- Radovan Krejcir is pursuing a section 342A application, arguing that there have been unreasonable delays in his unresolved criminal cases.
- He held up five dry slices of bread, which he said were expired, and explained that he could not take his chronic medication without suitable food.
- The court decided the food complaint would not interrupt the hearing and continued with the proceedings.
Radovan Krejcir, the convicted underworld figure, held up five dry slices of what he claimed was expired bread while challenging delays in his unresolved criminal cases.
Krejcir became prominent in the 1990s, building a fortune through organised crime and becoming one of the Czech Republic’s wealthiest individuals. After his 2005 arrest, he fled the country and settled in South Africa.
In 2012, a Czech court sentenced him in absentia to eight years in prison for fraud. The following year, he was arrested in South Africa on charges including kidnapping and attempted murder. He was convicted on multiple charges in 2015 and, in February 2016, received an effective 35-year prison sentence. Several other cases involving Krejcir are still before the courts.
Krejcir is now applying under Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, claiming that delays in his pending criminal proceedings have infringed his constitutional rights.
Section 342A is meant to address unreasonable delays in criminal trials. It allows a court to look into the causes of delays and, when needed, make orders to prevent prejudice to the accused, prosecution or witnesses.
Complaint about prison food
During the hearing, Krejcir told the court that he had been given expired bread by correctional authorities, despite his wheat allergy, leaving him unable to take his medication as needed.
He also asked for permission for his lawyers to bring him food from outside, saying a previous High Court order allowed for this. “I received a parcel which is in my possession. It contains five dry slices of bread and some juice,” he told the court. “When I checked the date, I saw the bread had expired on 2 July.”
Krejcir said he was allergic to wheat and should not have been given bread. “I am allergic to wheat. I should not eat bread,” he told the court, adding that he takes chronic medication several times a day and needs appropriate food before continuing. “My main concern is that I am on medication, chronic medication, every day, a few times a day.”
Judge refuses request
The presiding judge declined to address the food complaint during the hearing, saying the matter before the court was about alleged unreasonable delays in the criminal proceedings.
“The reason you are before me is for me to deal with the Section 342A, the unreasonable delay. I do not want to delay this matter further,” the judge said.
When Krejcir asked for permission for his legal representatives to provide food from outside, the judge refused, saying no court order authorising the arrangement had been provided to the court. “I do not have that order. I am not going to allow it,” the judge said.
Krejcir insisted that the matter proceed and argued that the interruption was caused by the Department of Correctional Services not providing suitable food during his court attendance.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
