Evidentiary Presumption Of Drinking And Driving Cases And The Suspects’ Right To Counsel Under South African Law
Keywords:
Evidentiary Presumption, Drinking, Driving, Cases, suspects rightAbstract
South African legislation makes it an offence for a person to drive a vehicle on a public road while the concentration of alcohol in any specimen of blood or breath is in excess of the prescribed minimum. If it is proved that a sample taken within two hours of the alleged contravention is in excess of the prescribed minimum, it shall be presumed that the concentration of alcohol was above the prescribed minimum at the time of the alleged offence. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the Two-hour Evidentiary Presumption in the Context of Drinking and Driving Cases is Sufficiently a Compelling Factor to Override Suspects' Right to Counsel under the South African Law? This study also investigated whether the suspect is entitled to counsel during the two-hour period and if so, whether the suspects' right to counsel has been violated or whether evidence of the sample should be excluded. Under South African law the suspect is not afforded the opportunity to confer with or to be assisted by counsel when the sample is taken in this crucial timeline. In conclusion, safeguards must be built into the system to help protect the due process rights of a person suspected of drinking and driving under South African law was recommended among others.
References
See for example S v Orrie & Another 2004 (1) SACR 162 (C) at para 15 and ML Van der Mescht The Influence of the Interim Constitution upon the Taking of a Blood Sample of a Person Arrested for Drunken Driving'(1996)9 SACJ 286 at 287.
93 of 1996.
The Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works has been tasked by the cape high court and the National Transport Department to modify the Drager breath alcohol test to meet the required standards. The final modifications were expected by February 2012. New legislation will be drafted if the high court accepts the procedures. See 'General: Precedent-setting Drager modifications by February', Legalbrief TODAY of 28 November 2011, available at . Accessed on 28 November 2011.
See section 65(3) with regards to blood and section 65(6) with regards to breath.
51 of 1977 (hereafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Act).
See R v Burnison (1979) 70 CCC (2d) 38 (Ont CA) and R v Deruelle [1992] 2 SCR 663 with regard to a breathalyzer sample that was taken after the two hours.
Unreported case number 63/996/07 (GSJ), court transcript at 993-1022, 1314-1315, 1350 and 1079-1087.
Hereafter referred to as 'the South African Constitution', 'the Constitution' or 'Constitution'.
Section 1 of the Charter (Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982.C 11. Hereafter referred to as 'the Canadian Charter', 'the Charter' or 'Charter') and section 36 of the Constitution.
See Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape 1997 (12) BCLR 1675 (CC) at para 26.
For a lawful arrest in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act the general object of the arrest must be to bring the arrested person before court to be charged, tried and then either convicted or acquitted. See Ex Parte Minister of Safety and Security & Others: In re S v Walters & Another 2002 (2) SACR 105 (CC); Sex Worker Education and Advocacy Task Force v Minister of Safety and Security & Others 2009 (6) SA 513 (WCC).
S vThamaha 1979 (3) SA 487 (O) at 490; E du Toit et al Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act (loose-leaf, Juta,Claremont, updated to 25 March 2011) at 5-2A.
I Currie and J de Waal The Bill of Rights Handbook (5thed, Juta, Claremont, 2005) at 741 and F Snyckers and J le Roux 'Criminal Procedure: Rights of Arrested, Detained and Accused Persons' in S Woolman (ed) Constitutional law of South Africa (loos-leaf, Juta, Claremont, updated to May 2011) at 51-38.
[1985] 1 SCR 613 at 642-645.
[1988] 1 SCR 640.
See also R v Rahn [1985] 1 SCR 659 and R v Trask [1985] 1 SCR 655.
[2005] SCR 3, 21 2005 SCC 37 (Can).
I used the masculine pronoun where neutral language is inappropriate. This is not due to a lack of sensitivity but because of the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957. Section 6 of the Act provides that in every law unless the contrary intention appears, words imputing the masculine gender includes females.
2009 SCC 32.
[1991] 3 SCR 24 (Can).
394 US 324, 89 S Ct 1095.
429 US 492, 97 S Ct 711.
PJ Schwikkard and SE van der MerwePrinciples of Evidence (3rded, Juta, Claremont 2009) at 233.
S v Sebejan 1997 (1) SACR626 (W).
DJ Feldman, 'England and Wales' in RS Frase, France, in Criminal Procedure: a Worldwide Study (C Bradley ed, 2nd ed, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC, 2007) at 149 and 166/7.
Sebejansupra(n 24) 633g-h.However, see my discussion with regard to bodily samples and the fair trial requirement below.
Section 73(2A).
Section 36(1)(a).
Section 36(1)(b).
Section 36(1)(c).
Section 36(1)(d).
Section 36(1)(e).
The framers of the Charter decided not to incorporate a right to those without sufficient means and 'if substantial injustice would otherwise result'. The South African Constitution accordingly provides additional protection in this regard.
See for example R v Brydges [1990] 1 SCR 190 at 203-204; R v Evans [1991] 1 SCR 869 at 890, R v Prosper [1994] 3 SCR 236 at para 35 and R v Bartle 1994 92 CCC (3d) 289. See also S v Solomons 2004 (1) SACR 137 (C) for the first two duties under South African law.
Ibid.
Supra(n 34).
At para 19.
At para 35.
At para 35. See my discussion below where I indicate that Canadian law includes physical evidence within the ambit of the privilege against self-incrimination. See also the earlier decisionin R v Leclair [1989] 1 SCR 3 (SCC) at 12 where the majority of the Supreme Court held that once a detainee asserts his right to counsel, the police cannot in any way compel him to make a decision, or to participate in a process, which could ultimately have an adverse effect on the detainee, until he has had the opportunity to exercise that right. This requirement applies to breath as well as blood tests. See also R v Therens [1985] 1 SCR 613)).
At para 38.
K Roach, 'Canada' in RS Frase, France, in Criminal Procedure; a Worldwide Study (G Bradley
ed, 2d ed, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC, 2007) at 57 and 76.
At para 36.
See R v Manninen [1987] 1 SCR 1233 and R v Strachan [1988] 2 SCR 980 for examples of 'urgency'.
At para 46.
At para 48.
Page 274-275.
2005 CarswellNfld 196, 2005 NLCA 45, 20 MVR (5th) 220, 32 CR (6th) 183, 203 CCC (3d) 533, 253 Nfld& PEIR 307, 759 APR 307.
See also R v Smith [1989] 2 SCR 368, 71 CR (3d) 129 (SCC).
2010 SCC 36 at para 17.
See also R v Leclairsupra (n 39) and R v Black [1989] 2 SCR 138 (SCC)).
At para 18.
Kimmelman v Morrison 477 US 365 at 374.
See also Chambers v Mississippi 410 US 284 at 294 and California v Trombetta 467 US 479 at 485.
287 US 45 (1932) at 57.
430 US 387 (1977) at paras 1and 2.
Id at para 3.My emphasis.
See also Massiah v United States 377 US 201.
At para 2.
Morrissey v Brewer 408 US 471 at 481.
Brewer supra(n 55)para 10.
Powell v Alabamasupra(n 54). See also for example Wheat v US 486 US 153, 108 S Ct 1692 US Cal, 1988 and US v Gonzalez-Lopez 548 US 140, 126 S CT 2557 US 2006.
Subsection 1.
Subsection 2. See also State v Carr 128 Idaho 181, 911 P 2d 774 (Ct App 1995).
State of Idaho v Green 149 Idaho 706 (2010), 239 P 3d 811 at para 8; State v Hedges 143 Idaho
, 887 154 P 3d 1074, 1077 (Ct App 2007).
Farrel v Anchorage 682 P 2d 1128 (Alaska App 1984); Reekie v Anchorage 803 P 2d 412 (Alaska App 1990); Kiehl v State 901 P2d 445 (Alaska App 1995); Mangiapane v Municipality of Anchorage 974 P 2d 427 (Alaska App 1999).
DJ Feldman, 'England and Wales' in RS Frasesupra(n 23) at 149 and 166/7.
M Zander, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (2d ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1990) at 106.
1950.
2002 WL 31476402.
1984.
Section 58(1).
Section 58(4)).
Code C item 6.1. The provision allows for special circumstances when delay in access to a solicitor is permitted. The circumstances are not relevant to the present discussion.
Code C item 6.5.Unless the special circumstances apply.
Kennedy v CPS supra (n 69)at para 14.
Id at para 31.
See section 58(4).
See item C: 6.5.
See also John Myles v DPP [2004] EWHC 594 Admin, [2004] 2 ALL ER 902 and Ian Causey v Director of Public Prosecutions 2004 WL 3154157.
1990.
[1992] 3 NZLR 260.
1962 (sections 58B, 58C and 58D).
At page 274.
G W Mercer Estimating the Presence of Alcohol and Drug Impairment in Traffic Crashes and Their Costs to Canadians: 1999 to 2006 [Vancouver: University of British Columbia 2009 at 8 and 11]. See also 'Road Safety Information, Education and Tips' available at
for the devastating effect of impaired driving on South African society.Accessed on 25 November 2011,
S Seedorf and S Sibanda'Separation of Powers' in S Woolman (ed) Constitutional law of South Africa (loos-leaf, Juta, Claremont, updated to May 2011) at 12-50.
See section 36(1)(e).
Brink v Kitshoff NO 1996 (6) BCLR 752 (CC) at 770J-771; Mohlomi v Minister of Defence 1996 (12) BCLR 1559 (CC). See also Tetreault-Gadoury v Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission) (1991) 4 CRR (2d) 12 at 26 (SCC); Rodriquez v British Columbia (AttorneyGeneral) (1994) 17 CRR (2d) 193 at 222 and 247 (SCC) and R v Laba (1994) 120 DLR 175 at 179c (SCC) under Canadian law.
By for example independent testing.
S v Naidoo 1998 1 SACR 479 (N) at 527.
S v Tandwa 2008 SACR 613 (SCA) at para 116.
See for example Ferreira v Levin NO; Vryenhoek v Powel 1996 1 SA 984 (CC) at para 159 under South African law, and R v P (MB) [1994] 1 SCR 555 and R v Jones [1994] 2 SCR 229 under Canadian law.
See for example Ex Parte Minister of Justice: In re R v Matemba 1941 AD 75 at 82-83; S v Binta 1993 2 SACR 553 (C) at 562d-e (hair and blood); Levack v Regional Magistrate, Wynberg 1999 2 SACR 151 (C) at 155i (voice) and Minister of Safety and Security v Gaqa 2002 1 SACR 654 (C) at 658f (bullet).
JH WigmoreA Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (McNaughton revised ed, 1961, Little Brown: Boston, 1940) at paras 2263-2265
384 US 757 (1966).
1999 2 SACR 632 (W) at 637g-h.
2000 1 SACR 33 (W) at 40g-41d.
1987 28 CRR 122 (SCC).
1988 38 CRR 290 (SCC).
1997 42 CRR (2d) 189 (SCC).Discussed below.
(1997) 23 EHRR 313 at paras 68-69.
Funke v France (1993) 16 EHRR 297 (bank statements) and JB v Switzerland [2001] Crim LR
(documents in the course of an investigation into tax evasion)).
Supra(n 94).
At page 778.
Supra(n 99).
At paras 73and 74.
At para 75 and further.
At para 76.
At para 77.
Supra(n 94).
At para 86.
At para 90.
At para 92.
At para 25.See also R v Golden [2001] 3 SCR 679 and R v B (SA) [2003] 2 SCR 678.
At para 93. It is difficult to understand how the search could be found to be unreasonable if the dignity, integrity and sanctity of the body was not taken into account.
Supra(n 113).
At paras 33 and further.
At para 35.
1998 1 SACR 654 (W).
2002 1 SACR 598 (T).
See United States v Wade 388 US 218 (1967); United States v Gilbert 388 US 263 (1967) and R v Ross 1987 37 CRR 369 (SCC) where the Supreme Courts of the USA and Canada held that an arrestee was entitled to legal representation at the identity parade.
Under the second leg in section 35(5).
Supra(n 34).
At para 55.
At para 63.
At para 64.
See also S v Mphala 1998 1 SACR 654 (W) at 659i-j.
See for example Stillmansupra(n 101) at para 90; R v Pavel (1989), 53 CCC (3d) 296 at 3 and 10, 74 CR (3d) 195 (Ont CA) and R v Hanet, 182 AR 30 [1996] AJ No 210 at para 20 (Prov Ct) (QL).
E Chamberlain and R Solomon 'Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws against Hospitalized Drivers: The Intersection of Healthcare, Patient Confidentiality, and Law Enforcement' (2010) 29 Windsor Rev Legal & Soc Issues 45.
SCC 32 2009.
R v Collins 1987 28 CRR 122 (SCC).
At para 71.
See section 24(2).
At para 65.
At para 104.
Para 105.
Para 109.
Para 106.
Para 75 and 108.
T Qiugley'Was it Worth the Wait? The Supreme Court's New Approaches to Detention and Exclusion of Evidence' (2009) 66 CR (6th) 88 at 94; D Stuart 'Welcome Flexibility and Better Criteria from the Supreme Court of Canada for Exclusion of Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' (2010) 16 SW J Int'l L 313 at 326; J Dawe and H McArthur 'Charter Detention and the Exclusion of Evidence after Grant, Harrison and Suberu' (2010) 56 Crim LQ 376 at 420.
M Madden 'Marshalling the Data: An Empirical Analysis of Canada's Section 24(2) Case Law in the Wake of R v Grant' 15 Can Crim L Rev 229. See the Conclusion.
2008 1 SACR 613 (SCA) at para 118.
1998 1 SACR 654 (W) at 657g-h.
S v Ngcobo 1998 10 BCLR 1248 (N) at 1254E-J. See also PJ Schwikkard & SE Van der Merwesupra (n 23) at 248.
Supra(n 141).
2008 2 SACR 407 (SCA).
See also S v Mark 2001 1 SACR 572 (C) at 578c-d.
Ibid.
S v Seseane 2000 2 SACR 225 (O).
In terms of section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended.
