CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT ... - saflii

ACKERMANN AND GOLDSTONE JJand had strong feelings that Coetzee should not have been allowed back into theircommunity.[69] With his consent, Coetzee was committed to Valkenberg on 15 March 1995and for that purpose was taken into custody. A committal order was made under theprovisions of section 77 of the Criminal Procedure Act. 68It was necessary, therefore,at the end of the period of observation at Valkenberg, for Coetzee again to appear inthe magistrate’s court. Olivier, the prosecutor on that occasion, apparently did notapply for him to be kept in custody and he was again released on his ownrecognisance.[70] The SCA dealt with the matter on the basis that the magistrate had the power towithdraw the earlier order releasing Coetzee on his own recognisance and reconsiderthe question of bail. Vivier JA said the following:“In view of the fact that Coetzee was taken into custody after his first release on 6March 1995 and that he was then again released on 18 April 1995 the courtproceedings on 6 March 1995 are irrelevant and need not be considered. Theessential enquiry is, first, whether the alleged legal duty was owed by the police andprosecutors with regard to Coetzee’s release on 18 April 1995 and, secondly, whetherthe prosecutors owed the appellant a legal duty to secure his rearrest following thecomplaints on 20 June 1995 and 2 August 1995.With regard to Coetzee’s release on 18 April 1995 it was obviously the magistrate’s68Above n 7.43