THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA STATEMENT – CASE HEARING IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
 
G Carter v The State

Supreme Court of Appeal -535/2006 Hearing date: 24 November 2006
  Judgment date: 01 December 2006

Criminal procedure – appeal – condonation – failure to file record of proceedings – responsibility of registrar of High Court in terms of s 316(7) of CPA – no lapsing of appeal – SCA rule 8 not applicable to criminal appeals.

Criminal procedure – appeal – plea of guilty at trial – failure of trial judge to comply with s 112(2) of CPA – effect.

Criminal procedure-appeal – s 322(1) of CPA – failure of justice – meaning in context of non-compliance with s 112(2).
Media Summary of Judgment

On 1 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Appeal delivered judgment in Gavin Carter v S.

The appellant appealed against his conviction on one count of robbery with aggravating circumstances and two counts of murder. The offences were committed during 1992 in Klerksdorp when three men held up and robbed a bottle store, abducted the manager and a watchman, shot them and cast their bodies down a mine shaft. The skeletons were found months later. In 1994 the appellant and two others stood trial. The appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted after his counsel had put in a statement signed by the appellant in which he purported to confirm the circumstances of the crimes. After evidence had been led in relation to the appropriate punishment the trial judge sentenced the appellant to an effective 18 years imprisonment.

In 2000 the appellant applied for leave to appeal against his convictions. The grounds were that the statement put in at the trial should have been regarded by the judge as insufficient to satisfy him that the appellant was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged.

On appeal the SCA agreed that the statement had not met the required standard. It held, however, that it only had power to set aside the conviction if it was satisfied that the irregularity had resulted in a failure of justice. During the sentencing proceedings the evidence of a social worker and a psychologist had contained reports made to them by the appellant during interviews. This evidence had been led without objection by the appellant. An examination of the reports showed that the appellant had admitted all the necessary elements of the crimes.

The SCA held, therefore, that if the matter were to be remitted for the proper procedures to be carried out no purpose would be served as the convictions would inevitably be repeated. In the circumstances it was not possible to find that a failure of justice had taken place. The appeal was dismissed.