Pretorius v S (705/2019) [2020] ZASCA 47 (4 May 2020)

Pretorius v S (705/2019) [2020] ZASCA 47 (4 May 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the only issue before it was whether leave to appeal should have been granted by the High Court, not the merits of the appeal itself. The appellant raised substantial grounds, including the improper administration of oath or admonition to key witnesses and alleged misdirections by the trial court. The State conceded that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The court found that, in light of these concessions and the applicable legal principles, leave to appeal should have been granted. Accordingly, the refusal of leave to appeal was set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal to the High Court against the conviction.

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 47
Parties
Appellant: Andre Pretorius; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2020
Case Number
705/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Petition for Leave to Appeal to the High Court
Outcome
Appeal succeeds; refusal of leave to appeal set aside and replaced with order granting leave to appeal to the High Court against conviction.
Judges
Ponnan, Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Mokgohloa, Matojane
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Admissibility of Evidence, Rape Conviction, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Admissibility of Evidence Rape Conviction Reasonable Prospect of Success

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Pretorius

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Petition for Leave to Appeal to the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of two key prosecution witnesses was inadmissible due to improper administration of oath or admonition.
  3. 3 Whether there were reasonable prospects of success in the envisaged appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the only issue before it was whether leave to appeal should have been granted by the High Court, not the merits of the appeal itself. The appellant raised substantial grounds, including the improper administration of oath or admonition to key witnesses and alleged misdirections by the trial court. The State conceded that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The court found that, in light of these concessions and the applicable legal principles, leave to appeal should have been granted. Accordingly, the refusal of leave to appeal was set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal to the High Court against the conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds; refusal of leave to appeal set aside and replaced with order granting leave to appeal to the High Court against conviction.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order refusing the appellant leave to appeal is set aside.