Statistical review of NPA turnover and outcomes for the years 2018 to 2024 (inclusive).

The main goal of this analysis was to determine to utility of the data provided - particularly with a view to understanding congestion in the district and regional courts. The data is restricted to criminal cases brought before the relevant courts.

Overview of cases reported in 2024

The link takes you to a graphic showing how cases reported to SAPS in 2024 had progressed across the criminal justice system by May 9, 2025. The width of the interacting lines are proportional to the number of cases of that crime type between each of the steps. The largest category of crime type is referred to as ‘small cats’ - this is a bucket of all charges where fewer than 10 000 charges were recorded.

Click here for an interactive graph of criminal justice system activity

The above links works best in Firefox. Chrome users may prefer to use the link below.

Click here CHROME version: Interactive graph of criminal justice system activity

The congestion on the above plot at the right hand side makes it necessary to provide a second plot which details the progression of cases once they had been enrolled in court. Again the links are coloured according to the crime type.

Click here Detail of outcomes

Contextualising: 2024

After 2018 (the first year for which data is available) there was a pronounced drop in the number of cases enrolled in South Africa courts. The 700 000 cases in 2018 bottomed out to 420 000 in 2021/2022. By 2024 the number of cases had risen to just over 700 000 thereby exceeding the 2018 count.

The graphic below reflects the time trend for the major crime categories. Those crimes where more than 10 000 cases were enrolled in 2024 are detailed. All smaller crime categories were merged into the group entitled ‘small cat’. In 2024 the ‘small cat’ group was the single largest crime category with 148 000 enrolments. The next largest group was assault gbh (120 000).

Time trend of case types enrolled.

After 2022 there was a general increase in all major crime categories. The increase in immigration offences has been the most rapid. The number of immigration-related enrolments rose from 17 000 cases in 2018 to 64 000 in 2024.

Differentiating courts

Of pivotal interest is the differentiation between district court and the “higher” regional courts. With respect to jurisdiction the primary difference between the courts is that district courts has jurisdiction over all criminal matters excluding treason, murder and rape. Conversely only regional courts are entitled to hear and sentence such cases. Some regional courts also presided over divorce and civil cases. In December 2020 were all regional courts mandated to hear civil matters. However the civil matters fall beyond the purview of this analysis.

Magistrate count

As on 16 August 2024, there were 1 724 permanently appointed magistrates presiding over the various district and regional courts. This includes 9 Regional Court Presidents, 319 Regional magistrates, 14 Chief Magistrates, 95 Senior Magistrates and 1 287 District Magistrates 11 PMG: 26559. Ignoring the senior magistrates it is apparent that 20 percent of permanent appointees are regional magistrates.

The 702 684 22 closed case dataset cases finalised in 2024 were split between the lower district courts and regional courts. Typically about 13% of all cases enrolled were in regional courts indicating the clear numerical dominance of district courts in closing criminal matters.

Relative volume

Despite the fact that there are almost 1 300 district magistrates and 320 regional magistrates (who also hear civil matters) the number of criminal matters currently 33 ‘open cases’ before the two court types are almost equal. The extra volume of cases before regional cases is largely attributable to historic backlogs.

Number of open cases: 2025

Despite that regional courts having only 20 percent of sitting magistrates over one-third of current criminal cases are enrolled in Regional Courts. A, possibly inevitable, result of regional courts having to deal with a) more serious offences, b) civil, c) divorce cases and d) a large backlog is regional courts taking ever-longer to finalise cases.

The Minister of Justice and Constitutional development claims judicial officers strive to “finalise criminal matters within six months after (sic) the accused has pleaded to the charge”. 44 PMG: 26559. This provides a key metric to assess the performance of the courts. The ‘open cases’ dataset shows that currently one-third of criminal cases in district courts were not finalised within the 180 days. By contrast 93 percent of regional court criminal cases were not finalised with the specified period.

Proportion of cases open 6 months after plea.

While some individual cases make take several years to be finalised a small proportion of cases in district courts are finalised on the day of plea. This wide distribution of case duration results in the clearest way of comparing patterns is to look at where the numbers concentrate. To do this it is necessary to take the logarithm of the time taken. 55 Taking log values spreads small values while squashing large values along the horizontal axis. The log transformation of data ensures, inter alia, that exceptionally long case duration do not skew impressions. This is illustrated in the density plots below. To keep figures comparable cases resolved on the day of plea have been excluded (regional courts do not deal with cases that can be readily discharged so quickly).

Number of days since plea (log values).

The graphic illustrates that by the time 80 percent of district courts cases have been finalised only 20 percent of regional court cases had been concluded.

However the data on open cases does not reflect the full duration of the time taken for cases to be finalised (or the experience of those accused). Verdicts and sentences may still be some time off adding further to the duration of cases. To examine the expected length of cases it is necessary to restrict analysis to closed cases.

Reasons for postponements

In district courts one-fifth (21 percent) of postponements were for further investigation - by far the single biggest reason for postponing cases. This suggests that a significant proportion of cases before these courts were not ready for trial. The next most frequently cited reason (6 percent) was to set a date for the actual trial. Another two percent of cases were postponed for continuation of the trial at a later date. This implies that 93 percent of postponements in district courts were for reasons other than starting or continuing the trial.

In regional courts a somewhat different picture emerges. Only two percent of cases were postponed for “further investigation”. The single biggest reason for postponing cases (9 percent) was for setting the trial date followed by continuation of the trial (5 percent). In regional courts 84 percent of postponements were thus for reasons other than the start or continuation of trials.

Outcomes

Having to postpone cases for further investigation etc. would contribute to the total number of postponements. Given that a larger proportion of postponements in district courts are for investigation rather than for trial the high number of postponements in regional courts is somewhat surprising. Some light on the subject is shed by examining how cases are finalised. The closed data set reveals details as to how cases were finalised. A detailed breakdown of the outcome of cases is presented below (2024).

Column percentages of case outcomes

Almost half (48 percent) of the cases finalised in district courts in 2024 were withdrawn. Another 13 percent are struck off the roll. This means that over 60 percent of district court matters did not proceed further or to trial. Only one-in-five (22 %) of cases enrolled in district courts result in a sentence.

In regional courts, by contrast, one-third of cases are withdrawn and another 13 percent are struck off the roll. This means that under half (47%) of cases did not proceed further. However over one-third of regional court cases result in a verdict or sentence (36%).

Compared to district courts the regional courts thus have higher rate of going to trial and concluding with a verdict. However district courts having a significantly higher number of cases before them. Although regional and district courts currently have the same number of open cases before them there are big difference in the number of cases finalised. In 2024 over 600 000 cases finalised in district courts and, by contrast, just under 100 000 cases finalised in regional courts. A clear distinction thus needs to be made between the number of cases currently before a court (i.e. including the backlog) and the number of cases finalised in a given time period.

In 2024 over 600 000 cases were before district courts compared to just under 100 000 in regional courts. This ratio of 6:1 is approaching the ratio of district to regional magistrates (4:1). 605548, 97136. The ratio of regional magistrate to closed cases is better than the ratio in the lower district courts. When the analysis is confined to finalised cases (or to cases finalised with a trial) it would seem that it the number of regional magistrates per trial is not the bottleneck in finalising trials. That bottleneck is manifest in the backlog.

Prioritisation

The prioritisation of offence type by the criminal justice system can be indicated by several factors:

• Outcomes:

The prosecution rate i.e. the proportion of enrolled cases that result in a verdict (irrespective of whether it is “guilty” or “not guilty”). A high rate of cases being withdrawn or struck off the roll suggests inadequate preparation, failing ancillary services (forensic reports etc.) and points to lower priority.

• Speed:

The speed at which verdicts are reached is similarly indicative. It takes time for cases to be adequately prepared and undue haste undermines case quality. However overly long duration between offence (or first appearance) and hearing reduce case quality by, inter alia undermining the availability and reliability of witnesses. There are two available metrics:

• among cases that have closed the average time between first appearance and conclusion/outcome can be calculated.

• among cases that have not yet been concluded it is possible to measure both the length of time since first appearance and a correlated metric – the number of postponement to date.

Speed

Days to case outcome (2024)

If long case duration reflects a failure to prioritise a crime type then rape and murder have the lowest priority in the criminal justice system. By contrast immigration offences are brought to conclusion quickest - within an average of 28 days. However this trend is largely driven by backlogs in regional courts. It is apparent that the type of court is far more important than the type of offence in determining the potential duration of any case. In district courts a murder case (albeit one that will end in a dismissal or withdrawal) takes, on average, 200 days. In a regional court that type of case takes an average of 650 days (three time longer). In regional courts “public disorder” offences take longest with an average duration of over two years.

Average duration of cases (2024)

Postponements

A related yardstick for NPA performance is the proportion of cases where a plea was entered within 3 months of the first appearance and a verdict within six months of that plea. The proportion of cases (by type) meeting these two yardsticks further reflects the extent to which these prosecutions are prioritised.

The table below reflects yet another metric - the number of postponements already endured. There is a tension between the number of postponements and the importance that case is accorded. On the one hand as the number of postponement increases the greater the likelihood witnesses will not be available or their recall will deteriorate. On the other hand complex cases may need a greater number of postponements for forensic reports to be completed, expert witnesses to be available etc. There is probably tension between the complexity of cases (and their severity) and the need to expedite trials.

To facilitate analysis the offences were reduced to a smaller number of categories. Crimes where there had been fewer than 10 000 offences in 2024 were clustered under the group ‘small cat’. In 2024 the ‘small cat’ group was the single largest crime category with 148 000 enrolments. The next largest group was assault gbh (120 000).

If we associate a larger number of postponement with a reduction in crime priority it seems that immigration and public order offences are prioritised by district courts and assault cases are prioritised in regional courts. The cases with the lowest priority were housebreaking and public disorder respectively.

Detail of number of postponements and offence type (District courts)

There is relatively little variation between the average number of postponements between offence types - the main source of variation is between court type. In regional courts the ratio of postponement between the highest and lowest crime types was 1:1.6. Public disorder cases had an average of 18 postponements compared to 11 for assault gbh. By comparison the average number for postponements for assault gbh was 3.8 in district courts and 10.9 in regional courts. This presents a ratio 1:2.8. Similar difference are evident for other crime types - the ratio within court types is significantly smaller than the ratio between court type for the similar offences. The court type matters far more than the type of offence.

Assuming that fewer postponements indicate a higher level of prioritisation by the criminal justice system as a whole (particularly with respect to the performance of the prosecutors) then immigration offence are accorded the highest important and murder and public disorder offences the lowest priority. In regional courts assault and rape receive the highest priority while firearms and public order offences receive the lowest.

The open cases dataset allows for an examination of the reasons cases were postponed. The data is limited to the reason for the lat postponement. Nevertheless the data is thought indicative.

Regional court postponement

There is noticeable variation for the postponements within the court divisions (provinces). ‘Court procedures’ account for 84% of postponements in kwaZulu Natal regional courts and for 63% in Gauteng.1111 Regional courts only However Gauteng suffers from a higher percentage of postponements due to poor case readiness.

Breakdown of postponements within division (%)

If the quick finalisation of cases indicates a prioritisation of that offence then so too does a smaller number of postponements. By this metric regional courts prioritise assault (11 on average) and rape cases (14). Crimes that are not prioritised include public disorder (18) and firearm offences (17 postponements).

Average number of postponements by crime category

Demographic factors

Demographic elements have a minor impact on court performance. For example the lack of citizenship could be thought of a contributing to increased number of postponement (via the need to verify status, increased risk of flight etc.). However the difference in the number of postponements between citizens and non-citizens in negligible in district courts.

Average number of postponements: District courts

In regional courts non-citizens are subject to a slightly higher number of postponements (1). By this logic a more germane issue is whether or not the accused is in custody. If the accused is in custody there is simultaneously reason to expedite the matter (to ensure they no-one is unnecessarily incarcerated) and reason to tolerate more postponements (the accused cannot abscond).

Av. postponements in district courts by custody status

In regional courts being in custody has a more significant impact (compared to district courts) on the number of postponements the accused experiences.

Av. postponements in regional courts by custody status

Conclusion

The custody status of the accused, citizenship status, age, being in custody and the number of co-accused have a statistically significant impact on number of postponements (and thus on the duration of cases). However the impact of these factors are overshadowed by the offence type and the type of court the case is enrolled in.

## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = log10(NoOfPostponement) ~ CourtType + citizen + 
##     AccusedAge + incustody + NoOfAccused, data = open.all[is.finite(log10(open.all$NoOfPostponement)), 
##     ])
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.2423 -0.2767  0.0221  0.2511  1.5213 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                       Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)          5.616e-01  3.854e-03 145.721   <2e-16 ***
## CourtTypeRegional    5.548e-01  1.458e-03 380.494   <2e-16 ***
## citizenrsa           6.314e-03  2.957e-03   2.135   0.0327 *  
## AccusedAge          -9.555e-05  6.715e-05  -1.423   0.1548    
## incustodyin custody  1.415e-03  1.426e-03   0.992   0.3210    
## NoOfAccused          1.355e-02  1.955e-04  69.280   <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.3667 on 283610 degrees of freedom
##   (3 observations deleted due to missingness)
## Multiple R-squared:  0.3705, Adjusted R-squared:  0.3705 
## F-statistic: 3.339e+04 on 5 and 283610 DF,  p-value: < 2.2e-16