1 / 112

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT. 31 MARCH 2002 – 1 APRIL 2003. Honoured to present the NPA’s 4 th Report to Parliament on eve of 5 th anniversary since establishment in terms of the Constitution.

femerson
Télécharger la présentation

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REPORT TO PARLIAMENT 31 MARCH 2002 – 1 APRIL 2003

  2. Honoured to present the NPA’s 4th Report to Parliament on eve of 5th anniversary since establishment in terms of the Constitution. Continuing the tradition of finding innovative ways to contribute to the administration of Criminal Justice. INTRODUCTION

  3. Our strategic objectives set in 2001 remained unchanged for 2002/3: - to influence public confidence in justice system. - to influence reduction in crime rate. - to influence efficacy of criminal justice system. INTRODUCTION…

  4. Continue to be guided by our vision “Justice in society s4o that people can live in freedom and security”. How have we performed as an organisation and have we achieved our objectives during 2002/3? Have we moved closer to our vision? INTRODUCTION…

  5. Acknowledge that: - overall crime level in our country remains unacceptably high. Too many of our people still do not feel safe and secure, even in their own homes. - Community's fear of crime persists. - our operating environment is becoming more complex and unpredictable. INTRODUCTION…

  6. Confident to report that we are beginning to make the difference in delivering justice to our people. Improving performance at all levels. Identified the barriers to efficient and effective service delivery and addressing them. INTRODUCTION…

  7. Building closer partnerships with business other departments and communities to augment our capacity. Through our Specialised Units such as AFU, SCCU and DSO (Scorpions) we have raised the levels of public confidence in our ability to deliver justice. INTRODUCTION…

  8. EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE. CONTRIBUTING TO THE FIGHT AGAINST CRIME…MAKING THE DIFFERENCE. ENHANCING AND IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NPA. FOCUS OF REPORT

  9. When NPA was established it inherited a prosecution service characterised by: (a) demands for higher salaries (b) high turnover of experienced prosecutors (c) vacant posts (d) lack of basic resources EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE

  10. (e) unpaid merit awards (f) low court productivity (g) outdated performance management system (h) low morale (i) no customer focus (j) lack of understanding of environment in which NPA operates

  11. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT COURT PERFORMANCE… • Past 5 years we have successfully dealt with all of these challenges and built an organisation of which we can be proud of. • Seeing the fruits of our efforts.

  12. The successes highlighted in this Report is reflective of our continuous commitment to building a 21st century organisation that will make a difference in the administration of justice and to the people that we serve. EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE…

  13. NPA measures performance through measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of our core function, i.e. prosecutions NPS a division in the NPA has the oversight function to manage performance in courts. Court management System in place that can account for each and every hour a prosecutor spends in court. EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE…

  14. Performance in courts are illustrated in terms of: (a) court hours (b) backlogs (c) cases finalised (d) conviction rate (e) turnaround times etc.

  15. Average National Court Hours: Results Impressive improvement in court hours of District and Regional Courts. District Courts improved drastically from the 3.39 hours registered in 1999 to 4.11hours. High Court hours remained stable – not able to improve on average of 3.29 achieved in 2001.

  16. Average National Court Hours Courts 2000 2001 2002 DCs 3.53 3.53 4.11 RCs 3.52 3.55 4.00 HCs 3.22 3.29 3.28 EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE…

  17. National Average Court Hours

  18. National Conviction Rate: Results District Courts improved on average conviction rate. Regional Courts improved dramatically. High Courts also improved significantly – at end of March already exceeding the target of 85%.

  19. National Conviction Rate Courts 2000 2001 2002 DCs 76% 82% 83% RCs 64% 66% 74% HCs 77% 77% 82%

  20. National Conviction Rate %

  21. Special Initiatives Saturday Courts and Additional Courts: dealing with backlogs (a) finalised 29 383 cases – double the number finalised in 2001. (b) Average court hours – 5.11 hours (c) 82 Saturday courts and 75 Additional courts

  22. Pre-screening: dealing with high number of withdrawals (a) high number of withdrawals compared to finalised cases – cause for concern (b) might reflect on the poor quality of investigations/ bad decisions on our part. (c) Prosecutors now screen cases before placing on roll. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT COURT PERFORMANCE…

  23. (d) Consulting with stakeholders to ensure no arrests take place without decision of prosecutor. (e) Prosecutors visiting police stations on Sundays to screen dockets EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE…

  24. Case Flow Management at High Courts: to improve turnaround time Judiciary involved in the management of case flow. Developing a model for case flow management. EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE

  25. Fast- tracking guilty pleas: dealing with inefficiency and delays (a) cases are fast-tracked where accused indicates soon after arrest that s/he will plead guilty. (b) Decentralising decision-making and discretion. EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE…

  26. EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COURT PERFORMANCE • Highlights of Cases • Serial killers • De Klerk murder • Asanti (NBS) • Boeremag

  27. NPA is duty-bound to contribute to a society based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights and improving the quality of the lives of our people. To this end we recognise our responsibility in the fight against crime, in particular the threat of organised crime. CONTRIBUTING TO THE FIGHT AGAINST CRIME… MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  28. Continue to make significant inroads through our specialist units – AFU, DSO (Scorpions), SOCA, SCCU, Witness Protection Unit. CONTRIBUTING TO THE FIGHT AGAINST CRIME… MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  29. Taking the Profit out of Crime Remains one of the key objectives of the NPA. Asset Forfeiture provisions in the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 121 of 1998(POCA) proved to be an effective tool to achieve objective. Asset Forfeiture Unit in the NPA, made good progress. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  30. Exceptional growth: (a) number of cases (seizures) increased. (b) decline in the number of amounts under restraint. (c) Increase in forfeitures initiated. (d) more forfeitures completed. (e) increase of monies deposited into Criminal Asset Recovery Account (CARA). MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  31. 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 Seizures: 25 39 86 147 Amount Under restraint: R70 R149 R154 R120 (million) Forfeitures Initiated: 7 32 47 87 Amount: R3.8 R26 R68 R73 (million)

  32. 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 Forfeitures completed: 3 15 37 73 Amount: R0.2 R7.2 R15 R48 (million) Money Deposited CARA: 0 R0.14 R0.58 R17 (million) MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  33. Combined figures reflecting performance over 4 years: Total value of frozen assets – approx. R500m. 129 forfeiture orders involving R76m granted. Amount in CARA – R18m (to date).

  34. Increased number of cases

  35. Increased Asset Forfeiture (in R mil value)

  36. Impacting on selected priority crimes: Economic crime Corruption Drugs Natural resources Precious metals Violent crime Gambling Brothels/ Human Trafficking MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  37. Establishing a National Presence: Regional offices established in Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth. East London and Bloemfontein to be expanded. Offices planned for Kimberley and Mmabatho. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  38. Productivity hampered by complex litigation on 30 different legal and procedural issues, apart from Constitutional issues. e.g. Mohammed – case Courts would not hear applications until CC delivered final judgment. Obtained 46 judgments on interpretation of POCA. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  39. Highlights of cases Mohammed-case: illegally operating “chop-shops” for stolen or hijacked vehicles. Constitutional Court made significant remarks about the need for criminals to be stripped of their assets.

  40. Court said the following: “It is common cause that conventional criminal penalties are inadequate as measures of deterrence when organised crime leaders are able to retain the considerable gains derived from organised crime, even on those occasions when they are brought to justice. The above problems make a severe impact on the young South African democracy, where resources are strained to meet urgent and extensive human needs. Various international instruments deal with the problem of international crime in this regard and it is now widely accepted in the international community that criminals should be stripped of the proceeds of their crimes, the purpose being to remove the incentive for crime, not to punish them. This approach has similarly been adopted by our legislature.” MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  41. Rautenbach-case: Dilemma for law enforcement: case raises a number of issues which might require legislative amendments. (a) Judge ruled that Notice of Appeal does not have the effect of reinstating the restraint order – seized assets had to be returned. Allows defendants to take assets out of the country. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  42. (b) Fugitives of justice allowed to contest forfeiture proceedings without subjecting themselves to jurisdiction of our courts. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  43. National Priority Crimes DSO (Scorpions) deal with national priority crimes (high-level crime of national impact). Differentiated itself through adopting unique Troika- methodology: combining crime analysis, investigation and prosecution supported by modern technology.

  44. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  45. Involved in a number of Nationally-Coordinated Projects into e.g.: Transnational drug-trafficking (East-Asian ethnic groups). Human smuggling and trafficking. Cross-departmental corruption. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  46. Making strides in the application of Racketeering provisions in POCA. (a) developed 6 racketeering prosecutions 4 guilty pleas 1 trial resulting in conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. 1 court refused to convict on racketeering – convicted on other offences (b) disrupted activities of organised group – 66 arrests.

  47. Increasing focus on corrupt attorneys and doctors. Increasing focus on auditors manipulating financial statements causing demise of major companies. Successfully formed inter-agency investigative task teams into high profile corporate collapses. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

  48. Increased performance in key activities Finalised 190 high-profile prosecutions (past 12 months). Conviction rate of 85% for 2001 and 2002. Number of arrests increased in 2002. Increase in the use of under cover operations and surveillance techniques. Finalised more investigations in 2002.

  49. Key Activities: Comparison with previous year

  50. Highlights of cases Guanxi (organised crime) yielded a number of seizures-app. R16.5m assets under restraint. 196 targets and 85 related entities identified. 66 arrests (other arrests made by SAPS) collaborating successfully with SAPS. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

More Related