|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
| 1949 | 1959 | 1969/70 | 1979/80 | 1989/90 | 1995/96 | |
| Class A | 39 531 | 41 573 | 38 694 | 19 961 | 18 126 | 13 538 |
| -11% | -8% | -6% | -4% | -4% | -5% | |
| Class B | 120 317 | 138 635 | 185 590 | 55 382 | 64 035 | 34 905 |
| -33% | -29% | -31% | -12% | -14% | -12% | |
| Class C | 85 904 | 121 481 | 156 759 | 153 344 | 124 498 | 78 015 |
| -24% | -25% | -25% | -32% | -27% | -27% | |
| Class D | 99 540 | 139 981 | 153 691 | 217 587 | 209 747 | 141 516 |
| -27% | -28% | -25% | -46% | -47% | -48% | |
| Class E | 1 165 | 1 714 | 932 | 934 | 1 141 | 1 121 |
| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| Class F | 17 446 | 48 313 | 80 602 | 30 184 | 37 359 | 33 657 |
| -5% | -10% | -13% | -6% | -8% | -8% | |
A reason for the shift in the number of prosecutions between crime categories has been a change in public morals and values (as reflected in the crimes being prosecuted), and police priorities over the last 50 years. There were, for example, 78 635 prosecutions for ‘drunkenness’ in 1965/66. These prosecutions for drunkenness comprised 15% of all prosecutions (or 58% of all ‘class B’ prosecutions), during 1965/66. After the mid-1970s prosecutions for drunkenness were no longer considered serious enough to be officially recorded.
Other offences that have shown a marked decline in their prosecution rates include ‘contempt of court and defeating the end of justice’, ‘breach of the peace and riotous behaviour’, gambling, the infringement of income tax laws, and faction fighting (graph 2).
Graph 2: Number of prosecutions, selected offences, 1965/66 - 1999/96
The shift in the relative prevalence of certain offence types partly explains the decline in the number of convictions and prosecutions as a proportion of recorded cases. Petty offences such as drunkenness, breach of the peace, and gambling (especially of the street side variety prevalent in South Africa in the 1960s and 1970s), were generally uncovered by the police themselves. Consequently, the prosecution of such cases was facilitated by a ready availability of reliable and competent witnesses for the prosecution. Moreover, persons charged with relatively petty offences tend to plead guilty to the charge against them (as the punishment is likely to be lenient), or pay an admission of guilt fine. For example, in 1965/66 some 95% of persons charged with drunkenness, and 92% charged with gambling, were convicted.
Property crimes, by comparison, are more difficult crimes to solve and prosecute successfully. Usually, no witness is present when, for example, a theft or housebreaking occurs, so that the police have to rely on circumstantial or forensic evidence to build up a convincing case. Persons charged with property-related crimes (except if the property involved is of a relatively low value, as is generally the case in shoplifting cases), are also less inclined to admit to the charge against them as a conviction can lead to a stiff fine and even imprisonment.
Stages in the criminal justice process
Since 1996, the crime information analysis centre (CIAC) of the SAPS has published detailed statistics covering the various stages through which a criminal case passes on its journey through the criminal justice system. The statistics provide a bird’s eye view of this process from the time a criminal case is recorded by the police, to when it is finalised with the conviction or acquittal of the person accused of committing the crime (diagram 3).
Diagram 3: Flowchart of number of criminal cases processed in 1999
In 1999, some 2 380 820 crimes were recorded by the police.262 Of these, 562 821 were sent to court, where 257 391 cases were prosecuted resulting in 202 587 convictions.263 Properly analysed, the statistics enable an evaluation of the criminal justice system’s ability to investigate and prosecute crimes successfully. The categories of statistics, and an explanation of their meaning, follow below.264
Recorded cases
Recorded cases are the number of complaints or crimes recorded by the police. It includes crimes not reported by the public, but uncovered by the police themselves, such as cases of drunk-driving detected at a police roadblock.
Withdrawn cases
Where a suspect has not been charged, the reported case against him may be closed or ‘withdrawn’ by the police themselves, or by a public prosecutor. This frequently occurs where the victim or complainant requests the police or the prosecutor to withdraw the case. For example, in a case where the complainant is assaulted by his friend after both of them got drunk and started arguing, the complainant may ask the police not to pursue their investigation of an assault charge against his friend as they reconciled and sorted out their differences after they sobered up. A case may also be withdrawn by the prosecution service if there is insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution.265
Undetected cases
There are two types of undetected cases. The first is where the suspect is unknown, and there is insufficient evidence to enable the police to identify the suspect. A typical example is where a person snatches a handbag from a woman’s arm as he runs past her in a crowded street. The woman is unable to get a glimpse of the suspect’s face, and can give only a vague description of the suspect to the police. The second type of undetected case is where the suspect is known and a warrant for his arrest has been issued, but his whereabouts are unknown, and he has not been charged.
Unfounded cases
Cases are registered as ‘unfounded’ where no evidence exists that a crime has actually been committed, or it is established that the suspected crime never occurred. For example, a farmer reports a case of stocktheft, but subsequently finds his livestock which had gone astray. Or, person X reports that person Y stole his money. It then transpires that X lent Y the money as part of a business deal. What was initially a theft case, and therefore a criminal matter, becomes a civil dispute over a breach of contract.
Cases to court
Cases are marked ‘to court’ only after a suspect has been formally charged (and in the case of a serious offence, arrested) by the police. In essence, cases are sent ‘to court’ only if there is fairly substantial evidence against a suspect to warrant him being charged with an offence. Once a person has been charged, his case can be finalised through the office of the prosecution service only. That is, the case against a person who has been formally charged with a crime may be withdrawn by the prosecution service only. The police may not do so.
Cases withdrawn in court
Cases may be ‘withdrawn in court’ by the prosecution service only. This happens after the accused has been charged, but before he pleads to the charge. There are a variety of reasons why the prosecution service may withdraw the charge against an accused. For example, the complainant in a case may approach the prosecution with the request that they no longer proceed with the prosecution. Where the case involves a petty offence such as trespassing, or where the complainant is the spouse of the accused, the prosecution will often comply with such a request, and withdraw the charge.266 In more serious cases, the prosecution is reluctant to do so.
A further common reason for the withdrawal of charges against an accused is where the court (ie a magistrate or judge) refuses to grant the prosecution any further postponements in respect of a case on the court roll. The constitution grants every accused the right to have their trial begin without any unreasonable delay.267 Suspects are often charged before all the investigations pertaining to their case have been completed by the police. This happens in serious cases where an accused is arrested at the scene of a crime or shortly after a crime is committed. While the accused will be brought before a court within 48 hours, the police often require weeks and even months to complete all their investigations.268
A multiple shooting incident in a busy shopping centre, for example, may involve dozens of witnesses, the collection and analysis of ballistic and fingerprint-related evidence (if it is unclear who was shot by whom with which gun), and evidence from the state pathologist to show which bullet from which gun killed the deceased. Unless the prosecution is certain of all the relevant facts of the case, it is unable to formulate an intelligible charge sheet to which an accused has to plead.
Courts will grant postponements to the prosecution, to allow the police to finalise its investigations, for a reasonable time only. Especially in less serious cases, lengthy and frequent postponements are rarely granted. For example, prosecutors require a blood-alcohol analysis report from the department of health’s forensic chemical laboratories to prosecute persons charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol successfully. It takes about six to 12 weeks for such a report to be finalised, and the courts are generally prepared to postpone drunk-driving cases for such a length of time. However over busier periods, such as around Christmas time, when there are numerous police roadblocks and the number of people charged with drunk-driving increases, the finalisation of such reports can take up to three months. Most courts are unlikely to postpone drunk-driving cases for such a long time.
Once a court refuses a further postponement in a case, the prosecution has two choices. Firstly, the prosecution can withdraw the case against the accused. As the accused has not pleaded to the charge, such a withdrawal does not amount to an acquittal, and the prosecution can reinstate the same charge at a later date once all the investigations have been completed.269
Secondly, the prosecution can formally put the charge to the accused. The court will then ask the accused to plead to the charge. However, once an accused has pleaded to a charge, it cannot be withdrawn. Should the prosecution realise that it has insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, after the accused has pleaded to the charge, it can only stop the prosecution in respect of that charge. In such an event, the court will acquit the accused.270 The prosecution is then unable to charge the accused again in respect of the same offence.
Consequently, in instances where a court refuses to postpone a case, the prosecution is likely to withdraw the charge against the accused. By doing so, the prosecution can reinstate the charge against the accused at a later date when it is satisfied that it has sufficient evidence against him. Once a case is reinstated against an accused, it is again registered under the ‘to court’ section (see above). It is likely, therefore, that some cases involving the same crimes and accused are registered under this category more than once.
Cases settled otherwise
Cases ‘settled otherwise’ are primarily cases that have been sent ‘to court’ (see above), but where the accused has failed to attend court on the date he has been officially instructed to do so either by the police or the court. As a result, a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the court. Once the accused is found and rearrested, his case is again registered under ‘to court’.
At any stage of criminal proceedings, a court may make a finding that an accused is not capable of understanding the court proceedings by reason of mental illness. The court may declare such an accused a state president’s patient, who is then indefinitely detained in a mental hospital or a prison, and his case is marked as ‘settled otherwise’.271 Accused who are declared state president’s patients after they have pleaded to their charge, are not entitled to be acquitted or convicted of the charge against them. If a court declares an accused a state president’s patient after he has been convicted of the offence charged, but before sentence is passed, the court shall set the conviction aside. Should a finding be made at a later date that the mental condition of the accused has improved, and that he is capable of understanding the court proceedings, the accused may be prosecuted and tried for the original offence. When this occurs, the case is again registered under ‘to court’ (see above).
Not guilty
This category refers to cases where the courts acquit the accused of the offences for which they were prosecuted. As is the case with ‘recorded cases’ (see above), this category represents the number of cases ending in an acquittal, and not the number of accused who are acquitted. Thus, if one suspect is prosecuted for committing two separate offences, and he is acquitted of both of them, then each offence is registered separately under its crime category. However, should two persons be prosecuted for committing the same offence (eg murdering the same person, or raping the same woman), and both of them are acquitted, then this is registered as one acquittal.
Guilty
This category represents cases where the courts convict the accused of the offences for which they were prosecuted. As with the ‘not guilty’ category, the number of cases resulting in a conviction are registered, and not the number of accused who have been convicted. The category also includes cases where the accused pay admission of guilt fines which have been set by the prosecution service. This can be done for relatively minor offences only, such as common assault, malicious injury to property, negligent driving, and the negligent loss of a firearm.272
Measuring the performance of the prosecution
Difficulties of performance measurement
It is difficult to identify and develop reliable and fair performance indicators for the criminal justice system. It is generally accepted that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to combat, prevent and reduce crime. The performance of the criminal justice system in accomplishing this purpose is influenced by a variety of factors — such as prevailing social values, unemployment levels and the proportion of young men in a population — over which it has no control. It is even more difficult to identify accurate and equitable performance indicators for one part of the criminal justice system, such as the prosecution service. The performance of the prosecution service is influenced by outside factors over which it or the criminal justice system has little or no control such as, for example, the willingness of members of the public to testify in court. The performance of the prosecution service is also influenced by the other parts of the criminal justice system of which it forms a vital part.
For example, a widely used performance measurement for a prosecution service is the number of cases that result in a conviction as a proportion of cases prosecuted. However, the strength of the prosecution’s case and its ability to secure a conviction depend not only on the skills of the prosecutor, but also the proficiency with which the case is investigated by the detective service, the reliability and honesty of the state witnesses, and the ability of the accused to lie and bamboozle the court into believing in his innocence. A prosecutor has only limited control over such factors. However, a good and diligent prosecutor will exploit the limited control that he has and — to use the present example — guide and assist the detective in the investigation of the case, consult with his witnesses thoroughly, and cross-examine the accused with such skill that his credibility becomes tarnished. The number of convictions as a proportion of prosecuted cases thus remain a reliable performance measurement tool for the prosecution service provided the above limitations are taken into account.
Evaluating the South African prosecution service is further complicated by a dearth of comprehensive prosecution-related long-term performance indicators. The department of justice, which was responsible for the country’s prosecutors until mid-1998, never collected reliable countrywide statistics on the prosecution service. As a result, the unsatisfactory situation arose whereby other organisations, outside of the justice department and the prosecution service, collected prosecution-related data. Between 1949 and 1995/96, it was Statistics South Africa (formerly the central statistical service, department of statistics and bureau of statistics) and, after 1996, the crime information analysis centre of the SAPS that collected this information. The prosecution service started collecting and analysing prosecution-related statistics only in April 1999 through the national prosecuting authority’s court management unit.
Cases prosecuted
The number of cases where the prosecution service institutes a prosecution as a proportion of the number of recorded cases is low.273 In 1999 it was 25.4% for murder, about 16% for rape and for assault with the intent to commit grievous bodily harm, 10.2% for common assault, 6.5% for residential housebreaking, 4.3% for robbery with aggravating circumstances, and under 3% for car theft and car-hijacking. However, for crimes heavily dependent on police action for their detection, the proportion of cases prosecuted was much higher. For drunk-driving and drug-related offences it was over 50%, (graph 3).
Graph 3: Cases prosecuted as a proportion of recorded cases, 1999
Successful prosecutions
The number of cases resulting in a conviction as a proportion of the number of recorded cases is very low. In 1999 it ranged from just over 50% for drug-related offences, to 16.5% for murder, 7.9% for rape, and 1.6% for car-hijacking (graph 4). On average, therefore, only one out of every six recorded murders end in the conviction of the perpetrator. For rape the comparable ratio is about one out of 13, for car-hijacking one out of 63.
Graph 4: Cases resulting in a conviction as a proportion of recorded cases, 1999
Cases withdrawn in court
A high number of cases are withdrawn in court. This is not surprising in cases where the victim and the offender are known, or even related, to each other (and where the victim may decline to testify against the accused), and in cases where the trial may be unreasonably delayed due to outstanding investigations (eg a district surgeon’s report). Thus, as a proportion of the number of cases sent to court by the police, about 48% of rape and serious assault cases were withdrawn in court in 1999 (graph 5).
Graph 5: Cases withdrawn in court as a proportion of cases sent to court, 1999
Of concern, however, is the fact that over 40% of all residential housebreaking, serious robbery and car theft cases that were sent to court in 1999, were withdrawn by the prosecution service. For these crimes, it is unlikely that the victims are the reason for the high number of withdrawals. The more likely reasons are inordinate delays in the investigation of these crimes, and the failure of witnesses to testify in court. The latter may be because witnesses are intimidated from attending court by the criminals they are supposed to testify against. Many burglaries, robberies and car thefts are committed by crime syndicates whose members would not hesitate to intimidate those who may testify against them. Moreover, some witnesses may have no faith in the criminal justice system, and elect not to testify for this reason.274
Between 1996 and 1999, the number of cases resulting in a conviction as a proportion of all cases sent to court dropped from 39.2% in 1996 to 36% in 1999. The proportion of cases resulting in a not guilty finding by the courts dropped from 11.4% in 1996 to 9.7% in 1999. The proportion of cases withdrawn in court increased significantly from 33.8% in 1996 to 42% in 1999 — an increase of 24% (table 2).
Conviction rate
Once the prosecution service decides to institute a prosecution, its success rate is high. On average, of all crimes that are prosecuted, some three-quarters result in a conviction of the accused person. During the last five decades, the proportion of cases prosecuted successfully (ie those resulting in a conviction) has been consistently high — between 71% and 82% (graph 6).275
Graph 6: Convictions as a proportion of cases prosecuted, 1949 - 1999 (excluding 1970/71 - 1976/77
There is consequently an above average chance that accused persons will be punished for their crimes once they have made the journey through most of the criminal justice system, and the prosecution service decides to prosecute them. This is not surprising as the prosecution service elects which cases to prosecute. Cases are usually prosecuted only where there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction, that is, cases where the evidence is substantially in favour of the prosecution’s case. Unlike the police which has to investigate all the cases reported to it, the prosecution service accepts cases only if they have been investigated fully, and there is a case to be made against an accused.
There is considerable variation in the conviction rate between crime types, however. During 1999 some 80% of residential housebreaking and common assault prosecutions, and 70% of car theft prosecutions, resulted in a conviction. Below the average were car-hijacking, murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances (all between 60% and 65%) and rape (49.3%). Conviction rates are highest for crimes where police officers are more likely to be the prosecution’s main witnesses. Thus, for drug-related crimes and drunk-driving offences the conviction rate was over 90%, (graph 7).
Graph 7: Cases resulting in a conviction as a proportion of cases prosecuted, 1999
Declining number of prosecutions and convictions
Despite the relative success of the prosecution service, its weak performance lies in the fact that it is taking on fewer and fewer cases. While the number of crimes recorded have increased considerably over the last decade, the number of cases taken on by the prosecution service have declined over the same period. In 1985/86, some 480 600 prosecutions and 373 980 convictions took place. This decreased to 291 840 prosecutions and 218 390 convictions in 1995/96,276 and 257 390 prosecutions and 202 590 convictions in 1999 (graph 8). Since 1991/92, the number of cases taken on by the prosecution service have declined consistently from one year to the next. Moreover fewer people were prosecuted in 1999 than in 1949, or in any of the intervening years.
Graph 8: Number of prosecutions and convictions, 1985/86 - 1999
The declining number of prosecutions and convictions is disconcerting in light of the fact that the number of serious crimes, as recorded by the SAPS, increased by 307 000 between 1994 and 1999.277 While reliable countrywide statistics for the number of recorded crimes are not available for the pre-1994 period, the number of serious crimes recorded by the erstwhile South African Police increased significantly from the late 1980s onwards.278
Increasing number of awaiting trial prisoners
Some accused are incarcerated while they await the commencement and/or the outcome of their trial. This is because the courts refused to grant them bail, or because bail has been set at an amount which the accused cannot afford. There are a number of factors that determine the length of time an accused spends in prison awaiting trial. The speed with which the police finalise the investigation, the length of the trial, and the number of postponements the accused requests during the trial are all factors that increase the awaiting trial period of an accused and over which the prosecution has little or no control. However, in most cases, there are delays in the finalisation of trials because the courts’ rolls are too full or badly managed, something over which the prosecution has some influence. Changing levels of awaiting trial prisoner numbers are consequently a further measurement of the prosecution service’s efficiency and performance.
The number of awaiting trial prisoners increased from 19 571 in June 1994 to 55 558 in December 2000 — a massive increase of 184%. Over the same period, the number of sentenced prisoners increased from 79 987 to 107 988 — an increase of 35% (graph 9).
Graph 9: Changes in prisoner numbers, 1994 - 2000
Moreover, the average length of time awaiting trial prisoners remain incarcerated until the finalisation of their trials rose considerably between mid-1996 and 2000. In June 1996, the average awaiting trial prisoner spent 76 days in custody, by December 2000, this had increased to 136 custody days (graph 10). Delays in the processing of cases involving awaiting trial prisoners place a considerable financial burden on the department of correctional services. A prisoner costs the department some R80 a day. Multiplied over an average of 138 custody days this comes to R11 000 per average awaiting trial prisoner.
Graph 10: Average period awaiting trial prisoners incarcerated, 1996 - 2000
Other performance indicators
Since April 1999 for the magistrate’s courts, and since September 1999 for the high courts, the court management unit has collected detailed national statistics on a variety of performance indicators for the prosecution service (see section on court management unit above).279 At the time of writing, statistics for the magistrate’s courts were available for a 20-month period only (April 1999 to November 2000). This is too short a period to enable a reliable identification of performance trends. Nevertheless, the figures presented below provide a good indication of the magnitude of the case backlog faced by the prosecution service and the major reasons why the available court time is not used adequately.
Outstanding and finalised cases
Between April 1999 and November 2000, the country’s district courts finalised an average of 23 700 cases a month, but had an average of 111 760 cases per month outstanding on the courts’ rolls (ie cases that had not been finalised and still had to be dealt with). To put it another way, the average district court finalised an average of 29 cases per month over the 20-month period, while an average of 134 cases per month were outstanding. Over the 20-month period, the number of cases finalised per month increased and slightly fewer cases were outstanding in November 2000 compared to April 1999. During August 2000 the number of outstanding cases declined significantly (graph 11). This may be because of an initiative started in mid-2000 by the national prosecuting authority to encourage prosecutors to withdraw cases that were flawed in some way and not ready to proceed to a successful prosecution.280
Graph 11: Outstanding and finalised district court cases, April 1999 - November 2000
As part of a salary-related performance agreement between prosecutors and the national director in January 2000, it was agreed that district courts would strive to finalise an average of 40 cases per month.281 By November 2000 the average district court was finalising 29 cases a month, or 11 cases per month below target.
District courts deal mainly with relatively minor offences such as shoplifting, assault, malicious damage to property and driving-related offences. The prosecution of such offences usually involves only one or two state witnesses. Moreover, it is not uncommon for accused persons to plead guilty to such minor offences. An average district court should consequently be able to finalise two to three cases a day. With an average of 20 working days per month this would translate to 40 to 60 finalised cases per court per month.
Between April 1999 and November 2000, the country’s regional courts finalised an average of 3 040 cases a month, but had an average of 42 300 cases per month outstanding on the courts’ rolls. The number of cases finalised per average regional court per month was nine cases over the 20-month period, while an average of 137 cases per month were outstanding. As was the case with the district courts, the actual number of cases finalised per month by the regional courts increased over the 20-month period, but the number of new cases coming in increased at a greater rate. As a result, more cases were outstanding on the regional courts’ rolls in November 2000 than in April 1999 (graph 12). As part of the performance agreement noted above, regional courts should finalise an average of 15 cases per month.282 By June 2000, the average regional court was finalising 10 cases a month, some five cases per month below target.
Graph 12: Outstanding and finalised regional court cases, April 1999 - November 2000
Regional courts deal with serious crimes such as murder, rape and fraud involving large amounts of money. Trials in the regional courts typically involve a number of state witnesses and the presentation of non-oral evidence such as blood samples and district surgeons’ reports. As a result, regional court trials tend to take longer than those in the district courts. Regional court prosecutors need more time to prepare and consult with their witnesses than their district court counterparts. It is consequently not surprising that the average number of cases finalised per regional court per month is lower than that of the district courts. It is disturbing, however, that the average number of outstanding cases per regional court is almost the same as that in the district courts. Given the slower rate at which the regional courts are able to finalise cases, it will take these courts much longer to reduce the backlog of cases. In October 2000, the national director of public prosecutions lamented the fact that the lower courts were processing cases at an unacceptably low rate. The national director pointed out that, even if any further intake of work was frozen, it would probably take the courts up to two years to dispose of existing backlogs.283
Use of court hours
Theoretically a court should be in session for up to six hours during a normal working day.284 For a variety of reasons, this is practically almost impossible. For example, a typical court may be unable to start on time because witnesses do not arrive on time, prisoners are brought to court late, or because the prosecutor or the defence lawyer have to consult with their witnesses. Moreover, trials often finish earlier than expected or cannot proceed at all on the day they were supposed to, with the result that courts finish their work before closing time and adjourn early for the day.
Countrywide statistics on the average number of hours district and regional courts were in session between April 1999 and November 2000 show that these courts were generally in session for less than four hours a day. The figures imply that the average magistrate’s court sat idle between two and 2.5 hours per day over this period (equivalent to between 33% and 40% of available court time). Only after February 2000 did the district courts sit for just over four hours per day.
A January 2000 performance agreement between the national director and prosecutors committed district court prosecutors to increase their average court hours to four hours a day, and regional court prosecutors to an average of 4:15 hours a day. In November 2000 district courts were sitting an average of 4:01 hours a day (one minute over the national target), and regional courts an average of 3:49 hours (26 minutes under the agreed upon target).
Figures for May 2000 shed some light on why so many court hours are lost. In the district courts, the most common reason why court time was not utilised fully was that the courts’ rolls were finalised. That is, during May 2000, some 6 353 hours of potential court time were lost nationally because courts had completed their work for the day before closing time (graph 13). There are a number of possible reasons for this. For example, prosecutors (who are responsible for managing the rolls of the courts they work in) manage the courts’ rolls badly; witnesses who should have come to court fail to do so with the result that trials planned for the day cannot proceed; or, accused ask for a postponement of their trials because they want to obtain a new attorney or because they are feeling ill. Other common reasons for lost court hours in the district courts were that magistrates were not available at the time the prosecution and defence were ready to proceed (2 990 hours lost), because the accused or his legal representative was not ready to proceed at the allotted time (1 519 hours lost), because the prosecution had to consult with witnesses during court time (1 445 hours lost), or because witnesses failed to arrive at court on time (1 219 hours lost).285
Graph 13: Reasons for lost district court hours, May 2000
In the regional courts the most common reason why court time was not utilised fully was that the accused or their legal representatives were not ready to proceed at the allotted time or were late arriving at court. During May 2000, some 1 271 hours were lost because of this (graph 14). This was followed by the courts’ rolls being finalised (1 066 hours), the prosecution consulting with state witnesses during court time (681 hours), witnesses arriving late at court or not at all (523 hours), and magistrates not being ready to proceed when asked to do so by the prosecution (169 hours).
Graph 14: Reasons for lost regional court hours, May 2000
Outstanding decision dockets
After a crime is reported, the police open a docket in which the written statement of the person reporting the crime (usually the victim) is filed. The investigating officer of the case then typically proceeds to collect statements from witnesses to the crime, as well as from the suspect if his whereabouts are known. After the investigating officer has collected what he believes to be all the available and relevant information to the case and filed this in the docket, the docket is sent to the local prosecutors’ office. The prosecution service treats such a docket as a ‘decision docket’. This means that they carefully peruse the information in the docket to determine whether it contains sufficient evidence against the suspect(s) to warrant a prosecution. If there is insufficient evidence, the prosecutor who studied the docket will either decide to decline to prosecute in that matter or instruct the investigating officer to conduct further investigations to build up a stronger case against the suspect(s). It is the duty of the prosecutor to specify which further investigations are required.
The number of outstanding decision dockets is a measure of the prosecution service’s efficiency. In the 20 months from April 1999 to November 2000 the number of outstanding decision dockets almost halved from 22 974 in April 1999 to 12 578 in November 2000 (graph 15).
Graph 15: Outstanding decision dockets, April 1999 - November 2000
