Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPienaar, L
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-16T13:54:21Z
dc.date.available2018-04-16T13:54:21Z
dc.date.issued2017-12-08
dc.identifier.citationPotchefstroom electronic law journal (PELJ) = Potchefstroomse elektoniese regsblad (PER), 20: [http://www.nwu.ac.za/p-per/index.html]en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/26734
dc.description.abstractSection 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for the appointment of mental health professionals to assess an accused’s fitness to stand trial and/or criminal capacity if the court orders such an enquiry in terms of sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In terms of section 79, one mental health professional must assess an accused charged with a non-violent offence, whereas a panel of such professionals must assess an accused charged with an offence involving serious violence. The legislative provisions regarding the appointment of mental health professionals to a section 79-assessment panel are not without ambiguity. Section 79(1)(b) read with section 79(13) is problematic. Directives issued by the National Prosecuting Authority in terms of section 79(13) do not aid in clarifying the legal position either. The main point of contention is whether a section 79-assessment panel must consist of a minimum of two or three psychiatrists. This ambiguity creates challenges for presiding officers tasked with appointing section 79-assessment panels. When presiding officers appoint these panels incorrectly, it causes delays in the assessment process and the delivery of justice to the accused and the victim. The court considered the interplay between section 79(1)(b) and section 79(13) in S v Pedro 2015 1 SACR 41 (WCC). The judgment highlights the need to clarify the position in the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the appointment of section 79-assessment panels. This case provided the impetus for the amendment of section 79 through the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017. This contribution explores the composition of section 79-assessment panels as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 79(1)(b) and the seemingly contradictory provisions contained in section 79(13) are discussed. The S v Pedro judgment is discussed with a specific focus on the court’s interpretation of the interplay between these two provisions. Following the S v Pedro judgment, the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017 amended section 79. This contribution explores the clarifying provisions of the Amendment Act regarding the composition of assessment panels.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectCriminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017en_US
dc.subjectassessment panelsen_US
dc.subjectpsychiatristsen_US
dc.subjectclinical psychologistsen_US
dc.subjectsection 79 of the Criminal Procedure Acten_US
dc.subjectfitness to stand trialen_US
dc.subjectcriminal capacityen_US
dc.subjectS v Pedroen_US
dc.titleDeciphering the Composition of Section 79- Assessment Panels in the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record