06-06-17: A696-04: [1] P.13-22

\'B'I

1;)0 G.P.-S.oro-o:J19

.

LASSRIEF

~

-~, ..

J 138A

~ - .

TOT OORPLASING VAN 'N PERSOON WAT MNGEHOU WORD, NA 'N INRIGTING, VIR ONDERSOEK KRAGTENS DIE 8~P~L!NGS VAN H00F:~TUK 13 .

Vingerafdruk

No.

"Net 51 'va~ 1977), artnce~~~, 78 en 79]

[Strafproseswet, 1977 Polisiekantoor . M.A. No. Saak No.

...........

C.$"..?i..

IP~.. :.. ~~......rG ..:...<.~~';;;L €.~ ....~~~ ....

C;<.~.~ ; ~/:f:~~.f. ~._ ~.<~.f.::~j~_c

Aan die C) :$..!.}?A en aan die"t Geneeskundige Superintef1eent

.

";~" ..

~~; ~~:

(~.;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

'A'''NG'-C::IENd't+bl 1"'11 t: I

-

bl.~~.1..c.

~,~:~ I . ~

~~

.'

G~~f:':o.~~::~-? . ho-tpitaal/r;s!;;;:;;C!s: ..

:

~.

:::.:::::;::: ::'::.::-: :": ::~:::::::~:::: ::.::::: :;:: :::::.::: :::: ::::::::::::::'

::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

'" war dd at (2) Y k/b ewe~r \

I

~·.1:-

;:;::;r.~~/

~

-->

.j:.Cj;;;:' ..; .. '.,.

.. ?:

:

: ..

": :

'n e) .. _ u, genoemde C) misdaad by vandie b~~dr.:~~~.~.":".!..* en deur b.!'P.-:?.Fpersoon aang~k!a van die aangehou $A.e.I? ~/("il:... ;... ................................ kraatens 'n'lasbrief uitcereik deur die E:.-:;:;.':.':::..--::::--'.-:;:]/Landdros vir die distrik/st;:;:;.'<::J;:::;.';.-.c

t

.........

G...p~.<.

~

<:.

,.....

r---

,i -

. -

2:..·.:...J. ',,<.-.:::::'

r! tyuens

-

:

-I."....., ••••••..•••••••••.•••••••••

:::-::::

:.; ~..: :..::.~::: t Hi) ~ j.!,·c/~;·~--J'cdj,'l·Ar;

.I.S.::.~.~..~c.c.:l..

~p

IfC;

~/~'{;;/;II~

J',

taan 'n geestesongesteldheid

1977, na

L..~.-I:.~<."""' .....h.c.~.;.~

SuperintendentP:;;;"':::~::·:; Ooreenkomstig (2)

ne

./...

:':

h.~/.

.'

7'-/2.

"O'.!., ..::/J

die bepalings van artikel

~

(4)

h.~..~.-f:;p~

.?:1.(1)t:: ..79

<C

~

--"7c, .;. L.

vir ondersoek vir

t Gene:3skundige

uitet';ngesit.te voldoen:

: ;

:

1977, gelas ek dat

~

.

verN'fder word endat i'ft7'isy daar ondersoek word.

2. Ek gelas ook dat b~genoemde ;::;gj:.t;r~lsuperintendent ondersoek instel of die beskuldigde vanwee geestesongesteldheld of geestesgebrek(a) oor die vermoe beskik om die hofverrigtinge dermate te begryp dat hy sy verdediging na behore kan voer; en/of (b) ten tye van die pleging van die misdryf vir die ten laste gelegde misdryf strafregtelik toerekenbaar is, d.1.of hy bevoeg was om(i) die ongeoorloofdheid van die handeling te besef; of

(ii) ooreenkomstig 3. Ek gelas ook dat die (4)

78. .(,"?)

'n besef van die ongeoorloofdheid

t Geneeskundige

<.--:J.

s sy/~

verslag(-e}, ingevolge artikel

7.<1

.

.................................................................................

,

van die Strafproseswet,

l~~dd.~y. p.~.~

en in drievoud aan die afskrif aan die (") : op 6 ..~.."Z~~

:z~..

van sy handeling op te tree.

SuperintendentlJ':J/g:dfc.

te

1977; in viervoud opstel,

G.~!I?~ I<~~.;-.jf.

te

•.................... voor en een of

voorle. of b.~n:?$

4 . Ek gelas 00 k d-at, In . d'len dit no d"Ig IS dat genoemde ()2

:::J""

h_ $. 1-._

b Y d'le

J

verstryking die om tydperk ~sy verdere ondersoek is tPy/sy word, na'die daar gevangenis oP teG..~.If?~ teruggestuur van word tot tydwaarin en 'NYI'n bevel uitgereik aangehou word.

5. Ek gelas ook dat 'n transkripsie afgeneem is, gemaak en aan'

van die getuie

'.

"

y tdie

.'

",

voorlc;;pige ond~rsoeken/or.die "" •. " .

- I ..• ,

neeskundige SuperintendenVPsigiaters

i

I

van ~ieStrafproscswet,

~

Ltr.~.f:~.'!'5';'~~.~~ ../, ..;:.'l;:.f:~.I

.. '

:.:.:· e~ u, genoemde ..

hierby gelas om aan die Hofbevel soos.hier~nder

~c.~

I,..;'i·~/ /L;;C •..••I....if:1 C;!...J,::;IIU," ~~

..l.c.;:.....;... vir sie!siekes

dae verwyder word ..

So word u, genoemde C)

j

of geestesgebrek t-ij/ge/y het'

d'le p I'eglng vo.n - d'le mls. daa d en d'tI w_ns Q I'k' t.. •. , •Inge/o \! ge a rt'k I. IS d-t a ..•. r"j'SY ! e.i (4.)

van die Strafproseswet, .......................... ~

t1.

~ ••••••.••.•••••••••••••••

verskaf word.

veihoor

.

-

Jf35A

~1

"C·~·h·"."."".·": op ;?,2 ~.t:: ~= (JI. I, .<.:_...).:..

I 2002 -07- 2 2 r'i;;;';',:;'E~:~'d~'n;;;f15t:~;~J:,';J:j;~:si"G~dciros'

Gegee onder my ha~ te dag.~an""""··":·::·: !;~·:~:t:·",t::M'!JD#O.S .. "

.

.• 1·

t

hode die ....••

.'

I

- _.'., " ..

(Indien lasbrief deur 'n F3egter .;.....-.-'- uitger~i,h:~q[f6 !{9%J die volgende ~I

.

Voorts word gelas:

\

t....'·

\

: ..

VAbiSTf~ATE

"

Oat die plek van verhoor

..... ,,~.'

..

t onveranderd

by):

bly/verander

j'

word na die

:

.

t Provinsiale/Pla.a~like.-:.fdeling vind te

:

te:.:

'.:

::

:

:

"

dag van

:

op

Gegee onder my hand te '.::..:..: .

_.:

19

Vul die ampstltel in van peiSoon in wie se bewarin; n(') Vul die naam van die pasient in.

en die verhoor word uitgestel om plaas te . :.up heJe die '-.

"

.

; ...

Voorsitte/lde Regter

jie pasient is.

e) Vul in Blanke, Kleurling. Swarte of Asiaat. (') Voeg in artikel 77 (1). 78 (2) of 79 na gelang van die geva!.

(5) Voeg in Prokureur'-generaal, Adjunk Prokureur-generaal of Staatsaank:aer.

(6) Sien artikel79 (1) (b) . wat nie 30 dae op 'n keerte t• Tydperke Skrap war nie van toepassing is nie.

. .

bowe gaan nie, wat die hof van tyd tot tyd bepaal.

, .

P 0 Box 5042 George East, 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 22 July 2002 Johannesburg Legal Aid Office Att: Mr. Peter Hall Tel: (011) 877 2000 Fax: (011) 877 2222 clo George Legal Aid Office Ms. Meyer

cc: (List

included below]

Attention: Ms. Meyer RE: Request for 'independent attorney' paid for by Legal Aid to represent Lara Johnstone in Case File # C 572-2002.

This request submitted to the Johannesburg Legal Aid Office requests the following relief: I. The Johannesburg Legal Aid Office is hereby requested to approve to the Petitioner-Defendant, Lara Johnstone, Case File C-572-2002, an independent attorney to represent her in the following case: IT. On the morning of22 July 2002, The Petitioner-Defendant submitted a faxed complaint to the National Prosecuting Authority titled, "QUESTIONABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND UNDERSTANDING OF FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL CONCEPTS DISPLAYED BY GEORGE MAGISTRATE MS. SIPOYO, IN CASE # C 572-2002: LARA JOHNSTONE (JOHNSON)." [Attention: Adv. E. Matzke, Tel (012) 317 5000. Fax: (012) 321 1848] The complaint submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) requested the following relief: 1.

The NP A is hereby requested to make available to the Petitioner-Defendant, Lara Johnstone: (i) the educational qualifications of Ms. Sipoyo, currently a State Prosecutor in the George Magistrate District Court, (ii) Any verifications of Ms. Sipoyo's educational qualifications made by the NP A, or any other government authority, which the NP A may be aware of, and (iii) if any complaints have been made to the NP A in regard to Ms. Sipoyo's professional conduct.

2.

The NP A request Ms. Sipoyo to file a signed affadavit to the NP A, copied to the Petitioner-Defendant Case File # C 572-2002, stating for the record of the case ofLara Johnstone the following: (1) Any conversations, communications, opinions instigated by (i) Ms. Sipoyo to any other individual in relation to the issue of mental health/sanity ofthe PetitionerDefendant; and (ii) any other individual (whether trom a Prosecutor, Magistrate, andlor private or public), in the Republic of South Aftica TO Ms. Sipoyo, on the issue of mental health/sanity of the Petitioner-Defendant; (2) If Ms. Sipoyo has any opinions regarding the 'insanity' of the Petitioner-Defendant, that she put them in writing, with qualitative and quantitative psychiatric evidence to substantiate her opinion.

3.

The Petitioner-Defendant hereby wishes to lay a complaint with the NP A. The complaint alleges that Ms. Sipoyo, currently a State Prosecutor in the George Magistrate's District Court has through her actions, and statements indicated a lack oflegal knowledge of fundamental legal concepts. Additionally, in case # C 572-2002 wherein Ms. Sipoyo is representing the State as Prosecutor, Ms. Sipoyo has failed to realize that her actions or lack oflegal (constitutional) and psychiatric (mental health) knowledge have contributed to the violation of numerous rights of Petitioner-Defendant Johnstone as enshrined in the South Afiican Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

4.

The Petitioner-Defendant alleges that evidence obtained by the State Prosecutor and court, was obtained in a manner that violated the rights of the Petitioner in the Bill of Rights and that such evidence needs to be excluded ifthe admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice [35(5)].

5.

The Petitioner-Defendant hereby requests that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) make an IMMEDIATE official request to the George Magistrate's Chief Magistrate, Mr. L.D. Strydom to issue a stay of court proceedings below, pending resolution and clarification on this matter addressed in this Petition, trom the NP A. 6.

Alternatively if the George Magistrate's Office wishes to proceed with Case C 572-2002, with an alternative Prosecutor, the National Prosecuting Authority is requested to clarifY to any new Prosecutor that (i) considering that this Petition to the NP A is still pending and unresolved, that the Petition alleges that evidence obtained by the Prosecution and court, was obtained in a manner that violated the rights of the Petitioner in the Bill of Rights, that such evidence needs to be excluded for future proceedings in this case, [35(5)], (ii) that any New Prosecutor in Case 572-2002 who wishes to lay claim to the allegation of mental insanity is PRECLUDED trom using the past excluded information and needs to submit to the court and Defendant NEW written reasons [33 (2) and 35(3)] for the Prosecutions new allegations in relation to mental insanity and their request that the Defendant see any new psychiatrists, (iii) that any new psychiatrists either be given

I dO 7-

guidelines in relation to the legal concepts of mens rea and actus reus for any psychiatric evaluations, or (iv) alternatively that a member ofthe South African Police Services be present for the duration of the psychiatric evaluation to verify that any psychiatrist understands the concepts of mens rea and actus reus, and (v) that any such psychiatric evaluation be taperecorded for the benefit of all parties involved.

FOOTNOTE: 33. (2) Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.

35. (3) Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right - (a) to be informed ofthe charge with sufficient detail to answer it; (5) Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.

The information regarding the Brief Chronology of Events: C 572-2002 LARA JOHNSTONE (JOHN SON) is not included in this letter, for brevity's sake.

Following is the excerpt of the 'argument' for the Defendant in the complaint submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority. The Defendant requests the Legal Aid Board to determine whether the Defendant would receive a fair trial, if represented by an attorney who does not understand the following concepts: IT.ARGUMENT: 1.

The difference between the labelling of 'convicted offender' and 'mentally insane' is substantial, and in the case of the petitioner, the current proceedings of the court suggest that the Prosecutor, representing the State did not request Mr. Marx and/or Ms. Boone to abide by the principle of the determination of the defendant's capability to comprehend her culpable intent and criminal act [78(IA)], but that she possibly either did not understand these legal concepts (considering her lack of knowledge in relation to 'Forensic Psychiatrists' who specialise in determination of mens rea and actus reus), or did not understand some ofthe defendant's political ideas, thoughts, and/or opinions, and as such chose to avoid addressing the issue of mens rea and actus reus and instead find alternative theories residing in the inexact science of psychiatry to label the defendant. Not only is this a violation of78(IA), but also of 15 (1), 16 (l)(b)(c), 19 (1), and 78 (lB). Additionally it is the Prosecutors role in a court to verify that the Defense abides by the Constitution in any attempts it may venture in to provide as good a defense as it can for it's client based on the Attorney's Code of Ethics, which attorneys swear to uphold.

Ms. Sipoyo has not submitted one question to the court in four (4) appearances before the Court, neither does Ms. Sipoyo speak clearly or articulately or loud enough for individuals sitting in the accused's bench to hear exactly what she is saying, indicating the possibility that Ms. Sipoyo may be unsure of herself and her knowledge of the law. It is the State Prosecutor's duty to represent the people by upholding the law and charging and prosecuting individuals who break the law in a manner that is just, fair and reasonable. If a Prosecutor is unsure of herself and her knowledge of the law, this could result in the South African Police Services spending valuable time, resources, and possibly putting their lives at risk to apprehend individuals who break the law, only to find that due to the fact that the Prosecutor allowed a verdict to be reached, which could later be overturned due to violations of Defendant's Constitutional Rights, thereby setting such offenders free, or alternatively, aggressive attorneys who were aware of the law and sure of themselves could easily manage to get their clients easy deals and quick release, thereby rendering the hard efforts ofthe South African Police Services, virtually meaningless, as well as the safety and security ofthe community an oxymoron, and the notion that we live in a Republic, where the rule of the law and the Constitution is supreme is utterly meaningless. All rights come with an equivalent responsibility and duty, including the 'right' to represent the people as a Public Prosecutor, and/or Magistrate. Societies who focus entirely simply on the never ending entitlement to their 'rights' without being willing to take responsibility for their corresponding duties and responsibilities based on their 'rights', do not last long as free societies, but quickly degenerate into conflict ridden, entitlement demanding societies based on greed, avarice, hate and oppression. If individuals representing 'the people' of South Amca wish to encourage the Supremacy ofthe Constitution and the rule oflaw, then law or conduct inconsistent with the Constitution must be recognized by them as being invalid, and the obligations and responsibilities imposed by the Constitution must be fulfilled.

FOOTNOTE: 15. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, 16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, ideas; (c) freedom of artistic creativity; 19. (1) Every citizen is free to make political choices, 78 (lA) Every accused person is presumed not to suffer responsible in terms of section 78 (I), until the contrary

religion, thought, belief and opinion. which includes - (b) freedom to receive or impart information or

from a mental illness or mental defect so as not to be criminally is proved on a balance of probabilities.

78 (1B) Whenever the criminal responsibility of an accused with reference to the commission ofan act or an ommission which constitutes an offense is an issue, the burden of proof with reference to the criminal responsibility of the accused shall be on the party who raises the issue.

[2.30 Professor J.R. Millen [54] has made the following observations regarding these amendments: "The position in South Afiican law is now as follows: the presumption of insanity is codified in section 78 (lA) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977; the burden of proving insanity rests on the party raising the issue; the burden may be discharged on the balance of probabilities .... [T]he accused who raises the defence of insanity is now in more or less the same position as before the passing of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act 1998: he or she must adduce evidence that establishes, on the balance of probabilities, a state of insanity AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE (i.e. mens rea and actus reus, own emphasis).]

2.

The Petitioner belongs to an amorphous worldwide group of individuals who subscribe to a 'political activist' cultural, environmental and religious community, spanning many ethnic, religious and other cultures, the similarity of this 'political activist' community being that these individuals fully knowing their 'culpable intent' (mens rea) and politically motivated 'criminal act' are willing to participate in protests, demonstrations, petitions, and many other forms of actions (mostly nonviolent, but some threatening violence and others actually inflicting violence), in order to raise awareness to the media, government, corporate authorities, other cultures and communities to issues they consider being neglected by the media, politicians, corporations, governments, etc. Examples of individuals who have been willing to participate in politically motivated actions, sometimes in violation of existing laws (fully knowing the consequences of their actions may require imprisonment or even death), range from the Civil Rights Marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King; the sit-ins by students during the civil rights movement; the intentional break-in and tresspass by environmental protestors into nuclear power stations (Sellafield), the Sowetho uprising, the Anti-Vietnam war protests, Mahatma Gandhi's Salt March and refusal to sit in Third Class Train Compartments in Apartheid South Afiica, the Anti-Apartheid bombings ofD.S. Government Institutions by individuals such as Marilyn Buck, Jaan Laaman, and others; the intentional act of tress pass on government and military property by thousands of religious and political protestors in protest at the training of torture activities to military personnel by U.S. military insitutions such as at Ft. Benning, GA; the bombing of a US Government Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the protests and armed actions by the founding fathers of America against British taxation, to name but a few. These individuals were well aware that their political, constitutional, religious, and environmentally motivated acts were in violation of existing laws. Some of them were willing to take legal responsibility for their actions.

The petitioner is one of these individuals who willingly came forward to be held legally responsible for her criminal act, by being sentenced to imprisonment, etc. as a measure of sacrifice for her conscience, opinion, and/or belief. The possible lack oflegal precedent for such politically motivated crimes, considering the infancy ofthe South African Constitution, does not advocate that Prosecutors or others, assume that because they are not aware of national or international legal precedent of politically motivated crimes, that they instead alternatively turn to psychiatry to find evidence of 'insanity' as a way to explain away their lack of legal precedent or ignorance to such matters. Prosecutors, Magistrates and Attorneys are advised by the South African Constitution, that "when interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum -- (a) must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; (b) must consider international law; and (c) may consider foreign law" [39 (I)(a)(b)(c)]. Doctor Gouzyn in his evaluation ofthe Petitioner focussed on the issue of mens rea and actus reus, and within that framework stated that he had no doubts whatsoever that the Petitioner was well aware of her culpable intent and her criminal act, and that the crime had been politically motivated.

Doctor Gouzyn actually submitted to the court written reasons, for why the Petitioner needed to be held legally responsible for her criminal act as required in 33(2).

FOOTNOTE: 33.(2): Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reason.

39. (1) When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum - (a) must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; (b) must consider international law; and (c) may consider foreign law.

3.

It is not alleged that the Prosecutor (Ms. Sipoyo) acted with malicious intent. It is however alleged that her possible insufficient legal knowledge, qualifications or experience in putting the ideas as enshrined in the Constitution into physical practice through her dispensation of justice in the interests of the people, has the effect of rendering the Constitution a document with great ideas, but no teeth. If a Public Prosecutor does not understand or comprehend even the most basic legal concepts, such as 'Forensic Psychiatry', how are the people expected to have faith in Prosecutors being able to "respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights? [7(2)] The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state [8(1)]. A provision ofthe Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right [8(2)]. Ifan appointed Prosecutor doesn't

understand or even know about something as fundamental to legal and mental health knowledge as 'Forensic Psychiatry', how are the people supposed to have faith or trust in that she may be aware of the fact that the Bill of Rights binds ajuristic person into taking account the nature of a right and the nature of any duty imposed by that right onto her actions? Without the people's trust that Prosecutors who are appointed to dispense justice for the benefit of the Republic, at the very least are competent to understand the duties imposed upon them in their positions of power to imprison, detain, allege criminal wrongdoing, prosecute, sentence, etc, the entire notion of Supremacy of the constitution and the rule oflaw is replaced by (i) ignorance, (ii) individuals, either with fraudulent educational qualifications, or, without the required educational qualifications to maintain a Republic which abides by the notion of 'Supremacy of the constitution and the rule oflaw', (iii) corruption, (iv) abuse of power, (v) violations of accused's rights in the interest of covering up the individuals ignorance, etc., etc.

FOOTNOTE: 7. (1) The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and :6-eedom; (2) The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.

8. (1) The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state; (2) A provision ofthe Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right.

3.

The South A:6-icanConstitution states that "[E]veryone has the right to access to - (a) any information held by the state; and (b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights" [32(1)(a)(b)] Recent newspaper reports substantiate the fact that many individuals, both in corporate and governmental positions have recently been exposed for having submitted :6-audulenteducational qualifications on their resume's in order to obtain positions of employment. The position of State Prosecutor is a powerful position in any community. If a Prosecutor with the immense power to accuse, detain, charge, etc. does not know what a 'Forensic Psychiatrist' is, and yet alleges, in violation ofthe Constitution's requirement for Just Administrative Action [33(2)], that a defendant (petitioner] be referred to a psychiatric institution for a period of psychiatric observation, it is not unreasonable for the Petitioner (to be affected by such a restriction of their liberties, as well as the stigma of such a referral on her character and future psychological reputation), to request according to [32(1)(a)(b)] any information as to the Prosecutor's (Ms. Sipoyo) legal educational qualifications held by the state.

FOOTNOTE: 32.(1) Everyone has the right of access to - (a) any information held by the state; and (b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.

33.(2): Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reason.

4.

Based on the Prosecutors violation of the Petitioners rights as described above and in 33 (2), the Petitioner alleges that no qualitative and quantitative psychiatric evidenciary information qualifYing as "written reason" in order to provide "Just Administrative Action" exists. Irrespective ofthis lack of "written reason" the Prosecutor and court are proceeding with referring Petitioner to a period of psychiatric observation. Such a proceeding is a legal administrative action which will result in adverse effects on the Petitioner, in terms of physical liberty, as well as psychological integrity and reputation. All this lack of prima facie evidence is however being considered by the court as verified prima facie evidence. Since the violation of33.(2) occurred at the time that Petitioner was originally accused of being mentally insane, without being given any sufficient detail to answer the charge of 'mentally insane', and because there are indications that the Prosecutors, Magistrates and attorney may have chosen to prefer to resort to the inexact science of psychiatry to bolster their accusation of mental insanity, as opposed to searching for legal national, international or foreign law and legal precedent to interpret the Bill of Rights [39 (1)(a)(b)(c)], the original assumption by the individuals alleging mental insanity needs to be verified, and needs to be done so by way of written reasons [33(2)], before any further court/Prosecution led attempts for psychiatric observation proceedings occur.

FOOTNOTE: 33 (2) Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.

39. (1) When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum - (a) must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and :6-eedom; (b) must consider international law; and (c) may consider foreign law.

l;)10

m. RELIEF

REQUESTED FROM JOHANNESBURG LEGAL AID OFFICE:

Based on the arguments submitted above in I and IT,the Defendant therefore requests the Johannesburg Legal Aid Office, to make an official immediate request to the George Chief Magistrate, Mr. J. L. Strydom, to issue a stay of court proceedings above, pending resolution and clarification on this matter addressed in this Petition, from the NP A, as well as from the Johannesb~ Legal Aid Office.

LarQ ohnstone (petitioner-Defendant) PS. The Petitioner-Defendant apologizes for any errors in grammar, etc. This letter was drawn up in haste, at the request of the George Legal Aid Office.

CC LIST: 1.

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE & CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Postal Address: Private Bag X81, PRETORIA, 0001 Telephone: 012 - 315 1111 Fax: 012 - 326 0991 Minister: Mr PM Maduna Deputy Minister: Ms CE GiIlwald Director-General: Mr V Pikoli E-Mail: Mediaenquiries:kkganyago@justice.gov.zaorhaugustyn@justice.gov.za (Copy: crabe@justice.gov.za, mschouwstra@justice.gov.za) (i) Gauteng Regional Office: Mrs Beryl R Simelane (Regional Head): Johannesburg: Cell: 083 4509 223: Tel:(OII) 331 0440: Fax:(OII) 331 0452: E-mail: simelane@joreg.pwv.gov.za(Copy:monica@joreg.pwv.gov.za) (ii) KwaZulu Natal Regional Office: Mr Marthinus J Langenhoven: Regional Head: Durban: Cell: 0824602668: Tel:(031) 3015303: Fax:(031) 3015340/41 E-mail: langenhovenmj@jusnatal.kzntl.gov.za (Copy: joubertl@jusnatal.kzntl.gov.za, rnaicker@justice.gov.za) (iii) Northern Cape Regional Office: Mr RD Isaacs (Regional Head): Kimberley Tel:(053) 832 5653/4/5: (053) 8390000: Fax:(053) 832 5621 E-mail: rodney@kimreg.ncape.gov.za (iv) Western Cape Regional Office: Adv H Mohamed (Regional Head): Cape Town Tel: (021) 462 3135: Fax: (021) 462 3141: Email: hishaam@capereg.wcape.gov.za 2.

FACULTY OF LAW, UNIV. OF CAPE TOWN The Faculty Office: Tel (021) 650-3087: Fax: (021) 650-5662: E-mail: lawnv@law.uct.ac.za

3.

RHODES UNIVERSITY LAW FACULTY: Professor & Dean: JR Midgley (R.Midgley@ru.ac.za), Deputy Dean: MJ Oelschig (M.Oelschig@ru.ac.za), Professors: RB Mqeke (R.Mqeke@ru.ac.za), PJ Schwikkard (P.Schwikkard@ru.ac.za); Associate Professor: CM Plasket (C.Plasket@ru.ac.za); Senior Lecturers: GW Barker (G.Barker@ru.ac.za), BJ Clark (B.Clark@ru.ac.za), GE Davies (E.Davies@ru.ac.za), ID Haydock (J.Haydock@ru.ac.za), L Meintjes (L.Meintjes@ru.ac.za), Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Fellow AJ Kerr (A.Kerr@ru.ac.za), Professor Emeritus and Part-Time Lecturer ID Schiifer (I.Schafer@ru.ac.za), Legal Aid Clinic, Director J Campbell (J.Campbell@ru.ac.za), Principal: I Sogoni (I.Sogoni@ru.ac.za), Senior Lecturer: DA Maree (D.Maree@ru.ac.za), Lecturer: IN Cocks (J.Cocks@ru.ac.za).

4.

Mr. Sean Z Kaliski FCPsych (SA), Head of Dept of Psychiatry, University of Cape Town Forensic Unit, Valkenburg Hospital, Tel: (021) 440 3111. Fax: (021) 447 6041.

5.

Dr. Rausch, Head of Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Lentegeur Hospital. Tel: (021) 370 1111. Fax: (021) 371 7359.

Idtl PO Box 5042 George East 6539 Tel: (044) 870 7239 22 July 2002 National Prosecuting Authority Private Bag X 752 Pretoria 0001 Tel: (012) 317 5000 Fax: (012) 3211848

cc: [FULL

LIST AT END OF OOCUMENT]

Attention: Adv. E. Matzke RE: QUESTIONABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND UNDERSTANDING OF FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL CONCEPTS DISPLAYED BY GEORGE MAGIS1RATE MS. SIPOYO, IN CASE # C 572-2002: LARA JOHNSTONE (JOHNSON).

This complaint submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority (NP A) requests the following relief: 1.

The NP A is hereby requested to make available to the Petitioner-Defendant, Lara Johnstone: (i) the educational qualifications of Ms. Sipoyo, currently a State Prosecutor in the George Magistrate District Court, (ii) Any verifications of Ms. Sipoyo's educational qualifications made by the NPA, or any other government authority, which the NPA may be aware of, and (iii) if any complaints have been made to the NP A in regard to Ms. Sipoyo's professional conduct 2.

The NP A request Ms. Sipoyo to file a signed affadavit to the NP A, copied to the Petitioner-Defendant Case File # C 572-2002, stating for the record of the case ofLara Johnstone the following: (1) Any conversations, communications, opinions instigated by (i) Ms. Sipoyo to any other individual in relation to the issue of mental health/sanity of the PetitionerDefendant; and (ii) any other individual (whether ITom a Prosecutor, Magistrate, and/or private or public), in the Republic of South Aftica TO Ms. Sipoyo, on the issue of mental health/sanity of the Petitioner-Defendant; (2) If Ms. Sipoyo has any opinions regarding the 'insanity' of the Petitioner-Defendant, that she put them in writing, with qualitative and quantitative psychiatric evidence to substantiate her opinion.

3.

The Petitioner-Defendant hereby wishes to lay a complaint with the NP A The complaint alleges that Ms. Sipoyo, currently a State Prosecutor in the George Magistrate's District Court has through her actions, and statements indicated a lack oflegal knowledge of fundamental legal concepts. Additionally, in case # C 572-2002 wherein Ms. Sipoyo is representing the State as Prosecutor, Ms. Sipoyo has failed to realize that her actions or lack oflegal (constitutional) and psychiatric (mental health) knowledge have contributed to the violation of numerous rights of Petitioner-Defendant Johnstone as enshrined in the South Aftican Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

4.

The Petitioner-Defendant alleges that evidence obtained by the State Prosecutor and court, was obtained in a manner that violated the rights of the Petitioner in the Bill of Rights and that such evidence needs to be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice [35(5)], 5.

The Petitioner-Defendant hereby requests that the National Prosecuting Authority (NP A) make an IMMEDIATE official request to the George Magistrate's Chief Magistrate, Mr. L.D. Strydom to issue a stay of court proceedings below, pending resolution and clarification on this matter addressed in this Petition, ITom the NP A 6.

Alternatively if the George Magistrate's Office wishes to proceed with Case C 572-2002, with an alternative Prosecutor, the National Prosecuting Authority is requested to clari1)r to any new Prosecutor that (i) considering that this Petition to the NP A is still pending and unresolved, that the Petition alleges that evidence obtained by the Prosecution and court, was obtained in a manner that violated the rights of the Petitioner in the Bill of Rights, that such evidence needs to be

excluded for future proceedings in this case, [35(5)], (ii) that any New Prosecutor in Case 572-2002 who wishes to lay claim to the allegation of mental insanity is PRECLUDED :ITomusing the past excluded information and needs to submit to the court and Defendant NEW written reasons [33 (2) and 35(3)] for the Prosecutions new allegations in relation to mental insanity and their request that the Defendant see any new psychiatrists, (iii) that any new psychiatrists either be given guidelines in relation to the legal concepts of mens rea and actus reus for any psychiatric evaluations, or (iv) alternatively that a member of the South Aftican Police Services be present for the duration of the psychiatric evaluation to verify that any psychiatrist understands the concepts of mens rea and actus reus, and (v) that any such psychiatric evaluation be taperecorded for the benefit of all parties involved.

FoornOTE: 33. (2) Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.

35. (3) Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right - (a) to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it; (5) Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.

1. BRIEF CHRONOLOGY

OF EVENTS: C 572-2002 LARA JOHNSTONE

(JOHNSON)

1.

On 28 June 2002, Petitioner-Defendant Johnstone, accompanied by South Aftican Police Services Inspector Pollock visited Dr. Gouzyn [(044) 802 4408] at the George Hospital, to verify for the court Petitioner's understanding of culpable intent (mens rea) and criminal act (actus reus), in relation to the criminal act Petitioner is accused of (making a bomb threat). Dr. Gouzyn restricted his enquiry in relation to the issues of mens rea and actus reus and made a determination that in his opinion the Petitioner-Defendant had committed the crime as a politically motivated criminal act, and that he had no doubts whatsoever that Petitioner-Defendant was well aware of her culpable intent and her criminal act 2.

On 3 July 2002, defendant appeared in court [Magistrate Fortuin and Prosecutor Ms. Sipoyo], with her Legal Aid appointed attorney, Mr. Anton Marx. Mr. Marx submitted the report of Dr. Gouzyn to the court, and the case was postponed for plea and sentencing to 8 July 2002.

3.

On 8 July 2002, Mr. Marx stated that he was not ready for plea and sentencing to the case, and without the approval of the Petitioner, stated that he was not satisfied with Dr Gouzyn's report, since it was submitted by a Doctor (M.D.), and not a psychiatrist He stated that he had made enquiries to a psychiatrist, Dr. Boon at the George Hospital, in order to have his client visit Dr. Boon to verify his allegation that his client was mentally insane. Neither the State Prosecutor, Ms. Sipoyo, nor the Magistrate, Mr. Fortuin, questioned Mr. Marx regarding his allegations of'insanity' towards his client, nor, what qualitative or quantitative psychiatric evidenciary information he had to substantiate his allegations against his client, nor whether he was pursuing his 'insanity' plea at the request of his client, or with approval :ITomhis client Neither Ms. Sipoyo, nor Magistrate Fortuin instructed Mr. Marx that any subsequent psychiatric evaluation of his client needed to be conducted within the strict guidelines of mens rea and actus reus.

4.

On 10 July 2002, Petitioner Johnstone visited Dr. Boon at the George Hospital accompanied by Mr. Mane. The psychiatric evaluation of Petitioner by Dr. Boon did not focus on issues of culpable intent, nor on her criminal act, but rather focussed on her opinions and past politically motivated activist actions, such as a hunger strike, her opinions on numerous issues, etc. The Petitioner was asked by Dr. Boon to verify why any individuals within the George Magistrates Office would allege that she was crazy, even though not one individual :ITomthe George Magistrate's Office had indicated to Petitioner via oral or written communication that they alleged that she was crazy. The Petitioner responded that she could not speak for the motivations or opinions of individuals working in the George Magistrates Court, nor had she been informed of their opinions to her face. The only individual who had raised the issue with Petitioner had been Mr. Marx who had alleged that she may be crazy because she was 'so intelligent'! Additionally, in response to questions asked by Dr. Boon, to which the Petitioner responded with information about individuals or events that had occurred, Dr. Boon responded with numerous questions to Petitioner asking whether the individuals or events were 'in her imagination' or 'whether the individuals really existed'. The questions by Dr. Boon indicate that Dr. Boon seemed to be inclined (for whatever reasons) to suspect that Petitioner was

'crazy', 'making things up', 'imagining people and/or events' and that individuals she said she knew or had written about 'did not exist.' At the end of the psychiatric evaluation, Mr. Marx requested to speak to the psychiatrist alone. Mr. Marx then proceeded to inform the Petitioner that Dr. Boon had stated after her psychiatric evaluation that she 'was confused'.

5.

On 12 July 2002, Mr. Marx submitted Dr. Boon's alleged psychiatric Report to the court [Magistrate: Mr. Fortuin, State Prosecutor: Ms. Sipoyo]. The report states, "1 [Dr. Boon] examined the named lady today, as well as the document which she wrote on 27 June 2002. In light of the above named information I find indications that justify relegation for psychiatric observation. I want to strongly recommend that the court refer the above named lady to ValkenburglLentegeur Hospital for an observation period. The document that she wrote and all other possible collateral information must please also be made available to the observation psychiatrist." The report contains no qualitative or quantitative psychiatric findings or evidenciary information to share what "indications" Dr. Boon found that would "justify relegation for psychiatric observation." Neither the Magistrate, nor the Prosecutor requested any psychiatric evidentiary information as allegedly included in the psychiatric evaluation report Mr. Marx stated that currently there are no beds available in Lentegeur or Valkenburg Hospitals, and he therefore requested that the Petitioner's admittance to such psychiatric observation be delayed until 26 August 2002. The Magistrate and Prosecutor agreed. The court's unanimous decision, by attorney, Prosecutor and Magistrate to agree to the institutionalization of Petitioner to a Hospital for psychiatric observation, without giving any written reasons whatsoever to substantiate their allegations, or submission to the recommendations of a psychiatrist, who herself gave no written reasons for what "indications" she found to substantiate such a restriction of Petitioners right to freedom, are a violation of 33(2). The unanimous decision by the court could adversely affect (i) the Petitioner's standing and reputation in the community regarding her mental health/sanity, and (ii) infringe her freedom and rights by having her sentenced to observation in a Hospital, allegedly to verify her 'sanity'. These are violations of Just Administrative Action [33(1 X2)]. Additionally, the court's unanimous decision could also set a dangerous legal precedent for any :future aggressive attorney who may wish to use any and all means to help his client avoid taking responsibility for a criminal act. Such an attorney could simply get a state appointed psychiatrist to evaluate their client based not on the concepts of mens rea and actus reus, but on any extreme opinions, ideas or thoughts, and based simply on these 'extreme' ideas, submit a report with no qualitative or quantitative evidenciary psychiatric information, strongly recommending that their client be referred to a Hospital for psychiatric observation.

FOOTNOTE: [Just Administrative Action] 33. (1) Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

(2) Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.

6.

On the afternoon of 15 July 2002, defendant was walking to the Library and passed the Magistrate's Court House.

Ms. Sipoyo was standing outside waiting to be picked up after work. Petitioner approached Ms. Sipoyo and the following paraphrased exchange of conversation occurred: "I stopped and asked her what her name was, she responded, Sipoyo. I asked her why she had not questioned the lack of qualitative or quantitative psychiatric evidenciary information in Dr. Boon's alleged report. She stated that the psychiatrist (Dr. Boon) had submitted a report finding that I should be admitted for psychiatric observation for a period of thirty (30) days. 1stated that there was no psychiatric evidenciary information in the alleged 'report', and asked her if that didn't worry her, and also stated that it violated the South Afiican Constitution. 1 also stated that the psychiatric report and evaluation had violated the guidelines for criminal psychiatric evaluations which need to focus on the issues of mens rea and actus reus. I stated that Dr. Boon was not a forensic psychiatrist. She asked me what a Forensic Psychiatrist was. I stated that a Forensic Psychatrist is a psychiatrist that has knowledge about the law and how the law needs to be applied to psychiatric evaluations of alleged criminals brought before them to determine the issues of mens rea and actus reus. She said Oh. Additionally, I stated that my attorney was pursuing this line of defence against my wishes, I had no intention and/or inclination to wish to question my own sanity, so as to plead insanity as a means of avoiding taking responsibility for my criminal act. She stated that if my attorney was not following my wishes then I could ask for him to be removed :/Tommy case. 1 stated that 1 had informed my attorney, on the day that he was appointed to represent me and when he first brought up the issue of the verification of my sanity, that I was going to plead guilty and ifhe did not like it I would fire him. He stated at that time that I could not fire him ifhe had doubts as to my mental sanity. 1 stated that 1had spoken to numerous Magistrates and signed an affadavit or statement with

Magistrate Ngevu to the effect that I had taken responsibility for having committed the crime I was being charged with, for the express purposes of pleading guilty. I asked her if she had read the statement in my case file. She said she didn't know anything about it At this point Magistrate Govusa came walking out of the Magistrate's Office. I asked him ifhe would verify that I had made a written statement to him, regarding my willingness to take responsibility for my criminal act and to plead guilty. He stated that he could not discuss such matters outside the court house. I asked him ifhe was avoiding taking responsibility for admitting the truth, regarding an event he clearly had knowledge of. He laughed."

7.

On 16 July 2002, Petitioner submitted a complaint to Mr. Marx, titled "Mens Rea: The Case for Mental Health". It was CC'd to the George Magistrate's Office, Dr. Boon, SA Police Services: Inspector Pollock, as well as (i) South Aftican Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Development, (ii) South Aftican Department of Health, (ill) Mental Health Information Center of South Aftica at the University of Stellenbosch, (iv) Mental Health Information Clearing House, (v) The W orId Mental Health 2000 (WMH200) Initiative Collaborators, (vi) Freedom Magazine: Investigative Reporting in the Interest of Public Health, (vii) Mr. Sean Z Kaliski FCPsych (SA), Dept of Psychiatry, University of Cape Town Forensic Unit, Valkenburg Hospital, (viii) Psychology Society of South Aftica, (ix) Rhodes University Law Faculty, (x) McMasters University, Canada: Law & Political Science Faculty.

8.

On 17 July 2002, [Magistrate Ngevu, State Prosecutor Ms. Sipoyo] Mr. Marx withdrew from representing Petitioner citing a breach of trust with his client, and a conflict with the code of ethics he had sworn to. Petitioner stated that she had no problem with Mr. Marx continuing to represent her in her case, however ifhe did so, she wanted him to do so according to her own wishes and requests, not according to his opinions, for which he provided no evidenciary information.

Petitioner stated that she imagined that Mr. Marx's intentions were not malevolent, and that he was probably doing what he thought was in his clients best interests, however ifhe wished to withdraw, she would respect his wishes. Ms. Sipoyo then stated that the Prosecution was going to continue in its previous ruling whereby Dr. Boon's psychiatric report had been submitted to the court and the court had ruled that the Defendant be admitted to a Hospital for a period of psychiatric observation. Petitioner stated that the alleged psychiatric report had violated her Constitutional Rights, and that if the court acted on the alleged psychiatric report, it too would be violating her Constitutional Rights, since it would be acting on evidence obtained in a manner that violated her rights in the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution dictated that such obtained evidence must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.

9.

On 18 July 2002, Petitioner contacted 'Renette' at the Department ofJustice, Personnel Section [(012) 315 1159], to 'find out whether the Dept of Justice verifies the authenticity of it's personnel's educational qualifications?' Renette responded that the Department of Justice had not in the past verified the authenticity of it's personnel's educational qualifications but were in a drive doing so, that they were going through a process of verifying all civil servants educational qualifications starting with certain level managers, and asked if Petitioner had a problem that she could help with. Defendant stated paraphrased, 'Yes, fm calling from George, Southern Cape, where I have been involved in a process with the local Magistrate's Office and Prosecutors Office. Some of the statements by a Prosecutor and Magistrate lead me to believe that they may not have the qualifications to have the positions they currently have. In a conversation with a Prosecutor I was speaking to her about Forensic Psychiatry and she had no clue what I was talking about In a conversation with a Magistrate we were discussing my passport, and she seemed to have very little idea what a passport signified. I would like to find out where and how I could verify these individuals educational qualifications, because either these qualifications are ITaudulent, or if they are not, then the educational establishments from which these individuals qualified need to be investigated.' Renette paraphrased responded with 'I would suggest that you contact the Magistrates Commission (012) 3253951, and the National Prosecuting Authority (012) 317 5000. I would also suggest that you contact the National Fraud Hotline.' Petitioner then contacted the National Prosecuting Authority and spoke to Adv Malange, explaining her complaint regarding her allegation that a Prosecutor in George Magistrate's Office seemed to lack fundamental legal knowledge, and that she had doubts as to her educational qualifications, and wanted to file a complaint, and request verification of the Prosecutor's legal qualifications or alternatively investigation of the legal educational curriculum of the tertiary institution where the Prosecutor allegedly qualified &om. Adv Malange suggested that Petitioner file a complaint with the particulars and fax it to Advocate E. Matzke Fax: (012) 321 1848, or alternatively mail itto National Prosecuting Authority, Private Bag X 752, Pretoria, 0001.

10.

On 18 July 2002, Petitioner also contacted Mr. Schoeman at the Magistrate's Commission: [(012) 3253951]. She requested information as to the verification of Magistrate's Educational Qualifications, and then asked Mr. Schoeman for advice regarding her case in George. Paraphrased, she said: "The issue involves a case I currently have before the George

Magistrate's Court, to give you a little background Both the Magistrate's I have seen, as well as the prosecutors, have violated the Constitution as far as I understand it My attorney would not allow me to plead guilty, nor fire him because I wanted to plead guilty, unless I saw a psychiatrist to verifY my mental sanity. Feeling coerced I agreed. The psychiatrist in her psychiatric evaluation violated the legal regulations of consideration of men's rea and actus reus in her detennination of criminal culpability. She admitted that she was confused, but then upon submittion to the court of her 'report' she made no qualitative or quantitative psychiatric evidentimy evidence (Le. written reasons as required by the Constitution), and recommended that I be submitted to a psychiatric institution for a period ono days observation. Neither the Magistrate, nor the Prosecutor brought up the issue that this alleged psychiatric report violated the terms of the South Afiican Constitution. I discussed the matter with the Prosecutor and asked her why she had not questioned the report's lack of evidencimy reasons or infonnation. I also stated that the psychiatrist had violated the mens rea and actus reus guidelines for questioning a defendant brought before a psychiatrist to determine whether the individual understood her criminal culpability. I stated that the psychiatrist was not a Forensic Psychiatrist, at which point the Prosecutor asked me what a Forensic Psychiatrist was. I stated that knowing about an issue such as Forensic Psychiatry and what Forensic Psychiatrist's do, in relation to the law (detennination of mens rea and actus reus), was - in my opinion - not some obscure legal 'concept' but a very modem one, and that I was concerned about the fact that an individual could be appointed to the position of State Prosecutor and that this person seemed totally oblivious of a fundamental aspect of the law in relation to psychiatry. How does such a person become a Prosecutor, with such a lack of fundamental legal knowledge?" Mr. Schoeman agreed and suggested that Petitioner take the matter in relation to the Magistrate's lack of action in the matter up with the George Chief Magistrate Mr. Strydom and if Petitioner didn't get any relief:trom the Chief Magistrate's office, to bring the matter to the attention of the Magistrates Commission Misconduct Commission. Mr. Schoeman also showed an indication that he understood that the proceeding of current events in this case, could not only affect my legal rights and ITeedoms severely, but also my reputation within the community.

11.

On 19 July 2002, Inspector Pollock telephoned Petitioner-Defendant at the request of Chief Prosecutor Mr. Marx.

Inspector Pollock requested Defendant to appear in court on 22 July 2002, to discuss the 'psychiatric evaluation report'.

12.

On 22 July 2002, Defendant appeared in court [Magistrate Mr. Essel, Prosecutor Ms. Sipoyo]. The Defendant could not hear the statements of the Prosecutor in her statement to Magistrate Esse!. Magistrate Essel stated he did not wish to go ahead with the trial, unless the issue of Legal Aid had been resolved. Defendant stated that she had contacted the Legal Aid Office last week and Ms. Greeffhad suggested that Defendant file a letter with Legal Aid on, or after Monday 22 July 2002, to request that the Johannesburg Legal Aid Office approve an independent 'outside Legal Aid' attorney, since she thought that would be fair. Defendant stated that she had not filed the letter, since she first needed copies of documents :trom her file, which she needed to get :trom Chief Prosecutor Marx. Defendant was taken to Legal Aid, who again requested that she file a letter for Johannesburg Legal Aid Defendant then went to see Chief Prosecutor J.J. Marx. Defendant asked Prosecutor Marx who had made the decision that the Defendant needed to be brought before the court on 22 July 2002, as opposed to 26 August 2002, as originally stated at the last court hearing. Mr. Marx stated he had made the decision, that allegedly he had been infonned by Lentegeur Hospital that they had an immediate bed available, but that it needed to be filled as soon as possible. Defendant stated to Prosecutor Marx, that the issues surrounding the 'psychiatric evaluation report' had not been just or fair, had not focussed on mens rea and actus reus, and violated the South Afiican Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Defendant requested copies of Dr. Gouzyn's report, as well as copies of the statement filed with Magistrate Ngevu.

Prosecutor Marx stated that he would make copies of these documents available to Defendant, if Defendant filed a letter to his office. Prosecutor Marx did NOT address the issues surrounding the 'psychiatric evaluation report' and seems to wish to send Defendant to a hospital 'as soon as possible' without addressing those issues, irrespective of the fact that they violate Just Administrative Action [33(1 X2)].

FOOTN01E: [Just Administrative Action] 33. (1) Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

(2) Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.

IT.

ARGUMENT:

1.

The difference between the labelling of 'convicted offender' and 'mentally insane' is substantial, and in the case of the petitioner, the current proceedings of the court suggest that the Prosecutor, representing the State did not request Mr. Marx and/or Ms. Boone to abide by the principle of the detennination of the defendant's capability to comprehend her culpable intent and criminal act [78(1A)], but that she possibly either did not understand these legal concepts (considering her lack of knowledge in relation to 'Forensic Psychiatrists' who specialise in determination of mens rea and actus reus), or did not understand some of the defendant's political ideas, thoughts, and/or opinions, and as such chose to avoid addressing the issue of mens rea and actus reus and instead find alternative theories residing in the inexact science of psychiatry to label the defendant. Not only is this a violation of78(lA), but also ofl5 (1),16 (l)(bXc), 19 (1), and 78 (lB). Additionally it is the Prosecutors role in a court to verify that the Defense abides by the Constitution in any attempts it may venture in to provide as good a defense as it can for it's client based on the Attorney's Code of Ethics, which attorneys swear to uphold. Ms. Sipoyo has not submitted one question to the court in four (4) appearances before the Court, neither does Ms. Sipoyo speak clearly or articulately or loud enough for individuals sitting in the accused's bench to hear exactly what she is saying, indicating the possibility that Ms. Sipoyo may be unsure of herself and her knowledge of the law. It is the State Prosecutor's duty to represent the people by upholding the law and charging and prosecuting individuals who break the law in a manner that is just, fair and reasonable. If a Prosecutor is unsure of herself and her knowledge of the law, this could result in the South Afiican Police Services spending valuable time, resources, and possibly putting their lives at risk to apprehend individuals who breakthe law, only to find that due to tIie fact that the Prosecutor allowed a verdict to be reached, which could later be overturned due to violations of Defendant's Constitutional Rights, thereby setting such offenders ITee, or alternatively, aggressive attorneys who were aware of the law and sure of themselves could easily manage to get their clients easy deals and quick release, thereby rendering the hard efforts of the South Afiican Police Services, virtually meaningless, as well as the safety and security of the community an oxymoron, and the notion that we live in a Republic, where the rule of the law and the Constitution is supreme is utterly meaningless. All rights come with an equivalent responsibility and duty, including the 'right'to represent the people as a Public Prosecutor, and/or Magistrate. Societies who focus entirely simply on the never ending entitlement to their 'rights' without being willing to take responsibility for their corresponding duties and responsibilities based on their 'rights', do not last long as ITee societies, but quickly degenerate into conflict ridden, entitlement demanding societies based on greed, avarice, hate and oppression. If individuals representing 'the people' of South Afiica wish to encourage the Supremacy of the Constitution and the rule oflaw, then law or conduct inconsistent with the Constitution must be recognized by them as being invalid, and the obligations and responsibilities imposed by the Constitution must be fulfilled

FOOTNOTE: 15. (1) Everyone has the right to ITeedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.

16. (1) Everyone has the right to ITeedom of expression, which includes - Cb) ITeedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (c) fteedom of artistic creativity; 19. (1) Every citizen is ftee to make political choices, 78 (lA) Every accused person is presumed not to suffer ftom a mental illness or mental defect so as not to be criminally responsible in terms of section 78 (1), until the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.

78 (lB) Whenever the criminal responsibility of an accused with reference to the commission of an act or an ommission which constitutes an offense is an issue, the burden of proof with reference to the criminal responsibility of the accused shall be on the party who raises the issue.

[2.30 Professor J.R. Millen [54] has made the following observations regarding these amendments: "The position in South Afiican law is now as follows: the presumption of insanity is codified in section 78 (1A) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977; the burden of proving insanity rests on the party raising the issue; the burden may be discharged on the balance of probabilities .... [f]he accused who raises the defence of insanity is now in more or less the same position as before the passing of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act 1998: he or she must adduce evidence that establishes, on the balance of probabilities, a state of insanity AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE (i.e. mens rea and actus reus, own emphasis).]

2.

The Petitioner belongs to an amorphous worldwide group of individuals who subscribe to a 'political activist' cultural, environmental and religious community, spanning many ethnic, religious and other cultures, the similarity of this 'political activist' community being that these individuals fully knowing their 'culpable intent' (mens rea) and politically motivated 'criminal act' are willing to participate in protests, demonstrations, petitions, and many other forms of actions (mostly nonviolent, but some threatening violence and others actually inflicting violence), in order to raise awareness to the

media, government, corporate authorities, other cultures and communities to issues they consider being neglected by the media, politicians, corporations, governments, etc. Examples of individuals who have been willing to participate in politically motivated actions, sometimes in violation of existing laws (fully knowing the consequences of their actions may require imprisonment or even death), range from the Civil Rights Marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King; the sit-ins by students during the civil rights movement; the intentional break-in and tresspass by environmental protestors into nuclear power stations (Sellafield), the Sowetho uprising, the Anti-Vietnam war protests, Mahatma Gandhi's Salt March and refusal to sit in Third Class Train Compartments in Apartheid South Afiica, the Anti-Apartheid bombings ofD.S. Government Institutions by individuals such as Marilyn Buck, Jaan Laaman, and others; the intentional act of tress pass on government and militaIy property by thousands of religious and political protestors in protest at the training of torture activities to militaIy personnel by D.S. militaIy insitutions such as at Ft Benning, GA; the bombing of a US Government Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the protests and armed actions by the founding fathers of America against British taxation, to name but a few. These individuals were well aware that their political, constitutional, religious, and environmentally motivated acts were in violation of existing laws. Some of them were willing to take legal responsibility for their actions. The petitioner is one of these individuals who willingly came forward to be held legally responsible for her criminal act, by being sentenced to imprisonment, etc. as a measure of sacrifice for her conscience, opinion, and/or belief. The possible lack oflegal precedent for such politically motivated crimes, considering the infancy of the South Afiican Constitution, does not advocate that Prosecutors or others, assume that because they are not aware of national or international legal precedent of politically motivated crimes, that they instead alternatively turn to psychiatry to find evidence of ,insanity' as a way to explain away their lack oflegal precedent or ignorance to such matters. Prosecutors, Magistrates and Attorneys are advised by the South Amcan Constitution, that "when interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum - (a) must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; (b) must consider intemationallaw; and (c) may consider foreign law" [39 (1 Xa)(b Xc)]. Doctor Gouzyn in his evaluation of the Petitioner focussed on the issue of mens rea and actus reus, and within that ftamework stated that he had no doubts whatsoever that the Petitioner was well aware of her culpable intent and her criminal act, and that the crime had been politically motivated. Doctor Gouzyn actually submitted to the court written reasons, for why the Petitioner needed to be held legally responsible for her criminal act as required in 33(2).

FOOTNOTE: 33.(2): Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reason.

39. (1) When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum - (a) must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; (b) must consider international law; and (c) may consider foreign law.

3.

It is not alleged that the Prosecutor (Ms. Sipoyo) acted with malicious intent It is however alleged that her possible insufficient legal knowledge, qualifications or experience in putting the ideas as enshrined in the Constitution into physical practice through her dispensation of justice in the interests of the people, has the effect of rendering the Constitution a document with great ideas, but no teeth. If a Public Prosecutor does not understand or comprehend even the most basic legal concepts, such as 'Forensic Psychiatry', how are the people expected to have faith in Prosecutors being able to "respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights? [7(2)] The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state [8(1 )]. A provision of the Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person it: and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right [8(2)]. If an appointed Prosecutor doesn't understand or even know about something as fundamental to legal and mental health knowledge as 'Forensic Psychiatry', how are the people supposed to have faith or trust in that she may be aware of the fact that the Bill of Rights binds a juristic person into taking account the nature of a right and the nature of any duty imposed by that right onto her actions? Without the people's trust that Prosecutors who are appointed to dispense justice for the benefit of the Republic, at the very least are competent to understand the duties imposed upon them in their positions of power to imprison, detain, allege criminal wrongdoing, prosecute, sentence, etc, the entire notion of Supremacy of the constitution and the rule oflaw is replaced by (i) ignorance, (ii) individuals, either with ftaudulent educational qualifications, or, without the required educational qualifications to maintain a Republic which abides by the notion of 'Supremacy of the constitution and the rule oflaw', (ill)

Id-tt

corruption, (iv) abuse of power, (v) violations of accused's rights in the interest of covering up the individuals ignorance, etc., etc.

FOOTNOTE: 7. (1) The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Afiica. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom; (2) The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.

8. (1) The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state; (2) A provision of the Bill of Rights binds a natural or ajuristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right

3.

The South Afiican Constitution states that "[E]veryone has the right to access to - (a) any information held by the state; and Cb) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights" [32(1 Xa)(b)] Recent newspaper reports substantiate the fact that many individuals, both in corporate and governmental positions have recently been exposed for having submitted ITaudulent educational qualifications on their resume's in order to obtain positions of employment The position of State Prosecutor is a powerful position in any community. If a Prosecutor with the immense power to accuse, detain, charge, etc. does not know what a 'Forensic Psychiatrist' is, and yet alleges, in violation of the Constitution's requirement for Just Administrative Action [33(2)], that a defendant [petitioner] be referred to a psychiatric institution for a period of psychiatric observation, it is not unreasonable for the Petitioner (to be affected by such a restriction of their liberties, as well as the stigma of such a referral on her character and future psychological reputation), to request according to [32(1 Xa)(b )] any information as to the Prosecutor's (Ms. Sipoyo) legal educational qualifications held by the state.

FOOTNOTE: 32.(1) Everyone has the right of access to - (a) any information held by the state; and (b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.

33.(2): Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reason.

4.

Based on the Prosecutors violation of the Petitioners rights as described above and in 33 (2), the Petitioner alleges that no qualitative and quantitative psychiatric evidenciary information qualifYing as "written reason" in order to provide "Just Administrative Action" exists. Irrespective of this lack of "written reason" the Prosecutor and court are proceeding with referring Petitioner to a period of psychiatric observation. Such a proceeding is a legal administrative action which will result in adverse effects on the Petitioner, in terms of physical liberty, as well as psychological integrity and reputation. All this lack of prima facie evidence is however being considered by the court as verified prima facie evidence. Since the violation of 33.(2) occurred at the time that Petitioner was originally accused of being mentally insane, without being given any sufficient detail to answer the charge of ,mentally insane', and because there are indications that the Prosecutors, Magistrates and attorney may have chosen to prefer to resort to the inexact science of psychiatry to bolster their accusation of mental insanity, as opposed to searching for legal national, international or foreign law and legal precedent to interpret the Bill of Rights [39 (1XaXbXc)], the original assumption by the individuals alleging mental insanity needs to be verified, and needs to be done so by way of written reasons [33(2)], ifit is to be pursued.

FOOTNOTE: 33 (2) Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.

39. (1) When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum - (a) must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; Cb)must consider intemationallaw; and (c) may consider foreign law.

lli. RELIEF REQUESTED: Based on the arguments submitted above in IT,the Petitioner therefore requests the National Prosecuting Authority to seriously consider acting on the reliefs requested at the beginning of this complaint, as soon as possible, ifnot immediately.

tone (petitioner-Defendant) CC LIST: 1.

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE & CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Postal Address: Private Bag X81, PRETORIA, 0001 Telephone: 012 - 315 1111 Fax: 012 - 326 0991 Minister: Mr PM Maduna Deputy Minister: Ms CE Gillwald Director-General: Mr V Pikoli E-Mail: Mediaenquiries:kkganyago@justice.gov.zaorhaugustyn@justice.gov.za (Copy: crabe@justice.gov.za, rnschouwstra@justice.gov.za) (i) Gauteng Regional Office: Mrs Beryl R Simelane (Regional Head): Johannesburg: Cell: 083 4509223: Tel:(OIl) 3310440: Fax:(OIl) 331 0452: E-mail: simelane@joreg.pwv.gov.za(Copy:monica@joreg.pwv.gov.za) (ii) KwaZulu Natal Regional Office: Mr Marthinus J Langenhoven: Regional Head: Durban: Cell: 082 4602 668: Tel:(031) 3015303: Fax:(031) 3015340/41 E-mail: langenhovenmj@jusnatal.kzntl.gov.za (Copy: joubertl@jusnatal.kzntl.gov.za, rnaicker@justice.gov.za) (iii) Northern Cape Regional Office: Mr RD Isaacs (Regional Head): Kimberley Tel:(053) 832 5653/4/5: (053) 839 0000: Fax:(053) 832 5621 E-mail: rodney@kimreg.ncape.gov.za (iv) Western Cape Regional Office: Adv H Mohamed (Regional Head): Cape Town Tel: (021) 462 3135: Fax: (021) 462 3141: Email: hishaam@capereg.wcape.gov.za 2.

FACULTY OF LAW, UNIV. OF CAPE TOWN The Faculty Office: Tel (021) 650-3087: Fax: (021) 650-5662: E-mail: lawnv@law.uct.ac.za

3.

RHODES UNIVERSITY LAW FACULTY: Professor & Dean: JR Midgley (R.Midgley@ru.ac.za), Deputy Dean: MJ Oelschig (M.Oelschig@ru.ac.za), Professors: RB Mqeke (R.Mqeke@ru.ac.za), PI Schwikkard (P.Schwikkard@ru.ac.za); Associate Professor: CM Plasket (C.Plasket@ru.ac.za); Senior Lecturers: GW Barker (G.Barker@ru.ac.za), BJ Clark (B.Clark@ru.ac.za), GE Davies (E.Davies@ru.ac.za), JD Haydock (I.Haydock@ru.ac.za), L Meintjes (L.Meintjes@ru.ac.za), Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Fellow AJ Kerr (A.Kerr@ru.ac.za), Professor Emeritus and Part-Time Lecturer ID Schiifer (I.Schafer@ru.ac.za), Legal Aid Clinic, Director J Campbell (J.Campbell@ru.ac.za), Principal: I Sogoni (LSogoni@ru.ac.za), Senior Lecturer: DA Maree (D.Maree@ru.ac.za), Lecturer: IN Cocks (J.Cocks@ru.ac.za).

4.

Mr. Sean Z Kaliski FCPsych (SA), Dept of Psychiatry, University of Cape Town Forensic Unit, Valkenburg Hospital, Tel: (021) 440 3111, Fax: (021) 447 6041.

5.

Dr. Rausch, Head of Forensic Psychiatry at Lentegeur Hospital, Tel: (021) 370 1111, Fax: (021) 371 7359.

P 0 Box 5042 George East

6539 Tel: (044) 8707239 22 July 2002 Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Ivfarx George Magistrat.e's Office Tel: (044) 802 5800 Fax: (044) 8025809

cc: [List. included

below]

iillention: Prosecut.orJv1r. J.J. })/larA :RE: Request for (i) copies of docurnent.s in Case File: C 572-2002:

Lara Johnstone, (ii) Delay of court 'psychiatric evaluation report' proceedings, pending resolution of complaints submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority and request for Legal Aid to the Johannesburg Legal Aid Office.

This request submitted to the George Chief Prosecutor's relief:

Office of1,1r. J.J. Marx requests the following

1.

The George Prosecutors Office of}. ..1r, J.J, ]\!farx is hereby requested to supply to t.he PetitionerDefendant, Lara Johnstone, Case File C-572-2002, all documents in her file of which she has not been given copies of, especially the Report by Dr. Gouzyn, as well as tile statement made to Magistrate },.1r. . Govuza, as 'Nell as any future or past documents in Petitioner's file she may not be aware of.

mentiOned m the (I) faxed complamt subrrlltted to the NatiOnal Prosecutmg Authonty [Adv. E. ]Vlatzk.e:Tel: JH~ (012) 317 5000: Fa.'c (012) 321 1848] at 11 :26 hrs on 22 July 2002, and (i1) the faxed letter to ~ n. , Th~ Geor~e Prosecutor's ,Office i~ also requeste? to delay the p,sychiatric .evaluation proceedings as Legal P.id Office [},:..tt:Jv1r.Peter Hall, Johannesburg Legal Aid Office: Tel: (011) 877 2000, Fax: (011) 877 2222] at 12:56 hrs, on 22 July 2002 (hand delivered copy given to Ms. IvIeyer); pending resolution and clarification on these matters, from the NPi>., and the Johannesburg Legal â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘'.id Office. ill, Copies of both of the above mentioned documents are hereby supplied to the George Prosecutor's Office onvir. J.J.l'v1at7., with request that tiley be admitted to the Case File: C-:572-Z002 (Lat"a Johnstone/Johnson).

FOR THE RECORD: On the moming of 22 July 2002, Defendatlt spoke to Prosecutor J.J. MarA in his office at th~ George Magistrate's Office, requesting clarification as to whom made the decision to change the date for L~e admission of defendant to a Hospital for a period of psychiatric obsel"llation from 26 P,ugust 2002, to this 'Neek. Prosecutor MarA responded that he had made the decision upon verification that a bed had come available at Lentegeur Hospital, and that it.needed to be filled before it was taken up by someone else.

111ereafter Defendant called tile Department of Forensic Psychiatry at Lentegeur Hospital [(021) 370 1111 J and spoke to a nurse. The nurse informed Defendant, that 'someone' from the George Magistrate's Office had contacted Lentegeur Hospital to find out if any immediate beds were available for a female patient from George Magistrate's District for psychiatric observation. The Nurse informed the Defendant that there were always beds available for psychiatric observation, and that there was no need to immediately fill a bed, in case it was taken up by atlYone else, In 22 July 2002, Defendant faxed copies of the complaint to the National Prosecuting

Authority

[ilit: Adv. E. lv1atzke: Tel: (012) 317 5000: Fax: (012) 321 1848], to (I) Dr, Rausch, Head of Department for Forensic ~sychiatry at Lentegeur Hospital [Te1: (012) 370 1111: Fax: (012) 371 7359] (11 :35 hrs); and (li) Dr. Kaliski, Head of Department of FOI"ensic Psychiatry at Valkenbur"g Hospital [Tel: (021) 440 3111: Fax: (021) 44716041] (11 :56 hrs).

Chief Prosecutor l-Ar.J.J. Marx is hereby requested to verify in writing (copied to the PetitionerDefendantlCase File C-572-2002) with either Dr. Rausch or Dr. Kalisky, L~at both of L'1em at'e a',vare of the (i) pending complaint to the National Prosecuting Authority, atld the relief requested therein, and (li) the letter of request to the Johannesburg Legal Aid Board, and the relief requested therein; BEFORE either Lentegeur or Valkenburg Hospital approve the request by the George Magistrate's Office for admittance of

t! "

'

Petitioner-Defendant Institut.ions.

Lara Johnstone, for a period of psychiatric observation to eiL~er of L~ese Hospital

On 22 July 2002. at 12:50 hrs, Defendant faxed "Request for 'independent attorney' paid for by Legal Aid to represent Lara Jobnstone in Case File # C 572-2002," to Jvfr. Peter Hall, at the Johannesburg Legal.Aid office [TeI: (011) 877.2000: Fax: (011) 877 2222].

Sincerely,

CC: 1.

2.

George Chief Magistrate's Office: Mr. J.L. Strydom. [Tel: (044) 802 5800: Fax: (044) 802 5809J Clerk of George 1vfagistrate's District Criminal Court: Mrs. 1vIzazela [TeI: (044) 802 5800: Fax: (044) 802 5809J

3.

4.

5.

1vfr.Peter Hall, Johannesburg LegaLA.id Office: Tel: (011) 8772000, Fa:>1:: (Oi 1) 8772222.

JAr. Sean Z Kaliski FCPsych (SA), Head of Dept of Psychiatry, University of Cape Town Forensic Unit, ValkenburgHospitaI, Tel: (021) 440 3111. Fax: (021) 447 6041.

Dr. Rausch, Head of Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Lentegeur Hospital. Tel: (021) 370 1111.

Fa:<::(021) 371 7359.

PRO SE: LARA JOHNSTONE (C-572-2002) Lentegeur Psychiatric Hospital Ward 12 (Tel: 021-3701129) Highlands Drive, Mitchells Plain Tel: (021) 370 1111 Fax: (021) 4330661 01 August 2002 Dr. Rausch, Head of Forensic Psychiatry Lentegeur Hospital

cc:

George Magistrate: Mr. Essel: Tel: (044) 802 5800; Adv E Matzke: Nat. Pros. Auth: Tel: (012) 3175000: Fax: (012) 321 1848 The Ombudsperson: Fax: (021) 4835624

Dear Dr. Rausch, RE: UNCONSTITUTIONAL & ILLEGAL DUE PROCESS PROCEEDINGS BY GEORGE CHIEF PROSECUTOR MR. J.J. MARX IN "COURT ORDER" (1138), SENTENCING LARA JOHNSTONE TO PSYCIllATRIC OBSERVATION AT LENTEGEUR HOSPITAL. OVERVIEW: This Complaint confirms information shared with you [Dr. Rausch] on 31 July 2002, that: (i) Magistrate Mr. Essel did NOT sign the 1138 'Court Order'; (ii) Prosecutor J.J. Marx either signed the 1138 'Court Order' himself or found another Magistrate or individual to sign the 1138; (iii) whomever did sign the 1138 "Court Order" as "Magistrate" violated Magistrate Essel's court order of22 July 2002; (iv) these due process violations in effect render the 1138 null & void, as well as implicate the individuals in signing the 1138 and abiding by its "ruling" in illegal acts and corruption.

CHRONOLOGY AND UPDATE OF EVENTS: 1.

At approximately 14:15 hrs on 31 July 2002, a "Team Meeting" in the case ofLara Johnstone (F11502), was held in Ward 12, Forensic Psychiatry Department ofLentegeur Hospital. The meeting was attended by Dr. Rausch, Lara Johnstone, Dr. Felida Holmes (Registrar), Dr. Dlamini, Sister Schoeman and a group of students.

2.

At the meeting, among other things, the following PARAPHRASED communications occurred: (i) I [Lara Johnstone] asked you [Dr. Rausch] whether you had received the two faxes I had faxed to your office on 22 July 2002 [Fx (021) 4330661], and the message I had left on your cell phone [082-600 7599] on 23 July to confirm that you had received the two faxes.

You stated that you had received the two faxes and the message [The two faxed documents being: (i) Petition/Complaint to the National Prosecuting Authority (NP A) dated 22 July 2002; and (ii) Letter to George Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Marx dated 22 July 2002.] (ii) I asked you whether you were aware that the above two documents sent to you raised legal issues of due process suggesting that you should not have agreed to Prosecutor J.l. Marx's request to have me admitted (by you) at Lentegeur. You stated that you could not refuse a 1138 Court Order. (iii) I stated that the information in the two faxes sent to you clearly indidated that legal issues were in process with the NPA regarding the practices of the George Prosecutor's Office. Additionally, the documents also informed you that on 22 luly Magistrate Essel had stated that he did not want to go ahead with proceedings in this case until the matter of Legal Aid had been addressed. I stated (to you) that immediately after informing Prosecutor J.J. Marx of the Complaint to the NPA, he issued a Warrant for my Arrest to have me sent to Lentegeur, in violation of Magistrate Essel's 22 July order. I asked you if my 1138 was signed by a Magistrate and what the name of the Magistrate was. You showed me a copy of the 1138 which simply had an initialled signature above

"MAGISTRATE". I stated that it was a simple squiggled signature and that whomever signed a legal document, especially as a Magistrate needed to add his/her full name in printed letters next to his/her signature to indicate who s/he was. You stated that the 1138 had the Magistrate's Stamp on it. I stated that anyone could have stamped the document, but that a Magistrate had to sign it as part of a court proceeding and that had not occurred. I stated that either Prosecutor Marx had signed it, or got someone else to sign it and that it had not occurred as part of a court proceeding. I stated that one of the SAP Inspectors who arrested me and brought me to Lentegeur stated his opinion that it was done because I was being "too outspoken." I asked you why being aware of the information fuxed to you, you had not questioned Prosecutor Marx on these issues, or contacted the NP A for further information. You stated that you were not an activist, that you knew Prosecutor Marx and that he often sent patients to Lentegeur Hospital.

You also stated that you could not refuse a patient sent to Lentegeur by the court.

FOOTNOTE: The letter to Prosecutor Marx dated 22 July 2002 and faxed to you clearly indicated that you SHOULD QUESTION Prosecutor Marx on these issues. It says: "Chief Prosecutor Mr. J.J. Marx is hereby requested to veritY in writing (copied to Petitioner-Defendant Case File C572-2002) with either Dr. Rausch or Dr. Kalisky, that both ofthem are aware of the (i) pending complaint to the National Prosecuting Authority, and the relief requested therein, and (ii) the letter of request to the Johannesburg Legal Aid Board, and the relief requested therein; BEFORE either Lentegeur or Valkenburg Hospital approve the request by the George Magistrate's Office for admittance of Petitioner-Defendant Lara Johnstone, for a period of psychiatric observation to either of these Hospital Institutions."

You legally should have requested Prosecutor J.J. Marx to provide documented evidence/information IN WRITING from the NP A and JHB Legal Aid Office BEFORE accepting me as a patient. You did NOT! Until I am appointed another attorney, I am representing myself, PRO SE, and the faxed documents as well as this complaint therefore need to be taken with the same seriousness and respect for the law as if written by an attorney representing me. They are all part of the Court Record of my Case (C-572-2002).

3.

On 31 July 2002, my mother Ann Elizabeth Johnstone [Tel: (044) 870 7239] went to see Magistrate Mr. Essel, to deliver to him a copy of a second complaint to the NP A, dated 25 July 2002. She stated that she was Lara Johnstone's mother and wanted to give him a document from me. The envelope was marked "PRIV ATB AND CONFIDENTIAL." Mr. Esse! asked how I was. My mother informed Mr. Essel that I had been arrested and sent to Lentegeur. Magistrate Essel knew absolutely nothing about these events, nor of the 1138 "Court Order" violating his court decision of22 July 2002. [It seems Prosecutor Marx illegally chose not to inform Magistrate Essel that he was violating Mr. Essel's 22 July court order. Did Prosecutor Marx inform you that he submitted to you an ILLEGAL 1138 "Court Order"? I suspect not! How well do you know Prosecutor J.J. Marx?]

4.

On 31 July 2002, my brother Andre Bosman Johnstone showed me a copy of a letter mailed to me from Adv. Matzke at the National Prosecuting Authority, dated 24 July 2002. The reference number assigned to my Complaint to the NP A IS 8/1/7-586/02. Adv Matzke acknowledged in the letter that I was currently representing myself (i.e.

PRO SE) and stated that my complaint had been forwarded by the NP A to the Director of Public Prosecutors in Cape Town, to be acted upon. (Magistrate Essel can get a copy ofthe letter from the NPA, or ITom my father, Clive Henry Johnstone, Tel: (044) 870 7239, if required.]

ARGUMENT: 1.

Prosecutor Marx, as State Prosecutor, should be aware of the concept of "due process," and in his conversation with me on 22 July 2002, as shared in Complaint of 25 July 2002, to the NP A, indicated his awareness thereof. In this case it means that my (i) Complaint to the NPA of 22 July 2002 and (ii) Magistrate Essel's decision of 22 July 2002, respectively legally requested and barred Prosecutor Marx ITom any further proceeding of sentencing me to psychiatric observation. ALL legal court and psychiatric observation proceedings were to be put on hold, awaiting resolution and clarification ITom the NPA and JHB Legal Aid Office. Any contact with Valkenburg or Lentegeur Forensic Psychiatry Departments by Prosecutor Marx should have been cleared by a Magistrate in an official court hearing and any "tentative" requests to ValkenburglLentegeur, if done "in good faith" would have been in writing requesting verification (written) ITom you that you were fully aware of the (i) pending Complaint to the NPA and the relief requested therein; and (ii) the letter of request to the JHB Legal Aid Board, and the relief requested therein, BEFORE requesting your consent to have me admitted. Even if Prosecutor Marx had shown this act of good faith to you and myself, it would still have been in violation of Magistrate Essel's court decision, on 22

July 2002. The letters faxed to you. by myself, PRO SE, request/require the George Magistrate's Office to inform you -- in writing -- of the resolutions and clarifications by the NP A and the Legal Aid Office, unless a Magistrate's rules otherwise. If so, I could appeal the Magistrate's ruling to a higher court or possibly even the Constitutional Court. Prosecutor Marx VIOLATED these DUE PROCESS proceedings, which he was fully aware of, by ILLEGALLY issuing a Warrant for my Arrest and initiating the FRAUDULENT Jl38 psychiatric observation proceedings.

2.

Prosecutor Marx was entirely aware of the fact that the issues dealt with in the Complaint to the NP A, dealt with how his Prosecutorial Office had participated in unconstitutional and illegal proceedings which violated my Constitutional Rights and that the initial allegation of "insanity" violated 33(2) and 35(3)(5). Prosecutor Marx chose to intentionally ignore or cover-up my continued exposure of his Office's illegal acts by having me arrested and sent to Lentegeur allegedly for psychiatric observation. I am unaware, of whether you intentionally colluded with Prosecutor Marx in these acts, or simply were not aware of the facts and future consequences of what Mr. Marx had you acquiesce to! .

3.

Prosecutor Marx not only violated the due process proceedings mentioned in (1) and (2), but also violated Magistrate Essel's July 22 court decision. Additionally he violated Mr. Essel's decision without bothering to inform Mr. Esse! of his actions and he either signed the Jl38 'Court Order' himself or found someone else to sign it.

Magistrate Essel's 22 July 2002 decision clearly stated that the Prosecutor's Office was BARRED from any further attempts of sending me to Lentegeur, UNTIL the nIB Legal Aid office had responded on the issue of Legal Aid. Prosecutor Marx was therefore BARRED from signing any legal authorization documents to send me to Lentegeur

by THREE different pending "due process" proceedings: (i) The NPA's response and clarification to my complaint, (ii) The Legal Aid Office's response and clarification on the matter of Legal Aid and (iii) Magistrate Essel's 22 July 2002 court decision. He chose to ILLEGALLY ignore them all and to INVOLVE YOU in his ILLEGAL ACT. 4.

If Prosecutor Marx objected to Magistrate Essel's decision or my complaint to the NPA, Prosecutor Marx should have followed "due process" by bringing his complaint, WITH REASONS, before the Court, with a Magistrate to decide the issue, and myself to represent opposing argument. I suspect that had he done so, Magistrate Essel would have stuck to his decision of22 July 2002, and that Prosecutor Marx was aware of that, and therefore chose to go behind Magistrate Essel's back and using his Prosecutorial Authority filed a Warrant for my arrest and initiated the illegal Jl38 proceedings to get me out of his way. Whomever Prosecutor Marx convinced to sign the illegal J138, also violated due process proceedings and Magistrate Essel's decision. Additionally, he/she did not sign the illegal Jl38 document with a printed name next to his signature, possibly hoping that nobody would enquire who had signed the illegal Jl38 and also did not do it as a Magistrate in an Official Court Proceeding.

5.

The paper trail indicating Prosecutor Marx's participating and instigation of illegal and unconstitutional proceedings, including his attempt to intentionally cover them up is growing by the day.

6.

Considering points (1) to (5), evidence and facts not only suggest corrupt and illegal practices by Prosecutor Marx's office, but also clarifY that the Jl38 'Court Order' is ILLEGAL. Therefore any findings or reports by you or anyone else on the issue of psychiatric observation will be INADMISSABLE in court. The only information that could be admissible to court would be my continued and repeated statements to staff at Lentegeur Hospital informing you of all this information, as well as whether any of you did anything about my complaints. The longer nobody at Lentegeur does anything about my complaint, now submitted PRO SE, the more you implicate yourselves as participants in an ILLEGAL ACT. 7.

You are hereby, legally (PRO SE), being informed of all this information and again requested to act on this information by verifYing its authenticity and sharing it with the appropriate authorities as suggested in RELIEF REQUESTED. RELIEF REQUESTED: This PRO SE due process Complaint in the Case ofLara Johnstone C572-2002, hereby informs you that on 01 August 2002, I, Lara Johnstone telephoned Magistrate Mr. Essel at approximately 15:15 hrs [(044) 802 5800]. I informed Mr. Esse! that on the morning of 02 August I would be filing a complaint with Dr. Rausch, requesting Dr. Rausch to contact Mr. EsseI to authenticate my statements of fact and clarifY the correctness of my legal interpretations of the law. Mr. Essel said "Okay" and had no objections whatsoever. Mr. Essel will therefore be expecting your call in the morning of 02 August 2002.

You, Dr. Rausch, are hereby requested PRO SE, to provide the following relief: 1.

To contact Magistrate Mr. Essel at (044) 802 5800, to (i) share a copy ofthis complaint with Mr. Essel to a fax number of his own choosing, and (ii) to verify with Mr. Essel the authenticity of my statements offact and my legal interpretations of these issues; 2.

To request advice and support ITom Magistrate Essel, as to any suggestions he may have on how to proceed to inform relevant authorities of the illegal 1138 "Court Order" and to issue a new Court Order immediately releasing me ITomLentegeur Hospital, back to my previous "bail status"; 3.

To contact the SCORPION ANTI-CORRUPTION they may appropriately act on the matter;

Task Force and share this complaint to you, with them, so

4.

To contact Adv. Matzke at the NP A and request clarification of a Contact Person at the Cape Town Office of Director for Public Prosecutors, as well as a Telephone and Fax Contact Number; 5.

To fax a copy ofthis PRO SE complaint to the above mentioned individual at the Cape Town Director of Public Prosecutor's Office, to be added to the complaints of22 and 25 July 2002; 6.

To fax a copy of this Complaint to THEOMBUDSPERSON, information to the complaint dated 25 July 2002.

Fax: 021-4835624,

to be added as additional

CONCLUSION: Dr. Rausch, my interpretation of your statements on 31 July 2002, in the "Team Meeting," in relation to the two PRO SE letters faxed to you, are that there is a possibility that you may not be aware of, or realize, the gravity of the illegal actions instigated by Prosecutor Marx in his J138 proceedings. I hope this complaint helps to clarify these matters for you.

You also stated on 31 July 2002 that you are an ethical and honest Forensic Psychiatrist. If that is true, then this Complaint offers you an opportunity to PROVE your honesty and ethics through ACTIONS that you will not remain silent about illegal activities by anyone, including a Chief Prosecutor. Contacting the relevant authorities as mentioned in Relief Requested would authenticate your statements about your ethics and honesty, by informing them of the issues raised in this Petition/Complaint. If you choose to remain silent, or to do nothing, your actions or lack路 of action could implicate you as being a participant in illegal activities, with possible dire consequences.

I hope you will do what is in the interests of truth and justice, for yourself and all involved. I hope you will also get back to me before the end ofthe day informing me ofthe new Court Order ordering my immediate release ITom Lentegeur Hospital. eaking to you later today (02 August 2002).

LARA JOHNSTONE (JOHNSON), PRO SE

\ L .. '')DROSHOF/MAG/STRATE'S -_

~ Enquiries Navrae

: l\/ls M. Erasmus ~M.Erasmus

:F11502

Vervvysing

Telephone Te!efoon Date

Datum

I ;):;l:J

I

•..•••..•_....;. .•..._.:......J

2002

COURT

; 370 -1403

: L'1 August 2002

02/62

-OB-' 2 .~

~ll ( -------I

GI.':ORGE

,JJN .l9Ji..t~

I

PAGE

_.

IVAATSAK/PR/VATE BAG X

Reference

----

Lt:.N 11::.\:1I::.UKHU~I-' 1 TAL

.

~f.N /OR STAA'TSAAN KLAfR

6530

Ad

•

~

PROSECU!0 R

I*",LatkA1 : Westen. Cape

D=parI:rmntofHeaIth

Ad'nin~Labw.Wes-Kaap

ProuTdaI

Departmentvan Gescn:Jhoo

UIawuIo LV\o'ePI1Ondo:

IhbI.una KoIoni

isebe LezEmpb

Brief Repor~ Lara Johnson

The above msntioned was admitted

to Lentegeur Hospital on the 23/07/02 for the purpose of

PSYCfllatric Observation.

The observatic·n process was incomplete as the patient absconded from the ward on the 3.18/02.

She was seen In a Clinical VVardround on the 31/7/02 by Or.Rausch.

From t.he file notes it appeared that there was evidence of a Mental Disorder.

FurthE~revaluation was ·needed to complete the assessment.

Yours Sincer8iy.

LentegeurHospitai P.K. MJTCHELLS PLAIN

7785 Tel. (021} 370 11i1.

LantegeurHospital P.O. MITCHELLS PLAIN

7785 F~x {Q21.)3711359

Address all correspondence to the Senior Medica! Superintendent.

Rig alie kOfrespondensle aan die Senior Mediese Superintendent.

J138A

LAsBRIEF

TOT OORPLAslNG ONDERsOEK :.'

VAN 'N PERsOON WAT AANGEHOU WORD, NA 'N INRIGTING, VIR KRAGTENs DIE SE PALINGS VAN HOOFsTUK 13

[sti'afproseswet,

1977 (Wet 51 van 1977), artikels

77, 78 en 79]

h..h.~.".:h;;:.h ~:~s:ek~~t::'."'hh s:c9~~02h."'.C: 5.7.21<11.

Aan die C) :.. ~ en aan " die Geneeskundlge' ." ..

(1) Or. ~

t

(2) Or

-:<;:~~~~:.

Ut.O~ !lz(;/!Ir? ;'taa: C:pslgla .

VLX7~.=:..: '. A, qf21~/' ·..·(jr" ..··..· ·J"" h:OSpl .. ters:

~ .. :

Supennten . dent...

~

van

.

4~

van

.

/\:AN~·~~·;~~· ~i~t blyk/beweer word dat (2) .t..9.~f.q (/.o ~: : ~: : " d ..,''': 'n e: .) ~ ..-"persoo)l van die misdaad van ..~'Ci:A·y,41.c..~~-d:;PLCAV-U' :-;'V,I::?<:/ : ItLc.k!-<- (c··aangekla /~ .--~ "" en deur u, gef\eh~IIIJt: \") L._.U .. ·0. !...l~ ..· =A§e-t.ou oy Uit; CH." ,t;n"le'd (,"U" hvI (6)

-

:..........•......•......••.................

-1

?~'"..,.... ~::~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~ !..

L..-~'

.'"""'"r

;

",'

••••••.••••

".'

.•

/

.

D~;';<=-L"t.=..

.•

:V~··\

~

"

..:..'--..- -..-'

~s.nd~Af~ib o~ ..~ t

d

d'

yens ~an

I'

- d'

d

le p egmg Van le rn,s aa

d· ~t le

f •. ~~7 '3t)rorsoi'9' jr"

So word ............ ~ u, genoemde SuperintendenVPfi.~s

t1.

';~"'I{'/6'l'" ? taan t P-re~aaslike-Af.de/jAfj-Vafl-fiie-/::ioogg.erE~-).--v.:n 'n geestesongesteldheid of geestesge~~ek t~et

L:-?

.d

oore~omstig

hi

d't

I'k'

WE¥1S I

r;~f /rd..

:

IS

d t +h.,,/' I a f"<"T)' s~'ngevo'~

Ct.f21..-f/

- /7-CM

"\..?'.:":--:"":-::";Y-":"'~"':'''/.';'''''I'~.v._

y;

C) ':1.C-?r.q __.. ~~.c:d:.0+.?:: L O"V"Z" , dae verw~r word.

Cl

/ Alc

a

rt'k I (4)U~ij I e

,/7

{'.f:'

..

. / I f/) T- /Vf.-9) ~.._

I . k

.

,

~.~.-.G/ k'

vir sle sle es vir onaersoe. vir

~

en u, genoemde t Geneeskundige hierby gelas om aan die Hofbevel soos hieronder uiteengesit te voldoen:

die ~~ngs

van artikel C)

T?P.!.t ..??.GU.... van die Strafprose~wet, 1977, gelas ek dat

~~:::z.;;~~:i~:.:~:;;z~~;}'::::~~;;;;~~~;~~;~~~·~~;·~;;;: 2. Ek gelas oak dat bogenoemde psigiaters/superintendent ondersoek instel of die beskuldigde vanwee geestesongesteldheid of geestesgebrek(a) oor die vermoe beskik om die hotverrigtinge dermate te begryp dat hy sy verdediging na Dehore kan voer; en/of (b) ten tye van die pleging van die misdryf vir die ten laste gelegde misdryf strafregtelik toerekenbaar is, d.l. of hy bevoeg was om(i) die ongeoorloofdheid van die handeling te besef; of (ii) ooreenkomstig 3. El< gelas oak dat die (4)

I

'n beset van die ongeoorloofdheid

t Geneeskundige

7.·.(.O) ~

SuperintendentJF2Bigia-ters sy/Ilulle verslag(e),

.

·0'"

~ ..•(5)-.i'·I~.,..{........••.........•...••• /C· 1.: c; ,' 1 voorle. ·t;s..:I!.Q8~:' ~

ingevolge artikel

7. P. .C.:?.)

.............................................•.......................................... en in drievoud aan die ..·.. 4·c;:;·k<.. .. C/.D;t../!!.1. afskrif aaC)f1 die op :Y' ••• ~

van sy handefing op te tree.

r

./

•••

-

'''.,;;t.

,.

van die Strafpnpyswet, te

~#c:i;1?1977, in viervoud enopstel, een

te

r :::/f..(,-,Y..r;.-)#)/.cJ.~C

die om tydperk is thy/sy If,na die op te ~ ord.

4. vers~~an Ek gelas ~O~~ien nodig dat genoen;d'e I daar angenis aangehou ggestuur word totdittydwaarin e~1 istp~ndersoek 'n verdere bevel(2) uitgereik 5. Ek gelas oak dat 'n transkripsie afgeneem is, gemaak en aan die

voor of

10Ie .

van die getuienis wat by t die voorlopige ondersoek en/of die verhoor

t Geneeskundige

Superintendent/R~

\{erskaf word.

(Indien lasbrief deur 'n Regter uitgereiK word, voeg die volgende by):

MAGI

Voorts word gelas: Dat die plek van verhoor

t ProvinsialelPlaaslike

t onveranderd

Afde/ingte

blylverander

v/ord na

'

vincfte

en die verhoor word op

Gegee onder my hand te

~

:

dag van

. ,

~

19

0p hede die

.

.

Voorsittende Regter

',~.' : .,' ..~ .~-,.;.:;.•.

-

_::.-.

.. :'.

. ~. ~ -.

-..... - ..

---.

"-. "-.

-

...

-

..

:~ ..; ,: ,.. : .=rrVulilie-ampstitei in-van persoon in wie se -bewaring die pasient is ... ;j~:;~~.I'., .. ,(2) Vul die naam van die pasient in. \~T -":"':,,'e) Vu/In Blanke, Kleurling, Swarte of AsiaaL <;':"? i.f·~-·(4) Veeg in artikel77 (1). 78 (2) of 79 na gelang van die geval.

-.~~:.e) Veeg in Prokureur-generaal, Adjunk Prokureur-generaal of Staatsaanklaer. '. <~(6) SielJ.artikel79 (1) (b). ",_·:a;:""'·'SrJ' •• ~•. ~ • :ryd~e!~~ wat riie 30 dae op 'n keer te bowe gaan nie, wat die hof van tyd tot tyd bepaal.

I~~tni~_~~n ~7:5E.... '}' :":.: teepassing

is nie .....

--

.-

.....

----.

~:~:

J.