A magistrate’s obligation to deliver swift judgment in a formal bail application supersedes his right to go on leave.
This was the crux of the order made in the Gqeberha high court on Tuesday, and magistrate Kriban Pillay has until December 23 to pass judgment on alleged wife killer Arnold Terblanche’s latest bail application, despite going on leave this Friday.
Judgment on Terblanche’s second bid for bail was postponed until January 19, but his attorney, Peter Daubermann, brought an application for the postponement to be set aside, arguing that his client would be prejudiced by the long delay.
Besides wanting the postponement set aside, Daubermann wanted the judgment to be made within five working days from the judge’s order.
After hearing arguments by state attorney Leonie Hart, on behalf of Pillay, and state advocate Marius Stander, on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecution, judge Mandela Makaula gave Pillay until the end of next week to deliver his judgment.
Terblanche is accused of murdering his estranged wife Vicki, along with her boyfriend Reinhardt Leach, and his friend Dylan Cullis, in October 2021.
At the time, Terblanche and his wife were in the middle of an acrimonious divorce and battling for custody of their minor son.
Leach and Cullis have abandoned their bail applications.
In October, while Terblanche’s bail proceedings continued, he was also charged with conspiring to murder his co-accused.
During Tuesday’s high court proceedings, Hart argued Terblanche would not be prejudiced by the extended postponement due to his arrest for allegedly conspiring to kill his co-accused in his wife’s murder, and even if bail was granted he would remain in custody as the second matter’s bail application was still pending.
She said it was highly unlikely that the second matter’s bail application would make any real progress before January 19.
She also argued that the Pillay was inundated with numerous other bail applications that required his attention before he went on leave on Thursday.
In turn, Stander supported Hart’s argument, adding that many other matters had been pushed back on previous occasions to accommodate Terblanche’s bail application, and that the state had made every effort to finalise the bail proceedings as swiftly as possible.
Daubermann argued that regardless of the second pending case, each case had to dealt with separately.
Daubermann said it was his client’s “procedural right” to receive a timely judgment on his bail application.
In response to the arguments, Makaula raised his own heavy workload as an example and said he would have to “burn the midnight oil” to ensure he delivered timely judgments on the matters brought before him.
He said, as with himself, the magistrate chose to accommodate the matters brought before him and therefore had an obligation to deliver swift judgments.
He said work came first and Pillay’s right to leave did not trump his obligation to deliver judgment, regardless of the pending matter against Terblanche.
HeraldLIVE