S v Beukes and Another (CA&R 190/03, 171/03) [2005] ZANCHC 7 (1 January 2005)

S v Beukes and Another (CA&R 190/03, 171/03) [2005] ZANCHC 7 (1 January 2005)

The court held that both appellants were convicted before the commencement of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, but their appeals were noted after these sections came into force. As these provisions are procedural in nature, they apply retrospectively to appeals noted after their commencement. The appellants were therefore required to apply for leave to appeal in accordance with the new procedure. The subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality of these sections in S v Steyn did not operate retrospectively and did not revive any automatic right of appeal for accused convicted before 29 May 2001. As the appellants failed to obtain leave to appeal, the court lacked...

Citation
[2005] ZANCHC 7
Parties
Appellant: Andries Beukes; Appellant: Johannes Ocks; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2005
Case Number
CA&R 190/03 & 171/03
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Both appeals were struck from the roll due to lack of jurisdiction arising from failure to obtain leave to appeal.
Judges
Lacock R, Goliath WnR
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Retrospective Application of Procedural Law, Condonation, Automatic Right of Appeal, Constitutionality of Procedural Provisions
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Retrospective Application of Procedural Law Condonation Automatic Right of Appeal Constitutionality of Procedural Provisions

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Beukes

Appellant

Johannes Ocks

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants, convicted before the commencement of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, had an automatic right of appeal or were required to apply for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the retrospective application of sections 309B and 309C, which are procedural, deprived appellants of any vested rights.
  3. 3 Whether the declaration of unconstitutionality of sections 309B and 309C in S v Steyn revived the automatic right of appeal for accused convicted before 29 May 2001.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that both appellants were convicted before the commencement of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, but their appeals were noted after these sections came into force. As these provisions are procedural in nature, they apply retrospectively to appeals noted after their commencement. The appellants were therefore required to apply for leave to appeal in accordance with the new procedure. The subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality of these sections in S v Steyn did not operate retrospectively and did not revive any automatic right of appeal for accused convicted before 29 May 2001. As the appellants failed to obtain leave to appeal, the court lacked...

Court Disposition

Both appeals were struck from the roll due to lack of jurisdiction arising from failure to obtain leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Both appeals are struck from the roll.
  • No order as to costs.