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.