LCR4803
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 3 April 2026
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) empowers a judicial
officer, upon request by a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or an authorised
prosecutor, to compel any person likely to provide material or relevant information
regarding an alleged offence to appear for examination.1 The provision is
investigative in nature and is frequently invoked where the State lacks sufficient
evidence to identify perpetrators or substantiate allegations.
In the present scenario, a journalist receives leaked documents exposing alleged
police corruption. During criminal proceedings, the court issues a s 205 subpoena
compelling disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity. The journalist resists on
grounds of confidentiality. The central issue is whether the journalist is legally
obliged to comply and whether professional ethical codes offer a defence.
Scope and Operation of Section 205 CPA
Section 205(1) authorises a judge or magistrate, upon request by the DPP, to require
the attendance of any person “likely to give material or relevant information”
concerning an alleged offence.2 The provision applies even where the identity of the
perpetrator is unknown.
The subpoena compels attendance and testimony. Failure to comply may result in
arrest and punishment.3 The hearing is typically conducted in camera, and while the
Act is silent on legal representation, the courts have recognised a right to legal
representation in such proceedings.4
Section 205 must be read with section 15 of the Regulation of Interception of
Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002
(RICA), which confirms that other statutory mechanisms such as s 205 remain
available but may not be used on an ongoing interception basis.5
1
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 s 205.
2
ibid s 205(1).
3
ibid s 205(2).
4
Smit v Van Niekerk 1976 (4) SA 304 (E); S v Heyman 1966 (4) SA 598 (A).
5
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of
2002 s 15.
Varsity Cube 2026 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 3 April 2026
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) empowers a judicial
officer, upon request by a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or an authorised
prosecutor, to compel any person likely to provide material or relevant information
regarding an alleged offence to appear for examination.1 The provision is
investigative in nature and is frequently invoked where the State lacks sufficient
evidence to identify perpetrators or substantiate allegations.
In the present scenario, a journalist receives leaked documents exposing alleged
police corruption. During criminal proceedings, the court issues a s 205 subpoena
compelling disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity. The journalist resists on
grounds of confidentiality. The central issue is whether the journalist is legally
obliged to comply and whether professional ethical codes offer a defence.
Scope and Operation of Section 205 CPA
Section 205(1) authorises a judge or magistrate, upon request by the DPP, to require
the attendance of any person “likely to give material or relevant information”
concerning an alleged offence.2 The provision applies even where the identity of the
perpetrator is unknown.
The subpoena compels attendance and testimony. Failure to comply may result in
arrest and punishment.3 The hearing is typically conducted in camera, and while the
Act is silent on legal representation, the courts have recognised a right to legal
representation in such proceedings.4
Section 205 must be read with section 15 of the Regulation of Interception of
Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002
(RICA), which confirms that other statutory mechanisms such as s 205 remain
available but may not be used on an ongoing interception basis.5
1
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 s 205.
2
ibid s 205(1).
3
ibid s 205(2).
4
Smit v Van Niekerk 1976 (4) SA 304 (E); S v Heyman 1966 (4) SA 598 (A).
5
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of
2002 s 15.
Varsity Cube 2026 +27 81 278 3372
