No undue delay in trial of Ivan Pillay and two others, high court rules

The high court in Pretoria on Thursday dismissed an application by former Sars deputy commissioner Ivan Pillay and two former colleagues, Johann van Loggerenberg and Andries Janse van Rensburg, for the case they are facing to be struck off the roll.

The high court ruled that there were no unreasonable delays in the commencement of their trial.

The three had also asked the court that the matter not be resumed or instituted anew without the written instruction of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP).

The three men faced charges related to a 2007 operation by Sars and its “rogue unit” to bug the offices of the National Prosecuting Authority.

The three brought an application in terms of Section 342A3(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).

The section states that if the court finds that the completion of the proceedings was being delayed unreasonably, the court may issue any such order to eliminate the delay, including an order  that the case be struck off the roll.

The charges against the men were laid in 2015 and the three were served with criminal summonses on March 8 last year requiring them to appear in court on April 9 last year.

However, the trial has not commenced because of disputes relating to access to the docket, which were only resolved in February this year.

The three argued that the delay of the criminal proceedings from April 9 last year to date had largely been due to the conduct of the prosecuting authority in refusing to provide them access to the full docket.

However, the NDPP denied that there had been a delay. The prosecuting authority said there was still the intention by the three men to make representations to the NDPP to review the charges they face.

Judge Jody Kollapen said there was a delay on the state’s part in dealing with the access request by the three men to get access to the docket.

Kollapen said while the delay impacted on the three men’s ability to make representations to the NDPP, it also would ultimately impact on the completion of the criminal proceedings.

"Considering then whether there was a delay, its duration and whether any person could be blamed for the delay, my view is that there was a delay, but that it was one of relatively short duration given the intention of the (three men) to make representations…"

Kollapen said this had not been a matter where one of the parties was desirous to proceed with the trial and the other not.

"Instead, it is a matter where the parties had accepted an inevitable delay in the proceedings would occur and that given the desire to make representations and the stance of the (NPA) in refusing full access under circumstances where it could be said they should not have, may have exacerbated the delay but not render it of the kind that justifies a striking off,” Kollapen said.