SLDP Attorneys, the law firm that at first represented the former Springbok weightlifter accused for cultivating dagga, but was fired by the accused on Tuesday (13 September), said in a statement the accused misunderstood legal process and protocol.
Due to the technical nature of the firm’s statement the Record publishes it in its entirety.
“Our offices became aware of five articles posted by the Roodepoort Record on 15 September 2016. One article in particular caused us great concern, dated 14 September 2016 and dubbed #DaggaSpringbok: Prosecutor calls new developments a ‘drama’.
“In the above article advocate Morkel du Preez is defamed and various untruths are told placing not only advocate Du Preez, but also our firm in disrepute.
“Firstly I would like to place on record that it is clear from the context that the source for these articles has a misunderstanding of the criminal procedure and attorneys practice.
“On the first court appearance De Wet Greef was at court to represent the accused on behalf of our firm and after argument with the prosecutor regarding the schedule the matter resorts under. It was conceded that the matter resorted under Schedule 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The case was remanded for a formal Schedule 5 Bail application. This is normal procedure pertaining to
Schedule 5 and 6 offences.
“Section 60(11) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, where an accused is charged with an offence referred to (a) in Schedule 6, the court shall order that the accused be detained in custody until he or she is dealt with in accordance with the law, unless the accused, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, adduces evidence which satisfies the court that exceptional circumstances exist which in the interests of justice permit his or her release;
(b) in Schedule 5, but not in Schedule 6, the court shall order that the accused be detained in custody until he or she is dealt with in accordance with the law, unless the accused, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, adduces evidence which satisfies the court that the interests of justice permit his or her release.
“Du Preez was instructed by our firm and attended to the bail application on the 23 August 2016 and after a few initial hiccups the matter proceeded and was the bail application launched. The state prosecutor was not opposed to bail. The magistrate, Delize Smith, in terms of section 50(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act deemed it necessary to obtain the testimony of the investigating officer and was the matter rolled to the next day.
“Section 50(6)(d) – The lower court before which a person is brought in terms of this subsection, may postpone any bail proceedings or bail application to any date or court, for a period not exceeding seven days at a time, on the terms which the court may deem proper and which are not inconsistent with any provision of this Act, if –
“(i) the court is of the opinion that it has insufficient information or evidence at its disposal to reach a decision on the bail application;
“The following day the investigating officer testified and did not oppose bail, neither was the state prosecutor opposed to bail. Magistrate Delize Smith denied bail in terms of section 60(10). Among others, but mainly as he is deemed a threat to his minor children as he involved his minor child in his committal of this offence.
“Section 60(10) Notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution does not oppose the granting of bail, the court has the duty, contemplated in subsection (9), to weigh up the personal interests of the accused against the interests of justice.
“On application by the state the matter was remanded for further investigations to the 1 September, whereby our attorney James Friskin attended court and postponed the matter for the transcripts of the bail application, i.e. the recordings of the bail application, in order to assess whether we should take the bail application on appeal to the High Court.
“Friskin advised the client and his family friend that they should in the meantime apply for a stay of prosecution as there have been numerous successes in the country pending the ‘Dagga Couple’s’ constitutional challenge regarding the legality of cannabis in South Africa.
“Friskin then went to the Krugersdorp prison to visit the accused to sign the paperwork for the stay of prosecution application on the 9 September 2016. The application was drafted by Jeremy Acton and was our only role to assist the client in getting the documents signed.
“The client instructed us to argue that he be released on bail on the next court appearance. We advised him that bail was denied and the only way was either to bring a bail application on new facts, but as there was at that stage no new facts bail would just be denied on the same grounds, or to take the matter on appeal to the high court. It was further discussed that he has the stay of prosecution application pending and enrolled for hearing on 22 September and if successful would have the effect that the matter would be provisionally withdrawn pending the outcome of the constitutional challenges against dagga prosecution.
“Du Preez was instructed by our firm to attend to the bail application of the accused and did he fulfil his mandate. It is irrelevant that he is away on leave as we are the instructing attorneys and were assigned to the case and was the accused at all times represented during his first appearance, bail application and subsequent appearances.
“The friend of the accused, and the accused himself were in constant communication with Frisken from our office and were advised that we were continuing the litigation work as Du Preez is away on holiday.
“Our mandate was cancelled telephonically on 13 September 2016 at about 4pm. The accused contacted me personally, and informed me that someone is instructing him differently and that he feels that we do not have his best interests at heart as this person informed him that he can get bail granted on 14 September.
The facts contained above can be confirmed by uplifting the charge sheet from the Roodepoort Magistrates’ Court.”
The accused will appear again in court today (16 September).
Also Read:
Dagga Springbok lawyer forgets to inform him he is on holiday
New low for those wanting to get high
Medicinal dagga available in state hospitals
