Plaatjies v Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal (043/2013) [2013] ZASCA 66 (27 May 2013)

Plaatjies v Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal (043/2013) [2013] ZASCA 66 (27 May 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the double jeopardy rule, as reflected in s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution and the common law, only prevents retrial where the previous acquittal or conviction was on the merits. Where a conviction is set aside due to a technical irregularity, such as the failure of the trial magistrate to sit with assessors, the accused is not protected from retrial. The court found that the Constitutional Court has already settled the point in the Basson cases, confirming that s 35(3)(m) does not extend the double jeopardy rule to technical acquittals. The appellant's arguments for developing the common law were rejected as misconceived. The court also dismissed...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 66
Parties
Appellant: Boisile Amos Plaatjies; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2013
Case Number
043/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Mthiyane, Shongwe, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Meyer
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit, Fair Trial Rights, Development of Common Law
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Double Jeopardy Autrefois Acquit Fair Trial Rights Development of Common Law

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boisile Amos Plaatjies

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution has changed the legal position regarding the application of autrefois convict or autrefois acquit.
  2. 2 Whether the common law should be developed to extend the double jeopardy rule to cases where the merits were not considered in the earlier proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the reinstitution of criminal proceedings is permissible when the previous acquittal was not on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the double jeopardy rule, as reflected in s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution and the common law, only prevents retrial where the previous acquittal or conviction was on the merits. Where a conviction is set aside due to a technical irregularity, such as the failure of the trial magistrate to sit with assessors, the accused is not protected from retrial. The court found that the Constitutional Court has already settled the point in the Basson cases, confirming that s 35(3)(m) does not extend the double jeopardy rule to technical acquittals. The appellant's arguments for developing the common law were rejected as misconceived. The court also dismissed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.