Khasho November December 2011 - National Prosecuting Authority
Khasho November December 2011 - National Prosecuting Authority
Khasho November December 2011 - National Prosecuting Authority
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
NPA PERFORMANCE<br />
SUCCESSES: AFU CAPE TOWN<br />
REGIONAL OFFICE<br />
Rudolph Masternbroeke<br />
Mr Willie Hofmeyer: Head AFU<br />
The Cape Town regional office of the Asset Forfeiture<br />
Unit is one of five regional offices in the country. Despite<br />
numerous challenges over the last year, specifically relating<br />
to staff movement and appointments, the office has had a number<br />
of significant successes of which it is very proud.<br />
On the training front, there has been a number of training sessions<br />
for prosecutors to familiarise them with asset forfeiture law and<br />
as a consequence there has been a significant increase in referrals<br />
as well as a significant number of confiscation orders obtained.<br />
During the course of the year, a total of 15 confiscation orders<br />
were obtained to the value of R1 943 322.50.<br />
Important judgments obtained during <strong>2011</strong> are as follows:<br />
Falk and Another v NDPP [<strong>2011</strong>] ZACC 26 CCT 95-10 where<br />
the Constitutional Court dealt with the interaction between the<br />
Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) and the International<br />
Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act (ICCMA), as they relate to<br />
registered foreign restraint orders. Though foreign restraint<br />
orders are registered in South Africa in terms of ICCMA, the<br />
provisions of POCA may be used to broaden the ambit of the<br />
foreign restraint orders.<br />
NDPP v Gardener <strong>2011</strong> (1) SACR 612 SCA, where the SCA<br />
confirmed that confiscation and sentencing are separate<br />
proceedings and a court must not take into account the sentence<br />
it had imposed in considering whether to grant a confiscation<br />
order. This judgment also deals authoritatively with the issue<br />
of calculation of a benefit.<br />
NDPP v Van der Merwe <strong>2011</strong> (2) SACR 188 WCC, where<br />
for the first time, a full bench of the high court dealt with the<br />
incidence of onus pertaining to the so-called innocent owner<br />
defence in forfeiture proceedings confirmed that applicants<br />
who apply to have their interest in property excluded in<br />
terms of section 52 of POCA bear the onus to satisfy the<br />
court that the requirements of section 52 are satisfied.<br />
PROFESSIONALISM, INTEGRITY, SERVICE EXCELLENCE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND CREDIBILITY<br />
5