a) Two students from South African University, University of Nambiana, were charged with malicious damage to property during student allowances’ strike where the University gate was damaged. During court appearance, one them said to come from French speaking country and have no understanding of English pleaded guilty, and the other one denied it, and said he wasn’t there. They both got sentenced to two years of imprisonment and were told that there would be reconsideration. They were also refused lawyers' participation like in Malini in order to teach other students not to waste money of tax payers.
The prosecutor got confused as he had initially agreed with the student that pleaded guilty to a lesser idleness and disorderliness charge, where he will only be fined. The student didn’t understand English and therefore thought he was pleading guilty to a minor offense, only to realise at that point that he was going to jail. This decision was supported by the President since he believed that it’ll prevent more public property destruction. A debating student at UFS conducted a research and found that this decision contradicts other courts’ decisions including that of the Supreme Court.
b) Five issues:
1. Is the guilty plea of French speaking student valid, considering possibility of a misunderstanding due to language barrier?
2. Did the language barrier affect the student’s ability to fully comprehend the charges and his rights?
3. Does their legal representation denial raise concerns about their right to fair trial?
4. How did the prosecutor’s confusion of the charges and plea agreements impact the expected outcomes?
5. To what extent did the President influence the court's decision?
c) Laws that would apply to the situation in order of hierarchy:
1. The Constitution of South Africa, 1996:
section 35, section 35(2)(c) and 35(3)(f) & (g), section 35(3)(k), section 39, and Section 165(3)
2. International human rights laws:
Article 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 14(3)(f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right
3. Criminal Procedure Act: 51 of 1997:
Section 35(2)(a), section 162, and section 170
d) Discussion of the issues raised:
Section 39 of the Constitution may be used to interpret the Bill of Rights, for instance, the right to a fair trial. Section 35 of the Constitution guarantees the right to fair trial to every accused. This means that the student has this right, including the right to understand the proceedings. Since the student was only aware of imprisonment when the correctional service arrived, it shows that there was a misunderstanding and according to law if there is language barrier preventing the student from understanding the process and consequences of a guilty plea, then the validity of the plea should be questioned. He can then argue that their guilty plea should be invalid due to misunderstanding caused by the language barrier.
Constitution of South Africa, Section 35(3)(k) and Article 14(3)(f) of the ICCPR guarantees the right to be tried in a language that the accused understands. Similarly, if there has been a misunderstanding due to language barrier that prevented the student from understanding the charges or their rights, then it is violates this right. The student can say inability to understand the charges disturbed his ability to participate in the proceedings effectively.
Section 35(2)(c) and 35(3)(f) & (g) of the Constitution guarantees the right to be represented by a legal practitioner and that the accused should be informed of this right. Reflecting to our case, the denial of participation of legal representation should be questioned as this violates the student’s rights as guaranteed in the Constitution that they have the right to be represented in their defence. The student can argue that due to lack of legal representation, they were unable to be properly defended and present their case, which infringe their right to a fair trial.
The confusion of the charges and plea agreements by the prosecutor could have a significant impact on the expected outcomes. This could potentially undermine the fairness of the trial and violate the rights of the accused. The student may argue that the prosecutor's confusion demonstrates a lack of proper legal proceedings and potentially affected the outcome of the trial.
To what extent did the President influence the court's decision?
Section 165(3) of the Constitution emphasizes the independence and non-interference with the functioning of the courts. If the President attempted to influence the court's decision, it would likely be considered a violation of this provision. The student may argue that the influence of the President raises concerns about the impartiality and fairness of the trial, potentially compromising their right to a fair trial.
use the above informatio to Conclude with a possible determination in the matter (10 Marks)
Based on the issues raised and the applicable laws, it can be determined that the guilty plea of the French speaking student may not be valid due to the possibility of a misunderstanding caused by the language barrier. The student's inability to fully comprehend the charges and their rights, as well as the denial of legal representation, raises concerns about their right to a fair trial. The confusion of the charges and plea agreements by the prosecutor further undermines the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, if the President influenced the court's decision, it would likely be considered a violation of the independence and non-interference of the courts.
Considering these factors, it is possible to conclude that the students' rights to a fair trial may have been violated. A reconsideration of the case should take place, ensuring that the students have proper legal representation and a clear understanding of the charges. The outcome of the trial should be based on accurate information and be free from any external influences.