M T v S; A S B v S; September v S (CCT122/17; CCT220/17; CCT298/17) [2018] ZACC 27; 2018 (2) SACR 592 (CC); 2018 (11) BCLR 1397 (CC) (3 September 2018)

M T v S; A S B v S; September v S (CCT122/17; CCT220/17; CCT298/17) [2018] ZACC 27; 2018 (2) SACR 592 (CC); 2018 (11) BCLR 1397 (CC) (3 September 2018)

The Constitutional Court held that while it is desirable for charge sheets to refer to the relevant penal provision of the Minimum Sentences Act, failure to do so does not automatically render a trial unfair. Each case must be assessed on its own facts to determine whether the accused's right to a fair trial was infringed. In these matters, the applicants failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the omission, and the record did not establish that their rights were violated. The Court found that most issues raised were factual and not constitutional matters, and the legal arguments presented were insufficiently substantiated to warrant intervention. The Court concluded that it was...

Citation
[2018] ZACC 27
Parties
Applicant: M T; Applicant: A S B; Applicant: Johannes September; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2018
Case Number
CCT122/17; CCT220/17; CCT298/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Condonation is granted where applicable.
Judges
Mogoeng, Cachalia, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Petse, Theron
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentences, Fair Trial Rights, Charge Sheet Requirements, Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Courts
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Minimum Sentences Fair Trial Rights Charge Sheet Requirements Condonation Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of Courts

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M T

Applicant

A S B

Applicant

Johannes September

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to inform accused of the applicability of the Minimum Sentences Act at the outset renders the trial unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of reference to the Minimum Sentences Act in the charge sheet infringes the accused's right to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail.
  3. 3 Whether Magistrates may refer matters to the High Court for sentencing where the Minimum Sentences Act has not been explicitly raised with the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that while it is desirable for charge sheets to refer to the relevant penal provision of the Minimum Sentences Act, failure to do so does not automatically render a trial unfair. Each case must be assessed on its own facts to determine whether the accused's right to a fair trial was infringed. In these matters, the applicants failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the omission, and the record did not establish that their rights were violated. The Court found that most issues raised were factual and not constitutional matters, and the legal arguments presented were insufficiently substantiated to warrant intervention. The Court concluded that it was...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Condonation is granted where applicable.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted to M T for late filing.
  • The application for leave to appeal by M T is dismissed.