Nel v Le Roux NO and Others (CCT30/95) [1996] ZACC 6; 1996 (4) BCLR 592; 1996 (3) SA 562 (4 April 1996)

Nel v Le Roux NO and Others (CCT30/95) [1996] ZACC 6; 1996 (4) BCLR 592; 1996 (3) SA 562 (4 April 1996)

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, when properly construed in light of the Constitution, does not compel an examinee to answer questions that would unjustifiably infringe constitutional rights. The 'just excuse' exception in section 189(1) provides sufficient protection, and any compulsion to answer must be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] ZACC 6
Parties
Applicant: Nel; Respondent: Le Roux NO; Respondent: Attorney-General of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Justice of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 1996
Case Number
CCT30/95
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act is declared not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993.
Judges
Ackermann, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Compelled Testimony, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Fair Trial Rights, Summary Imprisonment, Administration of Justice
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Compelled Testimony Privilege Against Self Incrimination Fair Trial Rights Summary Imprisonment Administration of Justice

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nel

Applicant

Le Roux NO

Respondent

Attorney-General of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Justice of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993.
  2. 2 Whether compelled testimony under section 205 infringes rights to equality, privacy, freedom of speech, fair trial, and protection against self-incrimination.
  3. 3 Whether the summary imprisonment procedure for recalcitrant witnesses violates constitutional rights to a fair trial and protection against detention without trial.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, when properly construed in light of the Constitution, does not compel an examinee to answer questions that would unjustifiably infringe constitutional rights. The 'just excuse' exception in section 189(1) provides sufficient protection, and any compulsion to answer must be justified under section 33(1) of the Constitution. The summary imprisonment procedure is not a criminal trial and does not violate fair trial rights or the right not to be detained without trial. Section 205 proceedings are judicial, not administrative, and the presiding officer is obliged to ensure procedural fairness, including informing the examinee of the consequences of...

Court Disposition

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act is declared not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993.

Orders

  • It is declared that the provisions of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (as amended) are not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993.