Balancing Law Enforcement Interests and Privacy Rights Under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2026/v29i0a21436

Keywords:

search and seizures, privacy, Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, cell phone records, bank statements

Abstract

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows a judicial officer to require the attendance before him or her of a person who is likely to give material or relevant information as to any alleged offence. The procedure enables a Director of Public Prosecutions or a duly authorised prosecutor to examine the witness in the presence of the judicial officer to obtain the information. Should the person furnish the information to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Prosecutions or prosecutor before the date of the inquiry, the obligation to appear at the inquiry falls away. The question arises as to whether this procedure offers adequate safeguards to protect against the infringement of a suspect's constitutionally protected right to privacy, especially when so-called historical records, such as financial statements and cell phone records, are handed over to authorities during a criminal investigation. In this contribution it is submitted that the intrusion into private lives of persons is best understood by analogy to search and seizure law, where the right to privacy in criminal investigations is prominently implicated, and the courts have developed specific procedural safeguards. It is argued that section 205 will not present challenges if the requirements for ex parte applications are properly adhered to and the rights to dignity and privacy are respected in the application thereof. In addition, the procedure requires proper judicial oversight to determine whether the circumstances warrant a subpoena to be issued.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Pieter G Du Toit, North-West University

    B Iur LLB LLM LLD. Professor, Programme for Forensic Accountancy, School for Accounting Sciences, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus), South Africa.

  • Murdoch Watney, University of Johannesburg

    BA Law LLB LLM (RAU) LLM (UNISA) Dip E-C Law (TJSL) LLD (RAU). Professor, Department of Public Law, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. 

References

Bibliography

Literature

Brand R "Between Privilege and Subpoena: Protecting Confidential Sources" 2006 Ecquid Novi 113-135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2006.9653347

Brun J et al Taxing Crime: A Whole-of-Government Approach to Fighting Corruption, Money Laundering, and Tax Crimes (World Bank Group Washington DC 2022)

Currie I and De Waal J The Bill of Rights Handbook 6th ed (Juta Cape Town 2013)

Du Toit P "The Search Warrant Provisions of the Cybercrimes Act and Their Relationship with the Criminal Procedure Act" 2022 Obiter 764-779 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v43i4.13191

Du Toit E et al Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act (Juta Cape Town 1997-, 2024 update)

Geldenhuys K "Cellphone Evidence = Digital DNA" 2017 Servamus 16-21

Geldenhuys K "Cellphones: Evidence That Does Not Lie" 2022 Servamus 1-15

Glover R Murphy on Evidence 14th ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2015)

Harvie R and Foster H "Unwarranted Behaviour: The Airbus Affair, United States Law, and Searching Foreign Bank Accounts" 1997 Man LJ 421-448

Kruger A Hiemstra's Criminal Procedure (LexisNexis Durban 2008-, 2023 update)

Lochner H and Zinn R "Detecting Invisible Traces Generated by a Cellphone at a Crime Scene" 2014 Acta Criminologica 160-175

Lochner H, Benson B and Horne J "Making the Invisible Visible: The Presentation of Electronic (Cell Phone) Evidence as Real Evidence in a Court of Law" 2012 Acta Criminologica 69-80

Schwikkard P and Van der Merwe SE Principles of Evidence 4th ed (Juta Cape Town 2016)

Tapper C Cross and Tapper on Evidence 13th ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2013)

Zeffert DT and Paizes A The South African Law of Evidence 3rd ed (LexisNexis Butterworths 2017)

Case law

Canada

R v Plant [1993] 3 SCR 281

Schreiber v Canada (Attorney General) [1998] 1 SCR 841

South Africa

Bernstein v Bester 1996 2 SA 751 (CC)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Bachir (87306/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 251 (22 April 2016)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Sunflower Distributors CC 2015 JDR 2546 (GP)

Gaertner v Minister of Finance 2014 1 SA 442 (CC)

Gcabashe v MTN Group Ltd (53/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 233 (6 March 2024)

Haysom v Additional Magistrate, Cape Town; S v Haysom 1979 3 SA 115 (C)

Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd: In re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Smit 2000 2 SACR 349 (CC)

Magajane v Chairperson, North West Gambling Board 2006 2 SACR 447 (CC)

Matisonn v Additional Magistrate, Cape Town 1980 2 SA 619 (C)

Minister for Safety and Security v Van der Merwe 2011 2 SACR 301 (CC)

Minister of Police v Kunjana 2016 2 SACR 473 (CC)

Nel v Le Roux 1996 3 SA 562 (CC)

Panday v Minister of Police 2012 2 SACR 421 (KZD)

Powell v Van der Merwe 2005 5 SA 62 (SCA)

S v De Vries (67/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 38 (11 June 2008) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-313-6552-4_3

S v De Vries 2009 1 SACR 613 (C) DOI: https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-an215-2009

S v Dos Santos 2010 2 SACR 382 (SCA)

S v Matisonn 1981 3 SA 302 (A)

S v Miller 2016 1 SACR 251 (WCC) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rnj.295

S v Murphy - Main Judgment (CC27/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 186 (12 July 2023)

S v Waite 1978 3 SA 896 (O)

Stevens v Investec Bank Limited (2012/32900) [2012] ZASGHC 1 (25 October 2012)

Thint v National Director of Public Prosecution; Zuma v National Director of Public Prosecutions 2000 1 SA 1 (CC)

Wessels v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (JR2211/12) [2019] ZALCJHB 361 (19 December 2019)

United States of America

Abel v US 362 US 217 (1960)

Katz v US 389 US 347 (1967)

Legislation

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020

Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001

International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act 75 of 1996

Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998

Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002

Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011

Internet sources

Financial Intelligence Centre 2023 How Accountable Institutions Can Help Fight Financial Crime by Reporting to the FIC https://www.fic.gov.za/2023/11/08/how-accountable-institutions-can-help-fight-financial-crime-by-reporting-to-the-fic/ accessed 9 May 2024

South African Police Service 2020 Standard Operating Procedures in Terms of Section 26 of the Cybercrimes Act, No 19 of 2020 for the Investigation, Search, Access or Seizure of Articles https://www.saps.gov.za/resource_centre/notices/downloads/SAPS-CCA-SOP-FINAL-12-09-2023.pdf accessed 15 January 2025

Published

02-02-2026

Issue

Section

Notes

How to Cite

Du Toit, P. G. ., & Watney, M. . (2026). Balancing Law Enforcement Interests and Privacy Rights Under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 29, (Published on 02 February 2026) pp 1-18. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2026/v29i0a21436

Similar Articles

1-10 of 1221

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.