PROGRESS REPORT DATED 26 OCTOBER 2006 TO PARLIAMENT I.T.O. SECTION 13(3)(f) OF THE MAGISTRATES ACT, 1993: INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT: CHAUKE M K

1. Introduction

The Magistrates Commission must in terms of section 13(3)(t) of the Magistrates Act, No. 90 of 1993 (Act) cause a report on the progress made in respect of inquiries against magistrates who have been provisionally suspended form office to be submitted to Parliament every three months.

Section 13(3)( e) of the Act provides that the provisional suspension of a magistrate in terms of paragraph (a) lapses after 60 days from the date of suspension, unless the Commission, within that period, commences its inquiry into the allegation in question by causing a written notice containing the allegation concerned to be served on the magistrate.

2. Discussion

In terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Act the Minister, acting on the advice of the Commission, provisionally suspended Mr Chauke from office on 13 December 2005.

He appeared in the Regional Court, Pretoria on a charge of theft. The matter emanates from the theft of a number of containers from Vitamine Laboratories in Midrand. After the State closed its case in January 2006 the defence applied for the acquittal of the accused in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act. On 26 January 2006 the application was refused. On 27 January 2006 the case was postponed to 6 and 7 as well as 20 and 21 April 2006 due to the illness of Mr Chauke. The two co-accused to wit his son and wife, have already testified. Mr Chauke's attorney of record withdrew from the case on 20 April 2006 where after the case was postponed to 7 June 2006 and on that day further postponed to 3 August 2006 in order for him to secure the services of another attorney and for trial. Mr Chauke thereafter terminated the services of his newly appointed attorney which he had appointed after his previous attorney withdrew from the case. He again appointed another attorney. The case was further postponed to 6 September 2006 for instructions to his attorney. On 6 September 2006 the case was postponed to 26 October 2006 for the typing of the court record, where after it was further postponed to 7 - 8 February 2007 for further evidence.

On 7 November 2005 a notice in terms of section 13(3)(e) was served on Mr Chauke which is well within the 60 day period prescribed by the Act.