Waiver of counsel in South African child justice: An autonomous exercise of rights
Abstract
English: The Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 created many unique procedural mechanisms for
the processing of children in conflict with the law. One such procedure relates to
mandatory legal representation, and the appointment of such to assist the court in
terms of regulation 48, where the child refuses to co-operate with the appointed
representative. This submission is a theoretical evaluation of section 35(3)(f) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, juxtaposed against section 83 of
the Child Justice Act and its associated regulations. It posits that obligatory legal
representation is an infringement of a child offender’s constitutional right to choose
to be represented, and to select a representative of choice. The submission concedes
that the focus of the Act is the protection of child offenders. It, however, argues that
the insertion of a legal hearing phase into the current preliminary inquiry stage of
the child justice process would be an improved response to rights protection than
mandatory representation. The author uses waiver processes applicable in selected
American states to demonstrate the suggested alternative. The author concludes
that waiver is an issue deserving of attention at the pre-trial stage and that therein
a child offender is guaranteed both the protection of the best interest standard and
the autonomy to exercise the constitutional right to choose to be represented at trial. Afrikaans: Die Child Justice Act 75 van 2008 het verskeie meganismes in plek gestel om
kinders wat met die gereg bots tydens die hofprosedure te akkommodeer. Een
sodanige meganisme is verpligte regsverteenwoordiging en die aanstelling van ‘n
regsverteenwoordiger ingevolge regulasie 48 om die hof by te staan waar die kind weier
om met die regsverteenwoodiger saam te werk. Hierdie voorlegging is ‘n teoretiese
evaluasie van artikel 35(3)(f) van die Grondwet van Suid Afrika 1996 toegepas op artikel
83 van die Child Justice Act en die regulasies wat ingevolge die Wet uitgevaardig is.
Die uitgangspunt is dat verpligte regsverteenwoordiging ‘n aantasting is van die reg
van die kinderbeskuldigde om te besluit of hy/sy ‘n regsverteenwoordiger wil aanstel
en verder tas dit ook sy/haar reg aan om ‘n regsverteenwoordiger van eie keuse aan
te stel. Alhoewel dit aanvaar word dat die fokus van die Wet die beskerming van die
kinderbeskuldigde is, sal dit geargumenteer word dat die invoeging van ‘n regsverhoor
tydens die voorlopige ondervragingprosedure beter beskermimg aan die kind sal
bied as verpligte regsverteenwoordiging. In die bespreking word afstanddoening wat
in verskeie Amerikaanse state van toepassing is as ‘n meer effektiewe alternatief tot
verpligte regsverteenwoordiging bespreek. Die outeur dui aan dat afstanddoening in
teenstelling met verpligte regsverteenwoordiging nie alleen die beste belang van die
kind beskerm nie maar ook die kind toelaat om sy/haar grondwetlike reg, om ‘n keuse
met betrekking tot die aanstelling van ‘n regsverteenwoordiger uit te oefen, te beskerm.