Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill: briefing by Department of Justice
Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill
09 February 2009
Chairperson: Ms M M Sotyu (ANC)
Meeting Summary
The Department of Justice provided a detailed briefing on the Bill as a follow-up to the general briefing provided by the Deputy Minister of Justice on 20 January. The long title of the Bill explained that it amended the Criminal Procedure Act in its regulation of the powers dealing with the ascertainment of a person’s bodily features. It now provided for the compulsory taking of finger-prints of certain categories of persons; the taking of prints and samples for investigative purposes; the taking of specified bodily substances from certain categories of persons for the purposes of DNA analysis; the retention of prints and samples obtained in terms of the Act; the regulation of proof of certain facts by affidavit or certificate; and the establishment and regulation of the administration and maintenance of the National DNA Database of South Africa (NDDSA).The Committee discussed several of the definitions contained in the interpretation Section in light of the submissions made by different stakeholders during the public hearings. The provisions of Section 36B and 36C were extensively debated in view of the submissions made by POPCRU regarding outsourcing. In the deliberations on Section 36B, the main concern was the possible ambiguities in the meaning of the phrase “or must cause” in the stipulation of the powers for the taking of samples from accused and convicted persons. The Senior State Law Adviser, however, maintained that the wording used in Section 36B was consistent with the position in the Criminal Procedure Act. Both the State Law Adviser and representatives from SAPS Forensic Science Laboratories were called upon by the Committee to clarify how the provisions of Section 36B would be implemented in practice. The Committee was interested in finding out about the procedure and the allocation of responsibilities with regard to the way in which DNA evidence would be dealt with at a crime scene. The Committee also raised concerns about SAPS capability to implement the legislation considering inadequate human resources, skills scarcity and poor infrastructure. Although the Committee had been furnished with a five-year implementation plan, members were nonetheless dissatisfied with SAPS capabilities for implementing the legislation.
Meeting report
Ms Sotyu explained that the Committee had been supposed to hear three more submissions. However they had opted to submit written submissions to the Committee as opposed to oral submission. The Chairperson also said that she had initiated an investigation of the allegations made by POPCRU in the public hearings. Police management would also be required to come before the Committee to respond to the issues raised there. The Committee had to be assured before the Bill was passed, that they had the capacity to implement it. Experience had shown that Parliament could pass good Bills that however failed when it came to implementation. She requested the Department of Justice to take the Committee through the Bill.
Dr Lirette Louw, Senior State Law Adviser, Department of Justice and drafter, confirmed with the Chairperson that the Department would not be referring yet be responding to the public submissions on the Bill but would be presenting a briefing on the Bill clause by clause.
Clause 1: Substitution of the heading of Chapter 3 of the CPA
She began with the clause which effected amendments to the heading of Chapter 3 of the CPA Act which in its current form had referred only to accused persons. This had been broadened to include the ascertainment of bodily features of persons so that it would not only affect accused persons but would also incorporate convicted persons as well.
Clause 2: Insertion of sections 36A, 36B and 36C in Chapter 3 of the CPA
Dr Louw said these provisions would replace the outdated section 37 of the CPA to update the legislation in order to increase the country’s DNA capacity. A new definition clause (section 36A) had also been introduced which had not existed in the old chapter 3 of the CPA. The first definition was for the phrase “authorised persons”. A distinction was made between “authorised persons” for the purposes of photographic images, finger-prints or body-prints and “authorised persons” when talking about DNA. The first category of authorised persons which the police were already using as part of their investigations was any police official in the performance of his or her official duties. It was therefore limited in that sense. Then with regards to the NDDSA, an “authorised person” would be the police officer commanding the Division: Criminal Record and Forensic Science Service within the South African Police Service or his or her delegate. This was to try and limit access to the NDDSA to the forensic experts within the Criminal Record and Forensic Science Service (CR & FSS). The definition of “authorised person” had to be read in conjunction with the definition for “speculative search”.
Discussion
Ms Sotyu asked about the limiting of the definition of body-prints. During the Committee’s tour of the facilities in Pretoria they had learnt that such things as imprints left by a person’s teeth for example could be analysed. Could these not also be included in the definition?
Dr Louw responded that with respect to dental records, analysis would have to be conducted by a medical practitioner. For example if an apple was found with teeth marks and investigators wanted to determine a person’s identity from them, they would not be permitted to take the dental impression themselves but they would refer that to a medical practitioner. That medical practitioner would then have to deal with the evidence and was required by the law to comply with such a request. Police could not therefore undertake procedures that were only supposed to be done by medical professionals.
Dr Louw continued with the definitions of; “DNA”; “DNA analysis”; “DNA profile; “intimate sample”; “NDDSA”; and “non-intimate sample”. She commented that the police could not take an intimate sample. On the other hand they were permitted to take non-intimate samples such a sample of hair other than pubic hair or a sample taken from the mouth to mention some examples. The definition of DNA analysis also included “any other bodily substance”. This was in reference to bodily substances that would be found at crime scenes, as opposed to being collected from any person. A profile could then be derived and stored on a crime scene index.
In concluding the section on definitions, Dr Louw indicated the provisions of sub-clause 2 of section 36A which state that any reference to a person included a child for the purposes of the Chapter unless the context dictated otherwise. In discussions between the Department and the Divisional Commissioner Geldenhuys, the police had requested to remove this reference to ‘child’ since in the CPA children were already included in any reference to person. It could therefore cause confusion. The Department had no problem with this suggestion and would go along with it later on during amendments.
Clause 3: Section 36B on powers in respect of finger-prints and non-intimate samples of accused and convicted persons
Ms Louw said that this was where the Department wanted to make the taking of prints from these categories of persons compulsory as opposed to the current position where discretion was used because of the use of the word ‘may’ in section 37 of the CPA. This was also the section that the police would use to take non-intimate samples to populate the DNA database. The Bill accordingly provided that a police official had to take finger-prints or non-intimate samples or had to cause such prints to be taken of any person in the categories stated in 36B (1) (a) and (b). All the six categories in 36B (1) (a) were imported wholesale from the CPA with the exception that the word “may” had been substituted with the word “must” to make it mandatory for the police to take prints in terms of that section.
The Bill also contained a provision that criminalised the use, by any person, of finger-prints and non-intimate samples or allowed their use for any purpose that was not related to the detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution. Such a person would be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 15 years. This was one of the safeguards built into the legislation to ensure that this real evidence could only be used for a specific government objective.
Clause 4: Section 36C on body-prints and samples for non-investigative purposes
The section was inserted after deliberation with the police who made a request to include such a provision. This section was modelled very closely to existing legislation such as the Firearms Control Act. Any police office could without a warrant take finger-prints, body-prints or non-intimate samples on reasonable grounds that an offence had been committed. If there also existed reasonable grounds to believe that the prints or samples (or the results of an examination thereof) would be of value by excluding or including a persons as possible perpetrators of the offence then the police were allowed to take samples or prints without a warrant. The manner in which these samples or prints were to be dealt with was stipulated in subsection (3) (c) and (d).
Clause 5: Amendment of section 37 of Act 51 of 1977
Clause 3 which amended section 37 specifically included convicted persons. The previous section 37 had included convicted persons but the Minister had to publish a list and this had never actually happened since 1927.
Clause 6: Amendment of sections 212 and 225 of the CPA
Section 212 dealt with the admission of proof of evidence by affidavit or certificate in court by expert witnesses; for example, where their presence was not necessarily required. Such an affidavit would set out all the steps taken to obtain the evidence.
Clause 7: The insertion of Chapter 5A and 5B into the SAPS Act
Whilst previous clauses had dealt with the insertion of new clauses or the amendment of existing ones in the CPA, these clauses were concerned with the SAPS Act. The power to collect prints and samples was dealt with under the CPA. But once they had been collected, they had to be handed over to the police. This is where one started to ask how they had to be maintained and administered and how they should be used. The first chapter dealt with finger-prints, body-prints and photographic images of persons whilst the second dealt with the issue of a DNA database.
Clause 8: Chapter 5B
The provisions of Chapter 5B dealt in detail with the establishment of a national DNA database. A definitions clause was also included, that is section 15D to interpret the same terminology as that defined in the CPA so that it was also defined in the SAPS Act. Unlike in the parallel clause in the CPA, however, this clause made reference to the Explosives Act and the Firearms Control Act and included the definition of the term ‘volunteer’. ‘Volunteer’ referred to a person who freely consented to the taking of an intimate or non-intimate sample in accordance with Section 15J which dealt with the volunteer index.
Ms Sotyu (ANC) requested Dr Louw to stop at that point so that members could discuss the provisions that she had presented up to Section 15K.
Discussion
Ms Carol Johnson (ANC) asked a question on the definition of intimate and non-intimate samples in light of the submissions made by the Commission on Gender Equality (CGE).
Dr. Louw responded that the CGE had misdirected them since the CPA in Chapter 3 was not applicable to victims since it dealt mainly with accused persons and persons convicted persons. Medical practitioners could not therefore compel victims to give samples
Ms M Sotyu asked for clarity on 36B about the use of the phrase “a police official must take the finger-prints… or must cause” such prints to be taken. Who was the other person referred to; there was a need to specify. If this was a medical practitioner then it was necessary to say so in the legislation. She also asked for clarity on the use of ‘his or her delegate’ throughout the legislation with respect to the National Commissioner. This had been one of the concerns that had been raised by some of the presenters in public hearings.
Dr Louw responded that this position had been adopted word for word from the CPA It would always be a police official and there was no way it could be interpreted as referring to outsourcing. This was the same with ‘his or her delegate’. The SAPS Act specified to whom a National Commissioner could delegate his powers and this was only a police official. One could not delegate powers outside of government and it therefore could not be outsourced at all.
Ms Chohan-Kota (ANC) suggested that perhaps the scope of the clause could be narrowed down so that not just any police official could handle DNA samples or take finger-prints. It seemed that the scope of those clauses could be narrowed down wherever possible. She had also been very worried that the legislation said that any police official could collect samples or prints.
Advocate Madasa (ANC) commented that if there was a restriction as to who uplifted the evidence it could become impractical for those selected to reach all the crime scenes.
Dr Louw responded that the Bill did not regulate what happened at the crime scene since the police already had a crime scene policy in place that stipulated the procedures for crime scenes.
Advocate Madasa (ANC) asked about the powers of the court, that is, the power to do things mero motu in terms of the amendment of section 37 of the CPA which would be substituted by clause 3. He asked on sub clause (3) under what circumstances the court felt it had to order certain things. Would this be at the instance of the state or the accused person or was it simply an exercise of discretion by the court on its own?
Dr Louw responded that this was the existing position in the CPA and that the court made its own decision on a case by case basis.
Mr. Ntuli (ANC) suggested that since specifying the people who had to execute this created practical problems, perhaps it would be better for the police management themselves to enlighten the Committee.
Ms Sotyu pointed to the reference to “any other person” and said that this was worrying in light of POPCRU’s submission. The Committee would take all stakeholders on board and police management would to be called to tell the Committee what they had in place to implement this legislation
The Divisional Commissioner (SAPS FSL), Mr Piet du Toit, responded to the questions about the crime scene. He stated that SAPS had a crime scene policy which made provision for first member on the scene and then the role and responsibility of detectives. There was no way that all scenes would be accessed by the experts.
Responding to Ms Sotyu’s question about the capacity to implement the legislation, Mr du Toit submitted that resources were not immediately available. Efforts were underway and in the past two years capacity building in the forensic laboratories had been ongoing. The construction of new labs and training programmes for example were part of an eight legged implementation plan. The training plan was one leg, as was the IT infrastructure plan. At present the SAPS and Home Affairs databases were incompatible and required electronic interfacing. SAPS also required time to put in place the national instructions as well as quality assurance and standards for the NDDSA. It was also necessary to procure specific agreements with Home Affairs and the Department of Transport with regards to the process by which their database would be linked. Viewed from the entirety of the CJS review process there was need for a detailed implementation plan.
Assistant Commissioner Vinesh Moonoo explained the role of a detective in co-ordination with other police officials in the crime scene context to distinguish their roles and responsibilities.
Ms van Wyk (ANC) commented that police management had to come and answer about the shortage of detectives. It would be irresponsible for the Committee to pass a Bill that could not be implemented.
The meeting was adjourned
Audio
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.