S v Bierman (CCT52/01) [2002] ZACC 7; 2002 (5) SA 243 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1078 (CC); 2002 (2) SACR 219 (CC) (11 June 2002)

S v Bierman (CCT52/01) [2002] ZACC 7; 2002 (5) SA 243 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1078 (CC); 2002 (2) SACR 219 (CC) (11 June 2002)

The Constitutional Court refused special leave to appeal because the applicant failed to raise the constitutional issues regarding the admissibility of Rev Bothma's evidence in her application to the Supreme Court of Appeal. This omission deprived the Court of the benefit of the Supreme Court of Appeal's consideration of these issues. Furthermore, the conviction was supported by substantial evidence from other witnesses, and excluding Rev Bothma's evidence would not have led to the conviction being set aside. Therefore, there were no reasonable prospects of success, and it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

Citation
[2002] ZACC 7
Parties
Applicant: Rethea Bierman; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2002
Case Number
CCT52/01
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Judges
O'Regan, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Du Plessis, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Ngcobo, Sachs, Skweyiya
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Privilege of Clergy Communications, Right to Privacy, Right to Fair Trial, Bill of Rights Limitation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Admissibility of Evidence Privilege of Clergy Communications Right to Privacy Right to Fair Trial Bill of Rights Limitation

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rethea Bierman

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of the evidence of Rev Bothma infringed the applicant's constitutional rights to privacy and a fair trial.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to raise constitutional issues not previously argued before the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction depended on the admission of Rev Bothma's evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court refused special leave to appeal because the applicant failed to raise the constitutional issues regarding the admissibility of Rev Bothma's evidence in her application to the Supreme Court of Appeal. This omission deprived the Court of the benefit of the Supreme Court of Appeal's consideration of these issues. Furthermore, the conviction was supported by substantial evidence from other witnesses, and excluding Rev Bothma's evidence would not have led to the conviction being set aside. Therefore, there were no reasonable prospects of success, and it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for special leave to appeal is refused.