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.