S v Boesak (CCT25/00) [2000] ZACC 25; 2001 (1) BCLR 36 (CC); 2001 (1) SA 912 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (1 December 2000)

S v Boesak (CCT25/00) [2000] ZACC 25; 2001 (1) BCLR 36 (CC); 2001 (1) SA 912 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (1 December 2000)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's contentions did not raise constitutional matters. The SCA applied the correct standard of proof and did not infringe the applicant's rights to be presumed innocent or to remain silent. The evaluation of evidence and factual findings by the SCA are not constitutional issues. The right to remain silent does not prevent a court from considering the absence of a challenge or explanation when evaluating evidence. The conviction and sentence were imposed after a fair trial and constitute just cause for deprivation of liberty. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2000] ZACC 25
Parties
Applicant: Allan Aubrey Boesak; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2000
Case Number
CCT25/00
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Langa DP, Chaskalson P, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Madlanga AJ
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Right to Silence, Fair Trial Rights, Just Cause for Deprivation of Liberty, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Presumption of Innocence Right to Silence Fair Trial Rights Just Cause for Deprivation of Liberty Burden of Proof Admissibility of Evidence

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Aubrey Boesak

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision upholding the applicant's convictions infringed his constitutional rights under sections 12(1)(a) and 35(3)(h).
  2. 2 Whether the SCA's reliance on a disputed letter and the applicant's silence violated the right to be presumed innocent and to remain silent.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction and sentence amounted to deprivation of freedom without just cause.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's contentions did not raise constitutional matters. The SCA applied the correct standard of proof and did not infringe the applicant's rights to be presumed innocent or to remain silent. The evaluation of evidence and factual findings by the SCA are not constitutional issues. The right to remain silent does not prevent a court from considering the absence of a challenge or explanation when evaluating evidence. The conviction and sentence were imposed after a fair trial and constitute just cause for deprivation of liberty. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.