[pic]
DEPARTMENT: JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Â
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLYÂ
QUESTION NO.:Â 2105
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 29 OCTOBER 2009
        MR P J GROENEWALD (FF PLUS) TO ASK THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
(1)Â Â Â Â Â Â (a) What progress has been made with the review of the
criminal law system in respect of (i) public trials and (ii)
processing submissions that have been made and (b) who is
currently directly responsible for the review;
(2)      whether he will make a statement on the matter?           Â
REPLY:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
(1)(a)Â Â The Honourable Member is referred to my statement hereunder
in terms of progress pertaining to the trial aspects of the
Criminal Justice System Review (CJSR). In relation to the
specific question in respect of âpublic trialsâ, I have to point
out that I am not clear on exactly what is referred to, as the
CJSR has never been about âpublic trialsâ. I presume that the
Honourable Member could be referring to the public hearings that
were held in the various provinces pertaining to the CJSR
(either as part of the CJS Research process, or as part of the
Public Hearings by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and
Constitutional Development during 2008). On the other hand the
Honourable Member could also be referring to progress being made
in ensuring greater efficiency during normal court trials, which
are in any event mostly open to the public. The progress I
mention hereunder will address both dimensions.
(1)(a)(i) and (ii) With regard to âpublic trialsâ, if it is understood
in the sense of public
hearings, I wish to indicate that that process has been
concluded with substantial input having been received from the
public, relevant departments and other stakeholders in the
criminal justice system. Â I will deal with both the public
trials and the processing of submissions together. The
input/submissions were processed in the CJSR Research project
phase. Findings pertaining to a variety of aspects that came
from the public and that are relevant to the CJSR are now being
considered for inclusion in finding solutions towards
implementing the Seven Point Plan of the CJSR. All
inputs/submissions were viewed as important and valuable and the
public and the role players are again thanked for their
assistance in raising issues and possible solutions. Â As I
indicated, the CJSR Research Process has now been concluded and
the various departments in the Justice Crime Prevention and
Security Cluster (JCPS) have been furnished with copies of the
Research Findings. Solutions emanating from the findings will
be further explored in departmental context. Cross-cutting
issues across the JCPS Cluster will be dealt with by the CJSR in
conjunction with the relevant departments. An example in this
regard is that acting on inputs from role players, the CJSR
Research Process investigated as to how to deal with persons who
are mentally incapacitated but come into contact with the law.Â
The Department of Health, the South African Police Services
(SAPS), National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Department
of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) all have a
role to deal with this one way or the other. Therefore a cross-
cutting protocol is being designed to deal with the observation
processes as well as the various handover processes between the
departments and the courts and the testimony required to deal
with this issue. The DoJ&CD also drafted amendments to the
Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 during 2008 to deal with capacity
constraints in terms of the pool of psychiatrists available for
testimony in court. Â I envisage that the Office of the CJSR and
I will provide progress reports on regular intervals to the JCPS
Cluster, Cabinet and the public. It should however be borne in
mind that some of the interventions will be aimed at the short
and medium terms, whilst others will require longer term
implementation. With regard to the latter, I have in mind the
development and implementation of ICT Systems and full automated
performance management and measurement systems on an electronic
basis across the CJS. Â In the interim, use will however be made
of a combination of available electronic data and manually
obtained information for performance management and measurement
purposes.
If the question of the Honourable Member, however, relates to
the focus on criminal trials from the perspective of the CJSR,
then I need to indicate that a variety of interventions and
measures have been and are still being considered and
implemented regarding how to increase the efficiency of the
courts. In this regard I can mention that there are currently
protocols being developed between role players such as the SAPS
and the NPA as well as between the NPA and Legal Aid South
Africa (LASA) to deal with pre-trial aspects, in order to
substantially speed up trials, prevent witnesses from having to
come to court unnecessarily and in general increase court
efficiency. Â
(1)(b)Â Â I wish to indicate to the Honourable Member that I, in my
capacity as the Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development, have been mandated by Cabinet to coordinate the
CJSR. In this regard I am supported by my colleagues in the
Cabinet, the relevant JCPS Ministers, Directors-General and the
Office for the Criminal Justice System Reform.
(2)Â Â Â Â Â Â I wish to make the following brief statement regarding the
progress pertaining to the Review of the Criminal Justice System
(CJS), with a focus on trial related matters as that seems the
be the crux of the question by the Honourable Member. I intend
to make a more general and comprehensive statement on the CJSR
at a suitable time in the near future.Â
The initial two CJS Review Processes (Research on the one hand
and Operational aspects on the other hand) have recently been
merged into one holistic process, namely the CJSR. It deals
with the implementation of the Research Findings aligned to the
Seven Point Plan as approved by Cabinet. The CJSR is a national
priority in the fight against crime and its deliverables are
shaped around a âSeven Point Implementation Planâ that involves
strategic and operational interventions, ranging from policy,
structure and people to processes and business systems,
including reliable and scientifically robust information systems
and automated performance management and measurement tools.Â
As I indicated above, various short term interventions are in
the implementation phase or have already been put in place.Â
Examples of protocols and other interventions (including
legislation) that are being developed to improve the efficiency
of trials include the following:Â
⢠A draft Regional Court Protocol has been developed to enable
screening mechanisms in respect of the trial readiness of cases
and which introduces pre-trial quality reviews and certification
by top investigation and prosecution specialists as well
continuous court rolls.
⢠Supporting the Regional Court Protocol, a draft Court Protocol
for Legal Aid Cases, dealing with improved pre-trial and
coordination aspects between the NPA and Legal Aid South Africa
(LASA), is currently receiving attention. Â
⢠To decrease the number of cases on the court rolls, legislation
was introduced during 2008 pertaining to Admission of Guilt for
minor offences. Regulations in this regard are currently being
drafted.Â
⢠To reduce the number of cases that are outstanding on our court
rolls we have instituted the Case Backlog Reduction Project
which is continuing. The initial focus of this Project has been
on the Regional Courts. It has led to a steady and continuous
decrease in the number of backlog cases at all of the 38
regional backlog priority sites, and has  facilitated the
finalisation of 16 595 out of an average of 50 000 active cases
on the regional court rolls through additional capacity. This
has been achieved between November 2006 and September 2009 and
has resulted in 74% of the accused being convicted.
I trust that in view of the few examples that I have mentioned
above and the achievements at the coal face, the Honourable Member
will agree that the progress is substantial.