Van Reesema v Police

In Van Reesema v Police, the appellant, Van Reesema, sought to appeal various procedural decisions made by the Magistrate during the part-heard trial of a speeding charge. The key issues before the court were whether the Magistrate's decisions constituted interlocutory judgments or were merely incidental rulings made in the course of the trial, and if the latter, whether special reasons existed to grant leave to appeal these rulings. The court found that the Magistrate's decisions regarding the refusal to order the respondent to cease providing oral evidence, the refusal to waive the fee for a transcript, and the refusal to order a transcript to be provided, were all incidental rulings made during the trial rather than interlocutory judgments. These rulings did not decide substantive questions but were part of the procedural management of the trial, and as such, they were not appealable under the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA). The court also concluded that there were no special reasons to grant leave to appeal these rulings, as they did not present any exceptional circumstances that would justify an appeal before the trial's completion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent.