Simplification of the South African criminal trial process: a psycholinguistic approach

Abstract

English:In this research the validity of the following two hypotheses are tested within the broad framework of the right of an accused person to a fair trial, as embodied in section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996: .. The criminal trial process is a communicative process in essence which aims at ensuring a fair trial for undefended accused persons; and • Ineffective communication takes place during the criminal trial process. The concept of a fair trial is discussed within a jurisprudential and communicative framework. In order for the criminal trial process to comply with the constitutional requirement of a fair trial the process itself has to be fair. The aim of the criminal trial process is thus to ensure a fair trial. However, in order to be fair, the process must be intelligible and accessible to all participants, especially in the case of undefended accused persons. It is pointed out that the criminal trial process is indeed a communicative process and that various factors impact negatively on communication."Distorted" communication is one of the factors leading to an undefended accused not receiving a fair trial. The criminal trial process is identified as a primarily oral process. Procedural explanations given to accused persons during the process are identified and the content of these procedural explanations is ascertained within the framework of case law and legal literature. These procedural explanations are indeed instances of communication between the presiding officer and the undefended accused. It is accordingly submitted that the first hypothesis is supported by both the positive law and communication theories. In order to test the validity of the second hypothesis, a field study was undertaken, employing a qualitative research methodology. Ten sample cases were identified and attended at court 30, Gelvandale Magistrate's Court, Port Elizabeth. The undefended accused persons in those cases were chosen as subjects of the empirical research. The purpose of the field study was to determine the level of intelligibility of procedural explanations afforded to the subjects by the presiding officer. In order to evaluate the information gathered during the field research, a norm to test the intelligibility of the procedural explanations had to be adopted. After evaluating available norms, the psycholinguistic approach of the Charrows was adopted. The performance of the subjects who took part in the field study was evaluated. It became evident that the subjects who took part in the field study, on average, understood only 37% of the procedural explanations afforded to them by the presiding officer. It is accordingly submitted that highly ineffective communication took place during the field research and the second hypothesis is supported by the results of the field study. The low level of intelligibility of the procedural explanations may have the result that on average, the undefended accused persons who took part in the research project did not receive a fair trail. Suggested instances of remedial action are accordingly advanced. It is suggested inter alia that legal aid should be afforded to undefended accused persons on a much larger scale and that a multi-disciplinary task team be appointed to re-address the position of the undefended accused.

Afrikaans: In hierdie navorsing is die geldigheid van die volgende twee hipoteses, binne die breë raamwerk van die reg van 'n beskuldigde tot 'n billike verhoor, soos vervat in artikel 35 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, Wet 108 van 1996, getoets: • Die strafverhoor prosedure is in wese 'n kommunikasie proses wat ten doel het om 'n billike verhoor vir onverdedigde beskuldigdes te verseker; en • Ondoeltreffende kommunikasie vind plaas gedurende die strafverhoor prosedure. Die konsep van 'n billike verhoor word bespreek binne 'n regswetenskaplike en kommunikatiewe raamwerk. Ten einde aan die grondwetlike vereiste van 'n billike verhoor te voldoen, moet die prosedure, wat gedurende 'n strafverhoor gevolg word, billik wees. Die doel van die strafverhoor prosedure is dus om 'n billike verhoor te verseker. Om egter billik te wees, moet die proses verstaanbaar en toeganklik wees vir alle persone wat daaraan deelneem, veral in die geval van onverdedigde beskuldigdes. Dit word benadruk dat die strafverhoorprosedure inderdaad 'n kommunikasie proses is en dat verskeie faktore negatief op hierdie proses inwerk. "Verdraaide" kommunikasie is een van die faktore wat daartoe kan lei dat 'n onverdedigde beskuldigde nie 'n billike verhoor kry nie. Die strafverhoorprosedure word geïdentifiseer as 'n primêre mondelinge proses. Prosesregtelike verduidelikings wat aan beskuldigdes gegee word, word geïdentifiseer en die inhoud daarvan word bepaal binne die raamwerk van regspraak en literatuur. Hierdie prosesregtelike verduidelikings is inderdaad gevalle van kommunikasie tussen die voorsittende beampte en die onverdedigde beskuldigde. Dit word gevolglik aan die hand gedoen dat die eerste hipotese deur beide die positiewe reg en kommunikasie teorieë ondersteun word. Ten einde die geldigheid van die tweede hipotese te toets, was 'n gevallestudie gedoen. Hierdie gevallestudie het die vorm van 'n kwalitatiewe metodologie aangeneem. Tien sake was geïdentifiseer en bygewoon in hof beskuldigdes in hierdie sake het as deelnemers in die empiriese navorsing opgetree. Die doel van die gevallestudie was om die mate van verstaanbaarheid van die prosesregtelike verduidelikings, wat aan die deelnemers gegee is deur die voorsittende beampte, te bepaal. Ten einde die inligting wat tydens die gevallestudie versamel is te evalueer, IS 'n norm gekies om verstaanbaarheid van die prosesregtelike verduidelikings te bepaal. Na evaluasie van verskillende norme, is die psigolinguistiese benadering van die Charrows aangeneem. Die prestasie van die deelnemers wat aan die gevallestudie deelgeneem het, is daarna evalueer. Dit het aan die lig gekom dat die deelnemers slegs 37% van die prosesregtelike verduidelikings wat die voorsittende beampte aan hulle verduidelik het, verstaan het. Dit word gevolglik aan die hand gedoen dat hoogs oneffektiewe kommunikasie tydens die gevallestudies plaasgevind het. Die tweede hipotese is dus deur die gevallestudie gestaaf. Die lae vlak van verstaanbaarhied van die prosesregtelike verduidelikings mag die gevolg gehad het dat die onverdedigde beskuldigdes wat aan die gevallestudie deelgeneem het, nie 'n billike verhoor gehad het nie. Gevalle van remediërende aksie word voorgestel. Onder andere word daar voorgestel dat regshulp op 'n groter skaal aan onverdedigde beskuldigdes toegestaan word en dat 'n multi-dissiplinêre taakgroep saamgestel word om die situasie van die onverdedigde beskuldigde opnuut aan te spreek.