Criminal Justice System Review: constituent departments and entities progress reports

Correctional Services

11 February 2014
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A detailed presentation was given on the Criminal Justice System (CJS) Review, an initiative dating back to 2007, which aimed to bring together primarily the Departments of Police (SAPS), Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) and Correctional Services (DCS), but the intersectoral Secretariat also included the National Prosecuting Authority, Legal Aid South Africa and the National Department of Health. They were responsible, for the most part, in fulfilling Outcome 3 of the Government Outcomes – that people in South Africa were and felt safe. A background was given of the CJS Review in general, the role players, the aims and strategic approach, the fact that it had been accorded a focus in the National Development Plan, and the key objectives. The CJS Review formed part of the work of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster (JCPS) and was aligned to the JCPS Delivery Agreement. The implementation of the CJS Seven Point Plan was coordinated by the Office for the Criminal Justice System Review (OCJSR) located within the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), with the intersectoral Secretariat. The CJS Review was dealt with in a phased manner, with resources remaining the responsibility of the departments, who had to incorporate CJS Review into their strategic plans and structures. Alignment of capacity and resources across the value chain remained a crucial element of the implementation. It was acknowledged that the overcrowding of Correctional Centres and Remand Detention Facilities, caused by the large number of remand detainees, was a Cluster issue, not one belonging to the DCS alone. Focal points of the Seven Point Plan included reaching a single vision and mission, then establishing suitable objectives and plans to see it through. A realigned CJS should result, with coordinated management structures that tied in to the current national and provincial structures. There must be overall performance improvements in each department, and in the courts, with serious shortcomings receiving priority. A national CJS Information System was a key element, as was setting up of technological solutions to modernise operations, reduce costs and eliminate waste. The population at large would be involved in the fight against crime, led by the Civilian Secretariat for Police and the transformation of community structures into Community Justice Forums. There must also be sufficient attention paid to trans-national, syndicate and cyberspace crime. An Integrated Justice System (IJS) Board was reconstituted, to include business functionaries from all departments, to deal with the data and its flow to all departments. Some of the operational protocols had been aligned already, but others were still in the process. Positive impacts were already apparent in overall improvement in forensic capabilities at crime scene and forensic laboratories (although more was needed), vast improvements to the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, better staffing and technology at local criminal record centres, and improvement in case finalisation and significant reduction of court backlogs in regional and district courts. Within DCS, a new Remand Detention Branch was formed. The Office of the Chief Justice was now facilitating Case Flow Management on a national and provincial level.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) outlined the Change 3 model, focusing on practical interventions in the trial and pre-trial stages, and set out statistics for finalisation of current matters, finalisation of cases attracting sentences of 10 years and more, backlog and long-outstanding cases, as well as establishing previous convictions. Detective Court Case Officers were placed at several magistrates courts in all nine provinces to monitor and improve dockets, act as points of liaison, and provide monthly analysis and feedback reports on the court case dockets and related matters to the Provincial Commander of General Crime Investigations.

Legal Aid South Africa described the legal aid coverage of courts, numbers of new instructions and finalisation rates. All children in custody for longer than one month were individually tracked by Legal Aid South Africa’s Justice Centres, to ensure their earliest possible release from custody. Remand Detainees who had spent more than two years in custody were individually monitored on the Legal Aid South Africa web page.

Department of Correctional Services (DCS) described the various protocols developed to deal with court performance, correctional services and SAPS performance. These included protocols on bail, terminally ill or severely incapacitated detainees, remand detainees, including those released to SAPS custody, audit visual remands, fingerprinting and buccal samples, and intended protocols on consultation by Legal Aid practitioners, release of appellants whose convictions were set aside, mental observations, and management of state patients. The training in support of these was outlined.

DCS noted that certain priority areas of the CJS had been identified for urgent intervention and improvement, including forensic services in SAPS and the Department of Health, SAPS investigations, NPA prosecutions, Legal Aid representation and management of remand detainees by DCS. In general, improvements were needed from the stages of crime scenes to first appearance in court, particularly since inefficiencies there led to larger numbers of remand detainees. There were investigations ongoing into trends on remand detainees, including management of high-risk individuals. About 50% of remand detainees had been granted bail but were unwilling or unable to pay it. However, there had been a decrease in the remand detainee population, as well as a 32% decrease in overcrowding, with 157 552 inmates as opposed to 119 134 approved bedspaces. Children in detention had decreased significantly, with close collaboration between DCS and DoJ&CD to meet adherence to the Child Justice Act.

The Integrated Justice System Board noted that the IJS System was established to electronically enable and integrate the end-to-end criminal justice business processes and related inter-departmental information exchanges. It reported to the Cluster Directors General. Several modernisation programmes were also being implemented, such as electronic monitoring, audio-visual remands, personal verification numbers, single databases for all case stages.

Community involvement, the parole processes and victim-offender dialogue, were described by DCS.

Discussion centred on how the process specifically involved, and had assisted the Department of Correctional Services, the issues of language translation that could hamper the court’s ability to get the correct evidence, the capacity of Legal Aid services, and whether it was correct that the personnel be based at the courts rather than at correctional centres, the problems that had arisen when numbers of people arrested was a target for the SAPS. Members were interested in how exactly data was being collated, and by whom, and asked whether the Department of Home Affairs was involved in the integrated data review. Members spent some time examining issues around parole and community involvement, including how suitability for parole was assessed, and whether incarceration at some point prevented people who were released from accessing jobs. The roles of investigators were examined. Members noted that still too many people were being detained, either because they could or would not pay bail, or because their trials took too long, or because magistrates were not looking at other options. The question was asked whether there were sometimes deliberate delays in the process, and whether it was true that detainees sometimes refused to come and answer further questions. The audio-visual remand system came under further query. Members questioned whether there was some kind of self-regulation or assessment on whether the protocols were working, noted the drop in the overcrowding statistics, which had been a major focus area of this Committee during its term, but felt that there was a need for more effective joint Parliamentary oversight. The presenters were asked to answer any outstanding questions in writing.
 

Meeting report

Criminal Justice System Review: Progress Reports
The Chairperson stated that there had been some trouble trying to get more information from various persons and entities on the Criminal Justice System Review (CJS Review), but, as noted by the media, there had been some progress..

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development input
Adv Pieter du Randt, Chief Director: Court Services, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, presented on the background of the Review, which had initiated by the Cabinet in 2007. The aim had been to transform the CJS from a fragmented, unfocussed and broken system into a fully effective and efficient integrated system that dealt with the end-to-end CJS value chain. Integrated proposals had emanated from very detailed and robust research, analysis and in-situ inspections of all components of the CJS, which were compiled into a CJS Seven Point Plan (the Plan) and CJS Review Terms of Reference (TOR), approved by Cabinet. In his 2008 State-of-the-Nation Address, the President had said the following:  
“Cabinet has agreed on a set of changes that are required to establish a new, modernised, efficient and transformed criminal justice system.  Among other things, this will entail setting up a new coordinating and management structure for the system at every level, from national to local, bringing together the judiciary and magistracy, the police, prosecutors, correctional services and the Legal Aid Board, as well as other interventions, including the empowerment of the Community Police Forums”.

Adv du Randt noted that the CJS Review formed part of the work of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster (JCPS) and was aligned to the JCPS Delivery Agreement. The implementation of the CJS Seven Point Plan was coordinated by the Office for the Criminal Justice System Review (OCJSR) located within the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), and was underpinned by an intersectoral Secretariat, in which the following JCPS cluster departments were represented:

-Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD)
-South African Police Service (SAPS)
-National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)
-Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
-Legal Aid South Africa (Legal Aid SA)
-National Department of Health (NDOH)

Other departments were to be invited as and when required.

He outlined the strategic approach. CJS was a continuum of business processes, with business input and information that flowed between stakeholders, each of whom was linked in each others' output.  The implementation of the CJS Review was therefore a process that was dealt with in a phased manner, as part of Government’s Medium Term Strategic and Economic Frameworks. Resource levels and capacity were dealt with as part of the line functions of individual departments, and in terms of approved strategic plans and within established structures. Alignment of capacity and resources across the value chain remained a crucial element of the implementation of the Plan.

Defined elements of the CJS, where cross-departmental interaction and coordinated intervention were required, were facilitated by the OCJSR in order to ensure improved efficiency across the CJS value chain.

Speaking specifically of the sphere of operations of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), it was acknowledged by the JCPS Cluster and the OCJSR that the overcrowding of Correctional Centres and Remand Detention Facilities, caused by the large number of remand detainees, was a cluster issue that could not be dealt with by DCS in isolation.

Adv du Randt outlined the purpose and key objectives of the implementation of the CJS Review as follows:
- Transformation of the CJS into a modernised system, through integrated interventions aligned to the Cabinet
- The interventions were designed to deliver quality and professional services in an integrated, coordinated, effective and efficient CJS;
- Provision of swift, equitable and fair justice in criminal matters
- Effective deterrence of crime, on a sustainable basis.

The OCJSR was currently in the implementation phase of ensuring that the CJS Seven Point Plan was included in the strategic plans of, and being fully implemented by the various departments.

Adv du Randt reiterated that the Plan was a holistic transformation programme that had been endorsed at the highest levels.  Several interventions have been completed with good results, whilst others were ongoing. The Plan was included in the JCPS Delivery Agreement as Outcome 3 (All people in South Africa to be and feel safe). Furthermore, the Plan was given further impetus by also being endorsed in the National Development Plan (NDP), and by being included in the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) for 2014-2019.  The NDP stated that “A safe South Africa needs a strong CJS. This requires cooperation among all departments in the JCPS cluster…We believe the correct implementation of the recommendations in the Review of the South African Criminal Justice System will go far in dealing with the system’s current weaknesses.”

Adv du Randt then spoke to the Plan’s focal points, which included:
 
- Alignment to reach a single vision and mission for the CJS, followed by establishment of a single set of objectives, plans, priorities and performance measurement targets
-Establishment, through legislation or protocol, of a new and realigned single CJS coordinating and management structure. This must flow in a seamless manner from the Cabinet to each Court, to improve the end-to-end coordination of the CJS, in conjunction with the current National and Provincial JCPS structures.
-Practical short and medium term proposals that sought to improve the all round performance of courts.
-Improved component parts of the CJS, with a focus on areas with serious shortcomings.
-Provision of an integrated and seamless National CJS Information System, to facilitate more informed strategies, plans and decision-making, as well as to facilitate better day-to-day operational management.
-Provision of technology solutions aimed at modernising operations, reducing costs and eliminating waste.
-Involvement of the population at large in the fight against crime.

He gave a summary of the JCPS Delivery Agreement activities (outputs) under Outcome 3, which were:

Output 1:           To reduce overall levels of serious crime, in particular contact and trio crimes.
Output 2:           To have a more effective Criminal Justice System.
Output 3:           To reduce corruption
Output 4:           To manage and improve perceptions of crime among the population.
Output 5:           To effectively safeguard and secure South Africa’s borders
Output 6:           To secure integrity of identity and status of citizens and residents
Output 7:           To secure Cyber space.

A schematic diagram of the Plan and Delivery Agreement was shown (see attached presentation)

Adv du Randt then outlined the joint vision, mission and objective statements as approved by the JCPS Directors-General and Ministers in 2009/10 (see attached document) but stated that they had recently been reviewed but the final version was still to be approved. In relation to the objectives, the Cluster aimed to reduce crime, particularly serious and violent crime, to specifically address crimes against women and children and to promote a pro-active crime prevention approach, in line with the Crime Prevention Strategy, in communities, including the establishment of Community Safety Forums, Street and Ward Committees and Volunteer programmes. Access to justice would be improved, public confidence in the CJS would be boosted and victim satisfaction with the police, prosecution, courts, correctional services and the administration of justice in the CJS overall addressed. The CJS must become more effective and efficient in bringing offenders to justice, through improved coordination and management of the system as a whole. Relevant and timely CJS management information must be provided to all the stakeholders through appropriate, effective and integrated information technology and infrastructure systems. Capacity must be improved and properly balanced in all CJS departments. Intelligence would be properly used in addressing transnational crimes, including human trafficking, smuggling and syndicated crimes. There was a need also to address contributory social factors impacting on the crime situation, such as substance abuse, in conjunction with other role players.

Change 1 related to aligning strategic interventions, and it covered the alignment of Cluster departments’ strategic plans, Annual Performance Plans and the JCPS Delivery Agreement. The key deliverables had been defined. Integration of data across the value chain was of paramount importance. The Integrated Justice System (IJS) Board was reconstituted to include business functionaries from all departments. IJC activities had been refocused and five priority interventions were identified (summarised in Change 5 below). The interventions would be of a single-department and transversal nature. There was good progress in establishing the foundations. Establishment of a full-time Secretariat for the OCJSR had been approved, and it would contribute to the fast-tracking of interventions.

Various operational alignment protocols had been finalised (as summarised in Change 3 below), but others were still being finalised by the Cluster Director-Generals’ Implementation Forum. Operational interventions had also been successfully launched. He gave examples of those already showing positive impact. These included overall improvement in forensic capabilities at crime scene and forensic  laboratories, vast improvements to the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), better staffing and technology at local criminal record centres (CRCs), and improvement in case finalisation and significant reduction of court backlogs through the Backlog Courts. 

Change 2 dealt with the overall management and coordination of the CJS. He noted that establishment of management structures at national, provincial and local levels at all courts in South Africa was required, in order to improve interaction within the CJS value chain and the efficiency of the CJS. JCPS management had tried to improve the all-round CJS performance, and efforts to remove blockages and inhibitors were in place. Various committees and forums were listed, at national, provincial and local level (see attached presentation). Within DCS, a new Remand Detention Branch was formed. The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) was now  facilitating Case Flow Management on a national and provincial level, and the passing of the Superior Courts Act now provided for judicial leadership from the Chief Justice to the nine Judge Presidents. Both a national, and nine provincial Efficiency Enhancement Committees (NEEC an PEEC) had been established by the Chief Justice, which included all CJS stakeholders.

National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) input
Mr Bradley Smith, Deputy Director: Public Prosecutions, National Prosecuting Authority, presented Change 3, which focused on practical interventions for trial and pre-trial stages, which aimed to ensure trial readiness without unnecessary postponements or administrative delay. He highlighted the following points:
- Court performance had improved as a result of the intersectoral interventions.
- A positive clearance ratio was maintained by the lower and higher courts during 2012/13. 916 917 new cases were enrolled, and 942 792 cases were disposed of, with a positive clearance rate of 2.8%. 25 875 more cases were disposed of than received in this year.
- There had been improvements in making available previous conviction reports
- There were increased numbers of cases finalised with a verdict – the 323 390 cases so finalised represented 7 292 more cases, and 2.3% improvement, on the previous year.
- In addition to the increased finalisation of cases, there had been an increased number of serious cases finalised, attracting sentences of 10 years or more. In 2012/13, there was an 11% improvement on the previous year.

Mr Smith then noted that Detective Court Case Officers (DCCOs) had been placed at several magistrates courts in all nine provinces. They were intended to optimise the court docket process through improved docket quality, enhanced court docket flow and efficient communication between SAPS, DoJ&CD, and the NPA. They were to receive dockets from detective service units and control prosecutors, screen them to identify any shortcomings, and evaluate them to determine the completeness of the investigation. They acted as liaison between prosecutors and investigating officers and detective units, and would attend relevant forums. They would manage the general flow of case dockets to be used in courts. They must communicate any complaints on court case dockets to the relevant higher authority, and provide monthly analysis and feedback reports on the court case dockets and related matters to the Provincial Commander of General Crime Investigations.

Legal Aid South Africa input
Mr Jacobs Esterhuizen, Regional Executive, Legal Aid South Africa, said that Legal Aid South Africa had improved its coverage at Regional Courts to 99% and at District Courts to 88%. 320 805 new instructions had been issued up to December 2013, and 308 688 matters were finalised, which represented a clearance rate of 0.96%. 97% of legal practitioners had achieved their quality targets for the current financial year. All children in custody for longer than one month had been individually tracked by Legal Aid South Africa’s Justice Centres, to ensure their earliest possible release from custody. Remand Detainees who had spent more than two years in custody were individually monitored on the Legal Aid South Africa web page, to ensure improved focus on their cases by Legal Aid practitioners and managers.

Mr Smith then spoke on practical short and medium term interventions. In the current financial year, the total numbers overall of all backlog cases had decreased, from 31 054 at the end of March 2013 to 25 762 at the end of December 2013. This represented 13.8% of the outstanding roll of 186 420 cases. Between 1 November 2006 and 31 December 2013, the Regional and District backlog courts had removed, in total, 102 624 cases from the court rolls. These were broken down into 73 749 cases finalised, 25 565 cases withdrawn, and 3 310 cases transferred to higher courts. The DoJ&CD had provided resources in the form of infrastructure, personnel, extra judicial officers and finance. There were currently 82 Backlog Courts, of which 59 were Regional and 23 were District Courts. 42 of these Regional Courts would become permanent additional courts, replacing the temporary courts, during 2013/14. 42 posts had been advertised.

In the District Courts, the case backlog intervention was introduced in April 2010. There were 22 238 backlog cases in March 2010, and 11 508 backlog cases at the end of December 2013, showing a 48.25% reduction. This was also accompanied by a 20.32% reduction in the number of outstanding cases in District Courts, which had dropped from 178 461 in March 2010, to 142 183 at the end of December 2013.  The removal of long-outstanding cases from District Court rolls had resulted in significant cost savings and productivity improvements.

Since inception of the case backlog intervention in the Regional Courts in 2006, a 31.9% reduction had been achieved in the number of all Regional Court backlog cases, from 20 452 backlog cases in 2006 to 13 916 backlog cases by December 2013. This had been accompanied by a 8.42% reduction in the number of outstanding cases in Regional Courts, from 47 343 in 2006 to 43 353 by end of December 2013.

Finalised criminal court cases – including those finalised using Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (ADRM) – had increased, by 4% (18 007 more cases) between 2011/12 and 2012/13. Diversion of less serious cases through ADRM had increased by 10 717 cases in 2012/13, and in this year, 2.8% more children were diverted than in 2011/12. This meant that less awaiting-trial persons needed to be accommodated in DCS facilities.

There was more efficiency being achieved through having functional guidelines and directives, and several protocols that dealt directly and indirectly with court performance were developed, to define and streamline cross-cutting functions and daily operational activities. Practical measures were included in these, to clarify responsibilities, remove blockages and improve court performance. Heads of Departments had approved the protocols and their implementation was monitored both within departments and by the OCJSR.  Protocols were continuously reviewed and adjusted to ensure maximum effectiveness.

Department of Correctional Services input
Ms Britta Rotmann, Chief Divisional Commissioner: Remand Detention, Department of Correctional Services, outlined the CJS protocols, as follows:

-63A Bail Protocol referred to section 63A of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977. The protocol made provision for the Head of a Correctional Centre to approach the relevant court to release an accused on warning in lieu of bail, or to amend the bail conditions imposed by that court, when the inmate population of a particular correctional centre was reaching such numbers that it constituted a material and imminent threat to human dignity, physical health or safety of the accused. This section only applied to those who had been granted bail, and who were charged with Schedule 7 crimes.

-The Protocol on Referral of Terminally Ill or Severely Incapacitated Remand Detainees to Court aimed to ensure that effective and integrated processes were followed when applying section 49E of the Correctional Services Act, No 111 of 1998.

-The Protocol on Maximum Incarceration of Remand Detainees aimed to ensure that effective and integrated processes were followed when applying section 49G of the Correctional Services Act. It was approved in 2012 and its implementation was being monitored.

-Draft Protocol on Procedures to be followed when the DCS temporarily releases Remand Detainees to SAPS was drawn to cater for further investigations in terms of section 49F of the Correctional Services Act, and early arrival in court, to try to ensure that remand detainees would have their trials begin and conclude without unreasonable delay, as required by section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution. 

-The Draft Consultation Protocol set out the procedures to be followed to increase access to Remand Detainees, for consultation purposes, by Legal Aid South African practitioners. This was also aimed at speedier justice. It should be signed by the Heads of Legal Aid South Africa and DCS before the end of the financial year.

-Intended Protocol on Procedures to be followed with regard to the release of Appellants serving terms of imprisonment whose convictions are set aside on appeal had been through the consultation process, and should be finalised during 2014. 

-Mental Observation Protocol had been approved and was in the process of being signed by the Cluster DGs. This protocol covered procedures and practices for enquiries into the mental health of accused persons, in terms of sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act. 

Directives were also issued in terms of section 79(13) of the Criminal Procedure Act, (as amended by the Judicial Matters Amendment Act of 2008). They were submitted to the National Director of Public Prosecutions, and approved by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.

- Intended Protocol for Management of Involuntary Mental Health Care Users and State Patients was currently being deliberated upon by the relevant stakeholders, Department of Health, DoJ&CD, DCS, NPA and SAPS, and should be finalised in 2014.

-Protocol on Audio Visual Remand (AVR Protocol) had been implemented as a pilot in the Western Cape. The AVR aimed to promote, facilitate and regulate proper cooperation between the courts, DCS facilities and the SAPS in relation to remand detainees. It hoped to enhance the ability of courts to manage and prioritise serious criminal cases and matters destined for trial in the courts. Case cycle times would be reduced and postponements and bail applications would be streamlined to the dedicated Video Remand Courts (VRCs). AVR local Steering Committees would be established at each designated VRC, to monitor and enhance the use of the AVR process, systems and infrastructure.

-The Draft National Protocol had been developed including best practices, and this was being circulated for comments to the judiciary and other role players, hoping to achieve roll-out during 2014.  

-JCPS Fingerprint and Photographic Images Database Protocol aimed to promote, facilitate and regulate co-operation between the SAPS, DoJ&CD, Department of Transport, Department of Home Affairs, Department of Correctional Services, State Security Agency and Department of Social Development, to ensure the optimal utilisation of the Fingerprint and Photographic Images Databases and related information in the criminal justice system. The protocol defined responsibility and accountability and required departments to agree upon service delivery requirements.

-The JCPS Cluster Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding in respect of taking DNA buccal samples from persons detained by DCS had been approved by the JCPS DGs’ Cluster, and was in the process of being signed. It provided for cross-departmental process and information flow as well as the training of authorised persons by the Department of Health through the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS).

-The Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act, No 6 of 2010 covered the taking of fingerprints by SAPS of accused and convicted persons. The implementation of the Act was currently being dealt with by the Interdepartmental Task Team.

Critical interventions required
Ms Rotmann said that certain areas of the CJS had been identified that required urgent intervention, as they hampered the overall performance and effectiveness of the CJS. Interventions were ongoing, to assist in addressing capacity and other constraints in the following units:
- Forensic Services in SAPS and NDOH;
- Investigation Services by SAPS;
- Prosecution Services by NPA;
- Legal representation by Legal Aid SA;
- Management of Remand Detention Services by DCS.

Adv du Randt added that improvements to the CJS component parts were not due to any single intervention, but were part of a concerted JCPS effort. National Treasury played an important role also by releasing additional funding for the CJS Revamp. Urgent interventions were needed to the “front end” of the CJS – crime scene to start of court case. Here, interventions included the drafting of crime scene and investigation manuals as well as large scale improvements to forensic laboratories, supporting IT systems and significant expansion of the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS). The increases in human capacity were outlined.

The JCPS Cluster was continuously planning and implementing interventions aimed at reducing overcrowding, and better managing remand detainees (RDs), but it was also acknowledged that inefficiencies in the front end of the CJS would result in a bigger RD population.

The OCJSR supported the Remand Detainee White Paper as well as the establishment of the Remand Detention Branch within DCS. The OCJSR had also supported and participated in the development of the Correctional Matters Amendment Act, No 5 of 2011, that aimed to improve administration in key business areas. It had focused on strengthening the parole system, setting up a new medical parole system, ad improving the management of remand detainees. After that Act was implemented, DCS had trained regional personnel and had developed Operational Policy Circulars. SAPS Operational policies were amended, and SAPS personnel were trained, to align with the DCS provisions. The Act also allowed for risk classification of remand detainees in the custody of DCS. A pilot project had been implemented at the Pretoria Central Local Detention facility, that was currently being evaluated. Legal Aid SA had developed a webpage, as mentioned earlier, to track remand detainees held in custody for more than two years. Legal Aid SA personnel were being trained through an e-learning module on section 49G. Other cross-departmental protocols, as discussed under Change 3, had also been developed in support of this Act.

Reduction in the number of remand detainees was also being facilitated through ongoing statistical monitoring by the DCS, OCJSR and JCPS, to inform cross-departmental interventions. In particular, this monitoring would identify
- Reasons or trends for remand detainees who were cycled through DCS in less than three months or detention periods that were shorter than normal court cycles:
-Cases where criminal trials were not brought against RDs;
-Cases that were withdrawn / struck off court rolls;
-Cases finalised through other mechanisms;
-Cases where bail was awarded and/or paid;
-Cases with a verdict.

Court studies, conducted in Pretoria in 2008, and in Johannesburg and Newcastle in 2013/14, had improved information on previous convictions from SAPS, to allow for more informed bail hearings and to enable DCS to improve the management of high risk individuals.

He reiterated that Act 6 of 2010 and the subsequent Protocol on Maximum Incarceration of Remand Detainees (Section 49G) as well as the Revised Bail Protocol (Section 63A) had improved management of Remand Detainees.

The J7 Warrant of Detention had recently been amended to allow for improved classification of Remand Detainees. This would enable a more detailed analysis of the over 50% of Remand Detainees that cycled through DCS in less than 90 days. He said that approximately 15% to 20% of the remand detainee population had been given bail, but had not exercised this option either because they did not want to, or could not afford to pay.

Adv du Randt emphasised that various role-players, including Legal Aid South Africa, were essential for the effective management of remand detainees.  The CJS Review had created full time structures and mechanisms that enhanced cooperation and information-sharing. The improved Remand Detention System, based on a focused and integrated approach, had led to a decrease in the remand detainee population. There had been a reduction in the general overcrowding of correctional facilities and Remand Detention Facilities (RDFs) by 32.24% by 31 January 2014. The approved bedspace was 119 134 but occupancy was at 157 552 inmates.

The Child Justice Act provided for the detention of children in RDFs of the DCS, only where a Court had no alternative but to refer accused children to these Facilities. There was close collaboration between DCS and DOJ&CD that ensured that the stipulations of the Child Justice Act were adhered to, including that children appear before the Presiding Officer every 14 days. The total number of children in RDFs had decreased considerably over the last four years.

For the remand detainees with long-standing cases, a further system was put in place to reduce the numbers over two years.  Salient information was shared between DCS, SAPS Detectives, NPA and Legal Aid South Africa, to improve communication and remove blockages. State Patients that were temporarily treated as Remand Detainees, pending their transfer to State Hospitals, were receiving specific attention.

IJS Board input
Mr Godfrey Leseba, Chairperson, IJS Board, summarised that the Integrated Justice System (IJS) Programme was established as a vehicle to electronically enable and integrate the end-to-end criminal justice business processes and related inter-departmental information exchanges. The IJS Board, which included business and IT executives, coordinated the IJS Programme and reported directly to the JCPS DGs.

The DGs had identified five integration priorities. In addition to these, a number of CJS modernisation programmes had been or were in the process of being implemented.  Some of these interventions were driven by DCS, such as Electronic Monitoring. Others involved DCS and other CJS role players, such as the Audio Visual Remand System that was aimed at reducing travel time between DCS and court facilities for postponements.

The following were included in the Integrated Justice System (IJS) deliverables:
-The establishment of a single person identifier across the Criminal Justice System (CJS);
-The development of an integrated CJS performance information dashboard ("28 Key Performance Indicators" or KPI system);
-The integration of departmental case related systems;
-Development of a Person Identification Verification Application (PIVA), including integration of / access to SAPS’s AFIS system and Department of Home Affairs’ HANIS and NATIS databases.
-Establishment of a single database for the JCPS cluster for statistical purposes.

Community involvement
Adv du Randt presented on the community involvement, as it was important to involve the population at large in the fight against crime. Change 5 entailed changes to the Community Police Forum (CPF) or Community Safety Forum (CSF) regime, aimed at expanding their roles to also deal with CJS matters such as policing, parole boards and community sentencing monitors, to transform them into Community Justice Forums.  The structures would be provided with finances and infrastructure to allow them to play a meaningful role. Community involvement was led by the Civilian Secretariat of Police. Various stakeholders ,such as the provincial and local Departments of Roads and Transport, Social Development, Local Government had supported CSF initiatives.

Ms Rotmann said that DCS had involved communities in the parole board process, through the nomination of community members as chairpersons.  The community was allowed to participate in the processes of the parole board, through representations and in person. A Memorandum of Understanding between the DCS and National House of Traditional Leaders had agreed that the community, through traditional leaders, should adopt rehabilitation as a societal responsibility. In order to allow for greater representation of victims at Parole Board hearings, DCS had gone out on tender to put in place Audio-Visual equipment in all 52 Parole Board offices.

She noted that community involvement was very critical in the social reintegration of offenders.  Parolees and probationers were placed into the community, while still serving their sentence, after going through rehabilitation programmes.  Community structures were involved in ensuring that offenders were reintegrated. Placement of parolees and probationers was done in consultation with the community, with NGOs, faith-based organisations and NPOs setting up referral and support systems.

Victim-Offender Dialogue
Ms Rotmann described the Victim-Offender Dialogue initiative, started by the Minister of Correctional Services, that aimed to strengthen the current rehabilitation and re-integration, by placing the victim at the centre of the corrections process. The objectives were:

-To provide a restorative conflict resolution process that actively involved the victim and the offender in repairing the emotional and material harm caused by crime;
-To provide an opportunity for both victim and offender to discuss the offence, get answers to their questions, express feelings and gain a greater sense of closure;
-To provide an opportunity for a victim and offender to develop a mutually agreeable plan that addressed the harm caused by the crime;
-To provide an opportunity for a broad community participation in the fight against crime, through engagement with offenders and empowerment of victims; and
-To contribute towards reducing repeat offending.

The VOD had seven pillars:
- Submission by the offender to the rehabilitation and renewal programmes
- Voluntary desire by the victim to engage the offender in order to understand how and why the crime happened
- The active engagement of both the offender and the victim with the aim of seeking the offender to admit that he/she harmed the victim
- The commitment of the correctional officials, including professionals, to facilitate the programme on an ongoing basis
- The existence of a strong mobilisation of research and marketing resources so that all the three segments of the project (victim, offender and the community) would be kept informed through communication, marketing, campaigns and research
- Collective desire by household, communities, society and social institutions to build safe and secure communities
- Partnership in crime prevention

The VOD programme was implemented at the correctional centre, regional and national levels.

Conclusion
Adv du Randt concluded that the successes so far registered reaffirmed the value and positive impact of an integrated and coordinated approach.  All component parts of the CJS were working together well, but sustained and close collaboration of all role players was essential.  This included victims, witnesses, defence lawyers and other experts.  The availability of accurate and robust management information that was based on integrated data across the CJS spectrum remained a challenge. Government had adopted this as one of its highest priorities and it was being managed separately by the JCPS Directors General, through the IJS User Board. The inclusion of the CJS Seven Point Plan in the JCPS Delivery Agreement, as well as its endorsement by the National Development Plan, supported by actions between the Presidency and the departments, had contributed significantly to the finalisation of key performance indicators that measured all aspects of the CJS. Improved alignment and concerted efforts of stakeholder departments had contributed to a CJS with vastly improved capacity, but the CJS still had to go some way to maximise its output.  The DCS role players had made an important contribution to the OCJSR and it was believed that increased efficiencies in the CJS would make a substantial impact on the reduction of Remand Detainees.

Discussion
Mr L Max (ANC) said he had sympathy with the team, as this was a huge undertaking and the income and information came in great quantities over time. He asked how the Department benefitted from the process since 2010.

Ms Rothman replied that the departments were now far more able to analyse where they were, and their ability, and how they would improve.  There had also had been a lowering in the number of remand detainees, which was a positive for the criminal justice system.

Mr Max asked how the ‘language problem’ was tackled, saying that people sometimes gave evidence in one language and the translation process resulted in the oral and written versions being different.

Mr Smith replied there had indeed been language issues, and this would continue, as there were many languages to contend with within South Africa and not all were well understood. It required a ‘common sense approach’ from the presiding officer to address the translation issues.

Adv du Randt replied this was one aspect that detectives at national level were focusing on and there was a drive for training. There had been colloquiums in order to increase capacity and deal with the blockages. There had been an integrated approach to addressing problems.

Mr Max wanted to urge Legal Aid South Africa to investigate the possibility of getting additional budget in order to increase the capacity of Legal Aid and ease the pressure on those within the courts. There seemed to be quite a strain on the number of legal aid practitioners that were functioning within the courts.  

Adv du Randt replied that the problem had always been budget and there had been requests made for increased budget, including to Parliament. He hoped that more money would be made available to help Legal Aid to deal with these problems. The DoJ&CD had not left Legal Aid on their own, there had been involvement of the cluster.

Mr Esterhuizen replied that it was probably not possible, given the recession, for Legal Aid to get all the money at ‘the scale it  wanted’. Some analysis had been conducted in order to move away from the ‘one practitioner per court’ model and shift to the idea of moving resources to where they were needed, so that practitioners needed in a certain area might be moved to that area.

The Chairperson asked why Legal Aid practitioners were at the courts and not the Correctional Centres. When the Committee went to the Correctional Centres, they were told by detainees that they had not seen any Legal Aid practitioners. It made more sense for the practitioners to be at the Centres, and he suggested that this could also address the question of capacity.

Adv du Randt noted that in the past, the SAPS targets were linked to the number of people the police had arrested, rather than the number of successful prosecutions. This was one of the issues that led to overcrowding.

Mr Max said there was an inconsistency in regard to magisterial appointments. Some were holding full posts, but others were acting, and they apparently only earned 60% of the permanent salary, which  possibly affected how they did their jobs. This needed to be addressed.

Adv du Randt replied it was unfortunate there had been vacancies and the process to fill posts had been long, but the posts were now being filled. There had been interaction on how to cut down the amount of time taken to fill the posts.

Collation of data
Mr Max asked if there was a ‘one stop service’ where one could go to get information about inmates.

Mr Leseba replied that the Criminal Justice Review (CJS) dashboard was in a place where all Departments had access in a transversal hub/warehouse. The question was how to get the information into the hub, as this would take an integrated approach. At the moment the information came from SAPS and DoJ&CD. As the system came on line, it would begin to ‘pump data’ into the CJS warehouse, but he conceded that this was not yet happening as it should.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that it was worrying that some of the richest sources of information about South African citizens, from departments such as Home Affairs, were not a part of the system.

Adv du Randt replied that Home Affairs was being engaged with, and it should be further involved in the process, through biometric or other data.

Mr Leseba added that Department of Home Affairs was a full member of the CJS programme. There had been information sourced for the individual verification programme PIVA. This was in the pilot stage. SAPS was also going to use this system in relation to information about firearms.

Adv du Randt said that some of the challenges to centralising data were practical. There was a need to tackle this on a case-by-case basis.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked what was holding back the other departments from fully integrating the system.

Adv du Randt replied that it had been signed off by the various Director Generals and was in the process of implementation.

Mr Leseba noted that there had not been ‘sufficient capacitation' within the various departments. In the past, there had not been training of staff, which had been a major issue. For some time there had not been the mechanism to implement such a programme, but now the systems were put in place that allowed matters to move forward. Management was focusing on delivery. He was pleased that the IJS was reporting on progress to Directors General.  

Parole
Mr Ndlovu asked who qualified for parole, why and when. He was concerned that if all the processes were not correctly undertaken then the system could be abused.

Adv du Randt replied that there were initiatives that sought to teach people about the parole process

Ms Rothman said parole boards considered victim statements, the crime committed, and other aspects. There was some confusion when the varying regimes came into play that determined the amount of time before a person was entitled to parole, which was also linked to the nature of the crime and other matters. However, she admitted that she was not an expert on parole systems.

Adv du Randt replied that the Office was looking into whether there was a need for training on this matter and engagement would continue.

Mr Selfe asked why the courts could not go to prisons, and what exactly the reason was for a person to be transported, sometimes, to different courts, or to have so many court hearings before the process was finalised.

Adv du Randt replied that this option had been explored but there had also been a drive to bolster the idea that the courts represented a neutral forum.

Mr Max asked abut the current levels of community involvement in parole and rehabilitation.

Adv du Randt replied that there had been roll outs of imbizos that explained the workings and hindrances and brought the issues to communities.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked how many Correctional Centres were equipped with audio visual systems and how many were fully functioning. She also asked about statistics coming from the audio visual systems

Ms Rotmann replied that the systems had been rolled out to 41 magistrate courts. They had been looked at from a suitable infrastructure viewpoint, and an inter-departmental task team had looked at the audio visual system in its entirety to see how many cases were being dealt with the use of this system.

Ms Ngwenya asked how much the current budget of the CJS was, and where did this budget come from.

Adv du Randt replied that the budget came directly from National Treasury, but each department/section within CJS got additional funding to cover the CJS matters, which allowed for a significant amount of additional budget.

Ms Ngwenya asked about parole and what was done to address the stigma against those who had previously been incarcerated, including the fact that their prior imprisonment sometimes preclude them getting employed, as they were obliged to disclose their criminal record.

Ms Rotmann replied that there had been specific processes that spoke to expunging records. She said she had seen reports of people with criminal records being employed. It was true that questions were asked about criminal records, but there should be a proper assessment to check whether this barred them from working in the position. There was a need to investigate cases individually.

Adv du Randt added that the CJS Review had tried to make it as easy for people to engage with the expunging process. There was a need to have a paradigm shift within the community and not just the criminal justice system. It would be good to have the Committee’s support and help to change policies.

Ms Ngwenya asked when the investigators would improve so that people would not sit as detainees for extended periods of time. 

Major-general Charles Johnson, SAPS, replied that there had been a prioritisation of court cases. There had been engagement with the investigating officers to speed up investigations and to make sure that ‘trial ready’ dockets were sent through. Currently, only 86% of  the dockets were trial ready. He noted that this was not always the result of SAPS having failed to investigate, as other circumstances needed to be considered.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that the only people who should be incarcerated should be serious offenders, not people who could not afford bail or who had short sentences. He wanted to see a reversal of the onus residing on the presiding officer to assess why imprisonment was the best choice, and felt that many presiding officers were using imprisonment as a fall-back option, rather than seriously giving consideration to alternatives.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) said he took issue with the suggestion that inmates did not avail themselves for further questioning when Legal Aid SA tried to see them.

The Chairperson also spoke about the issue that had been raised about deliberate delay tactics within the system, as well as the issue of multiple cases.

Adv A du Randt replied that this matter would be looked into in its entirety.

The Chairperson said that he understood that the problem of overcrowding was one of the issues that the Committee had wanted to tackle whilst they were still part of the Committee. He did not want this to be an issue for the incoming Parliament.

The Chairperson asked it there was a self regulatory mechanism for the protocols, and if there were any mechanisms to pick up any problem that might arise with those protocols.

The Chairperson stressed that one of the gaps that seemed to be problematic in the entire CJS Review was the need for joint parliamentary oversight. He argued that accounting to a Director General was not a constituency requirement, but reporting to Parliament was.

The Chairperson finally asked that any questions that had not been responded to yet, due to shortage of time, should be answered in writing.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: