S v Baloyi and Others (CCT29/99) [1999] ZACC 19; 2000 (1) BCLR 86 ; 2000 (2) SA 425 (CC) (3 December 1999)

S v Baloyi and Others (CCT29/99) [1999] ZACC 19; 2000 (1) BCLR 86 ; 2000 (2) SA 425 (CC) (3 December 1999)

The Constitutional Court held that section 3(5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act 133 of 1993 does not impose a reverse onus on accused persons. The section imports only the procedural provisions of section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Act, not its substantive reverse onus. The burden of proof remains with the state, and the accused retains the presumption of innocence. The proceedings are criminal in nature once the enquiry commences, entitling the accused to fair trial rights under section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution. The High Court erred in declaring section 3(5) unconstitutional on the basis of a reverse onus. The Court emphasised the need to balance effective remedies for...

Citation
[1999] ZACC 19
Parties
Applicant: The State; Appellant: Godfrey Baloyi; Respondent: Minister of Justice; Respondent: Commission on Gender Equality
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 1999
Case Number
CCT29/99
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Confirmation / Confirmation of High Court Declaration of Invalidity
Outcome
Order of invalidity by the Transvaal High Court not confirmed; matter remitted for further proceedings in accordance with this judgment.
Judges
Sachs, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Yacoob, Cameron
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Reverse Onus, Domestic Violence, Fair Trial Rights, Prevention of Family Violence Act, Constitutional Limitation
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Family and Children Presumption of Innocence Reverse Onus Domestic Violence Fair Trial Rights Prevention of Family Violence Act +1 more

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Godfrey Baloyi

Appellant

Minister of Justice

Respondent

Commission on Gender Equality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Confirmation / Confirmation of High Court Declaration of Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 3(5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act 133 of 1993 impose a reverse onus on accused persons?
  2. 2 Does such a reverse onus infringe the constitutional right to be presumed innocent under section 35(3)(h)?
  3. 3 Is any limitation of the presumption of innocence constitutionally justified under section 36?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that section 3(5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act 133 of 1993 does not impose a reverse onus on accused persons. The section imports only the procedural provisions of section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Act, not its substantive reverse onus. The burden of proof remains with the state, and the accused retains the presumption of innocence. The proceedings are criminal in nature once the enquiry commences, entitling the accused to fair trial rights under section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution. The High Court erred in declaring section 3(5) unconstitutional on the basis of a reverse onus. The Court emphasised the need to balance effective remedies for...

Court Disposition

Order of invalidity by the Transvaal High Court not confirmed; matter remitted for further proceedings in accordance with this judgment.

Orders

  • The Constitutional Court declines to confirm the order of the Transvaal High Court.
  • The matter is remitted to the Transvaal High Court to be dealt with in accordance with this judgment.