August v S (962/2022) [2023] ZASCA 170 (4 December 2023)

August v S (962/2022) [2023] ZASCA 170 (4 December 2023)

The appellant failed to satisfy the requirements for condonation due to an inordinate delay and a grossly inadequate explanation for that delay. The prospects of success on appeal were found to be negligible, as the evidence obtained by entrapment was properly admitted: the appellant himself initiated the transaction and solicited payment, negating any claim of improper inducement. The lack of authorisation for the entrapment or electronic monitoring was not, on the facts, sufficient to exclude the evidence, as there was no flagrant violation of the law or unfairness to the appellant. The application to adduce further evidence was also refused, as the documents relied upon did not...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 170
Parties
Appellant: Andrew Barney August; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2023
Case Number
962/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; appeal struck from the roll.
Judges
Molemela, Carelse, Matojane, Musi, Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Entrapment, Exclusionary Rule, Condonation, Admissibility of Evidence, Criminal Appeal Procedure, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Entrapment Exclusionary Rule Condonation Admissibility of Evidence Criminal Appeal Procedure Fair Trial Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Barney August

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the notice of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant satisfies the requirements for condonation.
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained by entrapment should be excluded under s 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act and s 35(5) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to satisfy the requirements for condonation due to an inordinate delay and a grossly inadequate explanation for that delay. The prospects of success on appeal were found to be negligible, as the evidence obtained by entrapment was properly admitted: the appellant himself initiated the transaction and solicited payment, negating any claim of improper inducement. The lack of authorisation for the entrapment or electronic monitoring was not, on the facts, sufficient to exclude the evidence, as there was no flagrant violation of the law or unfairness to the appellant. The application to adduce further evidence was also refused, as the documents relied upon did not...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; appeal struck from the roll.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused.
  • The appeal is struck from the roll.