Privaatheidsaspekte van strafprosessuele beskerming teen onreëlmatige voorverhoor-owerheidsoptrede

• Main Author: Steyn, Anna Sophia
• Other Authors: Joubert, J. J.
• Format: Others
• Language: other
• Published: 2009
• Subjects: Privacy; Search; Seizure; Constitution; Criminal Procedure Act; Police; Bodily features; Traps; Undercover operations; Warrants; 345.52068
• Online Access: Steyn, Anna Sophia (2009) Privaatheidsaspekte van strafprosessuele beskerming teen onreëlmatige voorverhoor-owerheidsoptrede, University of South Africa, Pretoria, <http://hdl.handle.net/10500/2064>; http://hdl.handle.net/10500/2064

Text in Afrikaans === Infringement, by the executive, of the right to privacy of the individual is an everyday occurrence. Section 14 of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 protects the right to privacy. The Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 authorises the police service, to search for and seize articles, to enter premises, ascertain bodily features of accused and to employ traps and undercover operations. On the one hand the Criminal Procedure Act authorises the police to infringe the privacy of the individual but on the other hand it guarantees the privacy of the individual. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act are qualified by the Constitution, specifically by section 36 and 35(5). The authorisation of a police officer should be obtained before a person could be arrested without a warrant, which should, in any event, be the last resort. The written permission of an officer must be obtained prior to the making of an application for a warrant to a magistrate. A police officer should be prohibited from issuing a search warrant, as the general perception of the public is that members of the police may not be sufficiently independent. The exercising of magistrates' discretion regarding the decision as to whether a search warrant should be issued or not should be extended. A search warrant should comply with strict requirements as to who may execute the warrant, when, how and when the warrant will become invalid. Search and seizure without a warrant should not be allowed at all, except in circumstances where there is an immediate threat or danger to a person, property or the public safety. In cases of urgency, it should be made possible to obtain the telephonic permission from a magistrate to search property. Where necessary to ascertain the bodily features of an accused through surgery, a compulsory application in terms of section 37(3) should be made to the court for authorisation, irrespective of whether the accused consents to the surgery or not. More importance should be attached to the rights of the individual and the powers of the executive should be limited. === Jurisprudence === LL.D