Prevention of Organised Crime Amendment Bill [B2b-99]; Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B132b-98]; Criminal Procedure Amendmen

SECURITY & JUSTICE SELECT COMMITTEE
3 March 1999
PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIME AMENDMENT BILL [B2B-99]; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL [B132B-98]; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL [B7-99]; MILITARY VETERANS’ AFFAIRS BILL [B13-99]: BRIEFING

Documents handed out:
Military Veterans’ Affairs Bill [B 13-99]
Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B 7-99]
Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B 132B-98]
Prevention of Organised Crime Amendment Bill [B 2B-99]

MINUTES
The chairperson, Mr Moosa (Gauteng, ANC), began the meeting by saying when the Interception and Monitoring Amendment Bill would reach Parliament. The Director of the National Prosecuting Authority, Mr Bulelani Ncquka, earlier this week had stressed how urgent it was to pass this Bill as criminals were no longer utilising Telkom, but cellular phones.

The Judicial Matters Amendment Bill is not ready, while the Military Veterans’ Affairs Bill has been tabled. This Bill is ready and will be introduced this week. This is urgent and must be put through before the 26^th of March. It cannot be kept on hold for the new Parliament to start.

There will be a full briefing on the Joint Council of Defence on 15, 16 and 17 March. The Committee will have to work around these dates. Mr Selfe (DP) said that a panel must be selected to deal with this, since there might be clashes.

Mr Moosa thanked the members for their indulgence for the past two weeks. Most members did not come to the hearings with the National Assembly. The budget process had to be put through. The SAPS hearings went well, especially the provincial focus day. The Department of Correctional Services had good hearings too. The MEC’s will be here on the 4^th March, and the debate starts at 10:00.

Mr de Lange (legal adviser for Department of Justice) said that there will be public hearings on the second Prevention of Organised Crime Amendment Bill. This Bill will be introduced to set the process in motion, but there is no pressure yet. The committee will find a way to handle the Military Disciplinary Bill next week. Mr Radue (NP) said that one should appreciate the urgency of Military Disciplinary Bill. The High Court decision had created a situation where Defence Force members were not subject to effective discipline, and this was important to rectify.

Mr Moosa said that there are 3 days to pass Bills – 15-17 March 1999.

Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B 132B-98]
The amendments were approved by the Assembly Committee, but certain concerns had been raised by the different Ministries and Departments. The Minister of Justice wants to meet with the Minister of Welfare. The inconsistencies will have to be sorted out soon. Mr Moosa replied that the Select Committee could do nothing if the amendments weren’t accepted. Mr de Lange said that the Minister of Justice might accept a slightly amended Bill. Mr Moosa finally stressed that the Department of Justice was not ready for the path that the Department of Welfare intended to follow. The Department of Welfare is the custodian of minors, and this Department is best equipped to deal with the current situation. Therefore the Select Committee should abide by the final decision.

Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B 7-99]
Mr de Lange said that the Bill had been introduced in the National Assembly, and public hearings are due soon. There is a lot of pressure to produce this Bill. The Bill has to be introduced quickly and simultaneously.

According to Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, every case in which an unrepresented accused person is sentenced by a magistrate with less than 7 years’ experience, to a fine exceeding R2 500 or to imprisonment exceeding three months or by a magistrate with more than 7 years’ experience, to a fine exceeding R5 000 or to imprisonment exceeding six months, must be submitted to judge of a High Court for an automatic review. This creates a heavy administrative workload and is very costly.

Mr de Lange said that the Department was in favour of the abolishment of the automatic review because of available services like Legal Aid. Any alternatives imply a new Bill having to be drawn up. The likelihood exists that the Bill will be withdrawn and "accused-friendly" legislation introduced. The Portfolio Committee will review the evidence and the Department will raise the issue with the Ministry. The plan is to withdraw the Bill, rather than introduce a new one. The Bill can be rewritten by the Committee.

Mr Moosa queried the consequences of having the Bill withdrawn. Mr de Lange replied that Section 302/303 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, would be modified. Mr Moosa asked what would happen if someone was acquitted. Mr de Lange said that the system is in favour of the accused. If the magistrate makes a blatant error during a trial, the case can be referred to the High Court. If the prosecution finds an error, the case is immediately submitted to the High Court.

Mr Surty (North West, ANC) said that the automatic review system has its benefits – it acts as a training school for young magistrates. It forces magistrates to deliver good work as the performance of the magistrates are assessed, by the Chief Magistrates.

Mr Moosa asked whether the possibility existed of setting up a review board. He made the suggestion that special criteria should exist, and that 2 or 3 judges should listen to reviews from across the country. A team of researchers could assist them. He furthermore argued that magistrates with 4 years’ experience ought to have good judgement by then. The number of years should be reduced, and specific types of sentences introduced. The reviews would then be in favour of the Constitution. Currently high level criminals are walking away from the magistrate courts and communities criticize this. The Bill should be looked at differently, perhaps by engaging with the Department on alternatives.

Mr Moosa once again stressed the enormous costs involved with the upkeep of the automatic review system. A balance must be found – costs could be streamlined for the Review Board.
The cost factor is more or less 10 million Rand a year. Money must be found in the budget to support it.

The proposal to withdraw the Bill was supported. This view will be expressed at the next meeting in the National Assembly. The Committee will have to look at viable options.

Prevention of Organised Crime Amendment Bill [B 2B-99]
This Bill can soon be finalised. It was extensively amended in the National Assembly. Towards the end of last year, the Act had to be passed quickly. Mr Smith and Mr Nel (Department of Justice) had difficulty in translating it into Afrikaans. Eventually mistakes and incorrect cross references were spotted. The small irregularities were however obvious before the Bill went to the printers. There was not real satisfaction after the Bill was introduced. Improvements were made, but in the Afrikaans version some words did not have the same meaning as in English. No real editing was done.

Mr Smith resumed with the technical amendments to this Bill, but was interrupted by Mr Radue. He proposed that the Committee should accept the technical amendments as it had already gone through the Portfolio Committee. It was accepted that all technical amendments should be bypassed and substantial issues only discussed.

Clause 9(a)
Mr Smith continued. Concern was raised by the Banking Council regarding this specific clause. They found it difficult to determine which person had to report to whom, and who would eventually be responsible for negligence. Mr Smith said that it previously was not clear exactly what was suspicious in a business, and what not. Mr de Lange referred the Committee to Section 1(3) of the principal Act.

Clause 10
The Banking Council was worried that they would be prosecuted for money-laundering when suspicious deposits were made and not divulged immediately.

Clause 16(a)
The Committee was referred to the handout of the Prevention of Crime Amendment Bill [B 2B-99], as agreed to by this same Committee.

Clause 19(a)
A difference had to be made between subsection 1 (a person alive) and subsection 2 (a person deceased).

Clause 33
This clause amended Section 57 of Act 121 of 1998. It was not necessary for the High Court to give directions.

Clause 35
This clause amended Section 64 of the principal Act. Property can be allocated or appropriated so that the accountant can receive finances from various sources.

Clause 36
The accountant can receive property.

Clause 37
According to the Department of State Expenditure money can only be paid for each project. Mr Selfe asked if this would not clash with the previous Treasury Control Bill. Mr Smith’s response was that this was already accommodated for by the Accountant General. No more Parliamentary oversight was needed. The Act is already in existence, the account was therefore in operation from 21-01-1999. The Committee asked Mr Smith to crosscheck with the Treasury Control Bill. This would be finalised next week Monday. The Bill was not passed by the select committee.

Military Veterans’ Affairs Bill
The Department of Defence was not present, therefore the Bill was not discussed.

All future meetings scheduled will still take place on the given dates, though the agendas may be changed.