THE Presiding officer in the matter of the pensioner convicted of a 2022 Kloof road rage murder on Monday (June 30) refused the defence’s request to have the proceedings reviewed before a sentence was handed down, and said this was a tactic to delay the handing down of the sentence.

Advocate Gideon Scheltema SC, the defence for Anthony Edward Ball, had made the request based on Section 304 (A) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) 51 of 1977.

The presiding officer, Magistrate Muntu Khumalo, said the defence should approach the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on one of the issues it had raised during its request for a review, which was that the wife of murdered Dean Charnley, Robyn, was in possession of the case docket and the investigation diary.

“The NPA must investigate the reasons why Mrs Charnley had the docket and who gave it to her. So the defence must take that up with the NPA,” said Khumalo.

Khumalo also told the defence that he could not rule on whether the State prosecutor could respond to its request and could not postpone the proceedings to allow the defence to file its application for a review.

Scheltema had argued that the State prosecutor had been “compromised” due to their involvement in past unsuccessful applications for access to the investigation diary.

Also read: Suspected Pinetown kidnappers abandon bail

Additionally, the defence argued, the State prosecutor had failed to disclose to the court a statement by a key witness which was in the docket before the said witness made another one, and that Robyn was in possession of the docket.

The defence sought the review so that a higher court could determine whether a failure of justice materialised during proceedings.

Khumalo, in his refusal, said the court had to concentrate on Ball’s sentencing, which is set for August 3.

“The court cannot be swayed into concentrating on side issues when sentencing is the issue,” said Khumalo.

Khumalo said he was of the view that the defence’s request for a review  was a tactic to delay sentencing, which could not be “entertained” because the court had found that Ball shot Charnley in cold blood, and that the second shot he fired which struck the late husband and father of two had been intentional, contrary to his defence, and so he has to face justice.

For more from the Highway Mail, follow us on Facebook , X and Instagram. You can also check out our videos on our YouTube channel or follow us on TikTok.

Click to subscribe to our newsletter here