At the close of the defence case, the magistrate, M, convicts A on multiple charges of fraud, and proceeds to the sentencing phase without giving the reasons for arriving at the verdicts. When called upon by the defence to proffer such reasons, M merely repeats the evidence presented by the prosecution, and insinuates that 11 CPR3701 Oct/Nov 2022 [TURN OVER] 'the accused was found guilty on the basis of proven evidence which is already on record' without necessarily advancing his own submissions for the conclusions. 3.3.1 Discuss, M conduct, in light of the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in National Director of Public Prosecutions v Naidoo 2011 (1) SACR 336 (SCA), where the court concluded, inter alia, that: "The importance of furnishing reasons for a judgment is a salutary practice... ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice".