Hansmann (CCT 3/01), Ex parte [2001] ZACC 13; 2001 (2) SA 852 (CC); 2001 (4) BCLR 311 (22 February 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] ZACC 13
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Chaskalson, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga, Somyalo
- Case number
- CCT 3/01
More details
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Chaskalson, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga, Somyalo
- Case number
- CCT 3/01
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Constitutional Court declined to consider the application for special leave to appeal because the applicant was a fugitive from justice and had withheld this fact from the Court. The Court held that it would not be appropriate to entertain an application from a person who is evading the law and failing to disclose material facts relevant to the proceedings.
Court disposition
Application for special leave to appeal declined.
Orders
- The application for special leave to appeal is refused.
02
Material facts
Parties
Carl Hansmann
Applicant03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Constitutional Court should grant special leave to appeal to an applicant who is a fugitive from justice.
- 02
Whether the applicant's failure to disclose his fugitive status affects the consideration of his application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against his conviction for dealing in cannabis, arguing that his conviction and sentence were unjust. He does not provide a current address or contact number, only his father's address.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by the Director of the Court, submits that the applicant has been a fugitive from justice since the dismissal of his appeal, his bail was estreated, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The applicant failed to disclose his fugitive status to the Court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Ex parte Hansmann [2001] ZACC 13
A court should not entertain an application for leave to appeal from a person who is a fugitive from justice.
- 02
Ex parte Hansmann [2001] ZACC 13
Applicants must make full and frank disclosure of all relevant facts to the court, including their status as fugitives.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Constitutional Court declined to consider the application for special leave to appeal because the applicant was a fugitive from justice and had withheld this fact from the Court. The Court held that it would not be appropriate to entertain an application from a person who is evading the law and failing to disclose material facts relevant to the proceedings.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted that the applicant's failure to provide a current address and his withholding of his fugitive status undermined the integrity of the application process.
- The Court emphasized the importance of applicants being candid and forthcoming with all relevant information when seeking relief from the Court.
Court disposition
Application for special leave to appeal declined.
- The application for special leave to appeal is refused.
Source and reliance status
Constitutional Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Constitutional Court
Judgment
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 3/01EX PARTE CARL HANSMANN
Decided on : 22 February 2001
JUDGMENT
THE COURT:[1] Mr Carl Hansmann (the applicant) seeks the special leave of this Court to appeal against his conviction for dealing in cannabis. It appears from the application that the trial took place in the Graskop Magistrate’s Court in December 1998. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, of which two years were conditionally suspended. An appeal to the Transvaal High Court was dismissed on 20 March 2000.[2] In his application, the applicant states that he “has no set address or contact number”. He provides only the address of his father. Upon inquiry by the Director of this Court it has emerged that since the dismissal of his appeal he has been a fugitive from justice. His bail was estreated by the Magistrate on 14 April 2000 and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The police have been unable to trace his whereabouts.[3] Not only is the appellant a fugitive from justice but he has withheld that fact from this Court. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate to consider his application and we accordingly decline to do so.Chaskalson P, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Madlanga AJ and Somyalo AJ.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.