Judgment No. CCZ 7/2015 3 Const. Application No. CCZ 472/14 Before us, counsel for the applicant and the respondent are agreed that the application is properly before this Court. I proceed now to consider each of the issues referred to this court for determination. WHETHER THE APPLICANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING WAS VIOLATED The object of a criminal trial is for the truth surrounding the commission of the offence to be established. The role of the judge is therefore an onerous one as his task is to see that justice is not only done, but that it is seen to be done. In this exercise he should conduct himself in such a manner that he is not viewed or perceived to have aligned himself with either the prosecution or the defence. He is not precluded from questioning the witnesses or the accused person but such questioning must not be framed in such a manner as to convey an impression that he is conducting a case on behalf of one of the parties. The judge must avoid questions that are clearly biased and show a predisposition on the part of the judge. The judge should neither lead nor cross-examine a witness. The complaint by the applicant is that the trial court descended into the arena of conflict between himself and the State thereby violating his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by s 69(1). The applicant further contends that the record of proceedings shows that the court was not impartial. It is argued further that the questioning of the applicant by the trial judge was such that, because of its frequency, length, timing, form, tone, content, it was apparent that the trial judge was hostile to the applicant. The limits to which a judicial officer may question a witness or an accused person in a criminal trial were aptly set out by TROLLIP AJA in S v Rall 1982 (1) SA 828 at 831H-832H in the following terms: