Abstract
In late 2016, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment in a case, Wickham v Magistrate, Stellenbosch 2017 1 BCLR 121 (CC), involving Wayne Anthony Wickham (an aggrieved father and applicant in this case), who appealed against the decision of the Magistrate's Court in which he was denied the opportunity to hand up a victim impact statement. The thrust of his application was that his rights, as a victim of the crime in which his son was negligently killed by the fourth respondent, had been violated, and that this raised an arguable point of law of general public importance. The respondents, however, argued that the applicant lacked standing as the dominus litis in culpable homicide cases is the public prosecutor, and not the relatives of the deceased, or the victim. The case turned on whether the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate in denying Wickham the right to be heard was performed correctly; and whether a non-party to criminal proceedings could make an application for the review of the Magistrate's conduct. The article seeks to interrogate the rights of victims in criminal proceedings and aptly poses the following question: Do victims of crimes have a locus standi to be part of criminal proceedings?
Highlights
In October 2016 the Constitutional Court delivered a very brief, 12-page unanimous judgment in the matter of Wickham v Magistrate, Stellenbosch,1 which is a matter that started in the Magistrate's Court
In late 2016, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment in a case, Wickham v Magistrate, Stellenbosch 2017 1 BCLR 121 (CC), involving Wayne Anthony Wickham, who appealed against the decision of the Magistrate's Court in which he was denied the opportunity to hand up a victim impact statement
Having exhausted all available remedies, Mr Wickham decided to re-launch his application in the Constitutional Court, as an appeal against the High Court decision which dismissed his initial appeal against the conviction and sentence handed down by the Magistrate's Court
Summary
In October 2016 the Constitutional Court delivered a very brief, 12-page unanimous judgment in the matter of Wickham v Magistrate, Stellenbosch, which is a matter that started in the Magistrate's Court. The Constitutional Court held that it was not in the interests of justice to hear the matter at that time because the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which had jurisdiction, had not yet been approached. Following Mr Wickham's unsuccessful Constitutional Court application, he approached the SCA for leave to appeal the Magistrate's decision. With this application, another application was initiated directly in the SCA. Having exhausted all available remedies, Mr Wickham decided to re-launch his application in the Constitutional Court, as an appeal against the High Court decision which dismissed his initial appeal against the conviction and sentence handed down by the Magistrate's Court
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
