutionally entrenched rights had to be considered. The first is the right to a fair trial, including the right to be represented by a practitioner of your choice. Authority reached consensus that this right, contained in section 35 of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 is restricted to accused persons charged in a criminal trial. The second protection is the entitlement to administrative procedure which is justifiable and fair (This extent of this right is governed y the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000) and thirdly the right to equality before the law and equal protection by the law. In conclusion, the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 upholds the law of general application, if free and justifiable. Within this context, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 allows for specific representation at selected fora, and the common law governs legal representation post 1994 within the framework of the Constitution. The ultimate test in considering the entitlement to legal representation at administrative and quasi judicial proceedings will be in balancing the protection of the principle that these tribunals are masters of their own procedure, and that they may unilaterally dictate the inclusion or exclusion of representation at these proceedings and the extent of same, as well as the view of over judicialation of process by the technical and delaying tactics of legal practitioners, against the wide protections of natural justice and entrenched constitutional protections.

The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.

Text in Afrikaans / The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 200 of 1993 that took effect from 27 April 1994, gave an accused a constitutional right to legal representation. Although the right of an accused to be legally represented formed an integral part of the South African Law, the Constitution gave him the further right ofbeing provided with legal representation at the cost of the State . For the practical implementation ofthe Constitution extensive changes to the current Legal Aid Scheme are essential . This work is an investigation of the justification of an accused's right to legal representation and the right to be provided with legal representation at the expense of the State . The practical implementation of the Constitution is discussed and suggestions are made that might be a solution to the current problem of the provision of legal aid at the State's expense. / Die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 200 van 1993 wat op 27 April 1994 in werking getree het, het konstitusionele erkenning verleen aan 'n beskuldigde se reg op regsverteenwoordiging . Alhoewel die reg van 'n beskuldigde tot regsverteenwoordiging inherent deel van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg was het die Grondwet verder gegaan en 'n beskuldigde die reg gegee om op staatskoste van regsverteenwoordiging voorsien te word . Om die Grondwet prakties uitvoerbaar te maak sal ingrypende veranderings aan die huidige Regshulpskema noodsaaklik wees . Hierdie werk behels 'n regshistoriese - en regsvergelykende studie van die reg van 'n beskuldigde tot regsverteenwoordiging en die reg om op staatskoste van regshulp voorsien te word . Die praktiese uitvoerbaarheid van die Grondwet word bespreek en voorstelle word aan die hand gedoen om die huidige situasie, wat betref die verskaffing van regshulp op staatskoste, te verbeter . / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL. M.

Text in Afrikaans / The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 200 of 1993 that took effect from 27 April 1994, gave an accused a constitutional right to legal representation. Although the right of an accused to be legally represented formed an integral part of the South African Law, the Constitution gave him the further right ofbeing provided with legal representation at the cost of the State . For the practical implementation ofthe Constitution extensive changes to the current Legal Aid Scheme are essential . This work is an investigation of the justification of an accused's right to legal representation and the right to be provided with legal representation at the expense of the State . The practical implementation of the Constitution is discussed and suggestions are made that might be a solution to the current problem of the provision of legal aid at the State's expense. / Die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 200 van 1993 wat op 27 April 1994 in werking getree het, het konstitusionele erkenning verleen aan 'n beskuldigde se reg op regsverteenwoordiging . Alhoewel die reg van 'n beskuldigde tot regsverteenwoordiging inherent deel van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg was het die Grondwet verder gegaan en 'n beskuldigde die reg gegee om op staatskoste van regsverteenwoordiging voorsien te word . Om die Grondwet prakties uitvoerbaar te maak sal ingrypende veranderings aan die huidige Regshulpskema noodsaaklik wees . Hierdie werk behels 'n regshistoriese - en regsvergelykende studie van die reg van 'n beskuldigde tot regsverteenwoordiging en die reg om op staatskoste van regshulp voorsien te word . Die praktiese uitvoerbaarheid van die Grondwet word bespreek en voorstelle word aan die hand gedoen om die huidige situasie, wat betref die verskaffing van regshulp op staatskoste, te verbeter . / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. M.

Text in Afrikaans / Alhoewel die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika die bestaande reg op regsverteenwoordiging uitgebrei het tot sy logiese eindpunt, is daar geen vaste inhoud aan hierdie reg gegee nie en sal die howe die omvang daarvan moet ontwikkel. Hierdie reg kan weens die heersende sosiale en ekonomiese omstandighede nie 'n absolute reg wees nie. Indien 'n beskuldigde nie 'n regsverteenwoordiger kan bekostig nie, sal een op staatsonkoste aan horn verskaf word, maar slegs indien <lit andersins tot wesentlike onreg sal lei. In so 'n geval het die beskuldigde nie die reg op 'n regsverteenwoordiger van sy keuse nie. Effektiewe regsverteenwoordiging word ook nie gewaarborg nie. Daar word derhalwe steeds nie aan die sine qua non van 'n volledige strafregplegingstelsel soos <lit oor tyd in die Verenigde State van Amerika ontwikkel het, <lit is die verskaffing van kostelose regsverteenwoordiging aan elke behoeftige persoon beskuldig van 'n emstige misdaad, voldoen nie / Although the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa has extended the existing right to legal representation to its logical conclusion, no definitive substance has been given to this right and the courts will have to develop the purview thereof. This right cannot be an absolute right because of ruling social and economic circumstances. Should an accused not be able to afford a legal representative, one will be supplied to him at state expense, but only if substantial injustice would otherwise result. In such an event the accused is not entitled to a legal representative of his choice. Effective legal representation is also not guaranteed. There is therefore still not compliance with the sine qua non of a comprehensive criminal justice system as has developed over time in the United States of America, that is the provision of free legal representation to every indigent person accused of a serious crime / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Straf en Prosesreg)

Text in Afrikaans / Alhoewel die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika die bestaande reg op regsverteenwoordiging uitgebrei het tot sy logiese eindpunt, is daar geen vaste inhoud aan hierdie reg gegee nie en sal die howe die omvang daarvan moet ontwikkel. Hierdie reg kan weens die heersende sosiale en ekonomiese omstandighede nie 'n absolute reg wees nie. Indien 'n beskuldigde nie 'n regsverteenwoordiger kan bekostig nie, sal een op staatsonkoste aan horn verskaf word, maar slegs indien <lit andersins tot wesentlike onreg sal lei. In so 'n geval het die beskuldigde nie die reg op 'n regsverteenwoordiger van sy keuse nie. Effektiewe regsverteenwoordiging word ook nie gewaarborg nie. Daar word derhalwe steeds nie aan die sine qua non van 'n volledige strafregplegingstelsel soos <lit oor tyd in die Verenigde State van Amerika ontwikkel het, <lit is die verskaffing van kostelose regsverteenwoordiging aan elke behoeftige persoon beskuldig van 'n emstige misdaad, voldoen nie / Although the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa has extended the existing right to legal representation to its logical conclusion, no definitive substance has been given to this right and the courts will have to develop the purview thereof. This right cannot be an absolute right because of ruling social and economic circumstances. Should an accused not be able to afford a legal representative, one will be supplied to him at state expense, but only if substantial injustice would otherwise result. In such an event the accused is not entitled to a legal representative of his choice. Effective legal representation is also not guaranteed. There is therefore still not compliance with the sine qua non of a comprehensive criminal justice system as has developed over time in the United States of America, that is the provision of free legal representation to every indigent person accused of a serious crime / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Straf en Prosesreg)