Article by Roodepoort Attorney: LEON WOLLNIK
The permanent stay of prosecution in South African criminal law is a drastic but necessary remedy designed to protect an accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial under section 35(3)(d).
Unlike an acquittal, which follows a full trial and a finding of not guilty, a permanent stay halts proceedings before any evidence is heard, effectively discharging the accused without trial.
This distinction underscores its procedural nature: it is not about guilt or innocence but about safeguarding fairness when delays or systemic failures threaten irreparable prejudice. Higher courts alone have jurisdiction to grant such relief, applying a balancing test that weighs the prejudice suffered by the accused against the public interest in prosecution. The Broome and Wiggins case illustrates this principle vividly, where the loss of crucial documents due to state action and a seven-year delay led the court to conclude that the accused could not receive a fair trial, thereby justifying a permanent stay.
Although courts have historically been reluctant to grant this remedy, its importance lies in addressing systemic inefficiencies that undermine both individual rights and public confidence in the justice system.
The reluctance stems from its far-reaching consequences: once granted, the state cannot reinstate the charges, making it functionally equivalent to an acquittal. Yet, given the chronic delays in lower courts, there is a compelling argument for extending jurisdiction to magistrates’ courts, where most accused persons experience prolonged uncertainty and prejudice. A more open approach to granting permanent stays would not only protect accused persons from procedural injustice but also incentivize prosecutorial accountability, ensuring that justice delayed does not become justice denied.
For more information, please visit our website wollnikattorneys.co.za, email us at Send email or give us a call on 011 793-4367 or Business WhatsApp: 082 773 1053
