Liebenberg v S (CCT 145/22) [2023] ZACC 33; [2024] 1 BLLR 1 (CC); 2024 (1) BCLR 132 (CC); 2024 (2) SACR 269 (CC) (10 October 2023)

Liebenberg v S (CCT 145/22) [2023] ZACC 33; [2024] 1 BLLR 1 (CC); 2024 (1) BCLR 132 (CC); 2024 (2) SACR 269 (CC) (10 October 2023)

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the alleged constitutional violations were not substantiated by the record. The evidence from disciplinary hearings did not play any role in the conviction, which was based on the applicant's formal section 220 admissions. There was no indication of bias or unfairness in the trial or sentencing process. The applicant's arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, bias, and sentence did not raise constitutional matters or points of law of general public importance. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2023] ZACC 33
Parties
Applicant: Natasha Liebenberg; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Case Number
CCT 145/22
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court From the High Court, After Prior Appeals to the Supreme Court of Appeal Were Refused.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
Zondo CJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J, Van Zyl AJ
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Section 220 Admissions, Fair Trial Rights, Disciplinary Hearing Evidence, Constitutional Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Section 220 Admissions Fair Trial Rights Disciplinary Hearing Evidence Constitutional Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natasha Liebenberg

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court From the High Court, After Prior Appeals to the Supreme Court of Appeal Were Refused.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence arising from the applicant's employer's disciplinary processes was admissible at the criminal trial.
  2. 2 Whether the admission of such evidence infringed the applicant's right to a fair trial under the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's section 220 admissions were sufficient to sustain conviction for fraud and theft.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the alleged constitutional violations were not substantiated by the record. The evidence from disciplinary hearings did not play any role in the conviction, which was based on the applicant's formal section 220 admissions. There was no indication of bias or unfairness in the trial or sentencing process. The applicant's arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, bias, and sentence did not raise constitutional matters or points of law of general public importance. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.