Print Page   |   Report Abuse
News & Press: Case Law

The State v Hendrik Frederick Delport and 7 others

25 June 2013   (0 Comments)
Posted by: Author: SAIT Technical
Share |

Author: SAIT Technical


This case was initiated by an appeal lodged by the State against a decision made in a regional magistrate sitting in the regional court of Pretoria.


The magistrate allowed the eight Respondents to make a plea in terms of section 106(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act after the State closed its case.   The eight Respondents were (together with six other accused persons) accused of 7 239 charges that included fraud and contraventions of:

  • section 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act nr 121 of 1998 for the involvement in racketeering activities
  • the Customs and Excise Act nr 91 of 1964 for exporting goods to a destination other than the one indicated at the time of clearance of the goods for the export.  ·        
  • the Value-Added Tax Act nr 89 of 1991 for submitting false returns claiming refunds or exemptions, and
  • the Riotous Assembly Act nr 17 of 1956 for conspiracy to commit fraud.

The above charges relate to an alleged unlawful enterprise that was allegedly commenced and continued by the Respondents during the period May 1998 to March 2002. The common purpose and aim with this enterprise was to obtain, unlawfully and intentionally, certain tax benefits and/or to avoid the payment of any tax having allegedly given rise to a loss to the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and/or the fiscus.

The eight Respondents pleaded not guilty on the above charges but were not discharged when the magistrate delivered his judgement. Subsequently, the Respondents added an additional plea (in terms of section 106(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act) in which they stated that the prosecutors (representing the State) did not have the necessary authority to prosecute in this case. They opposed that, because of these appointments, the prosecution will not be conducted without fear, favour or prejudice as is required by the National Prosecuting Authority Act. 

The magistrate acquitted the Respondents on these grounds and stated that the Respondents were entitled to change their pleas at that stage of the proceedings (after the State closed its case). 

The State lodged an appeal against the magistrate’s judgement in terms of section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act. They were of the opinion that the magistrate took a narrow and particularly legalistic approach when he considered the relevant legislation and that the Respondents did not have sufficient grounds to succeed with a plea in terms of section 106(1). Furthermore, they argued that there were no allegations or indications during the proceedings that one of the two councils (representing the prosecution) had any unjustified regard towards the interest of SARS.


The High Court concluded that the prosecutors were duly authorized to be engaged in the proceedings in terms of section 38 of the National Prosecuting Act and that their appointment could not result into an unfair trial. Furthermore it was determined that the Respondents was not entitled to raise a plea in terms of section 106(1)(h) after the trial commenced. There was also no legal requirement on the prosecution to be authorized in terms of section 20(5) and (6) in addition to their "engagement” and additionally they are not required to take an oath under section 32. 

The above findings contradicted the magistrate’s interpretation of the applicable legislation and therefore its judgement was set aside. As a result, the High Court refused to grant the Respondents’ applications to change their pleas from not guilty to a plea in terms of section 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. 

Please click here to access the full case.


Section 240A of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (as amended) requires that all tax practitioners register with a recognized controlling body before 1 July 2013. It is a criminal offense to not register with both a recognized controlling body and SARS.


The Act requires that a minimum academic and practical requirments be set to register with a controlling body. Click here for the minimum requirements of SAIT.

Membership Management Software Powered by®  ::  Legal