Abstract:
Every accused person has the right to a fair trial which encompasses the right to adduce and challenge evidence in court. Whilst the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa confers the right to legal representation, an accused person may still opt to conduct his or her own defence. Once an unrepresented accused opts to conduct his or her own defence, the presiding officer then becomes obliged to assist the undefended accused to present his or her own case.
South Africa adheres to the accusatorial / adversarial system. Under the accusatorial / adversarial system the presiding judicial officer is in the role of a detached umpire, who should not descend the arena of the duel between the state and the defence for fear of becoming partial or of losing perspective as a result of the dust caused by the affray between the state and the defence. Under the accusatorial/adversarial system, a presiding officer may find it challenging to assist an unrepresented accused or may inadequately assist him or her. This may be so because a fair trial is not determined by ensuring exercise of one of the rights to a fair trial but all the rights to a fair trial.
This mini-dissertation, on the injunction of section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which makes provision for the rights to a fair trial, covers the different rights of an unrepresented accused. This is done alongside related provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and pertinent case law. The fat that an unrepresented accused has waived legal representation at the expense of the state and has opted to conduct his or her own defence should not be to his or her peril. The court has a constitutional injunction to protect and advance the rights of an unrepresented accused. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
