S v Jacobs and Others [2019] ZACC 4; 2019 (5) BCLR 562 (CC); 2019 (1) SACR 623 (CC) (14 February 2019)

S v Jacobs and Others [2019] ZACC 4; 2019 (5) BCLR 562 (CC); 2019 (1) SACR 623 (CC) (14 February 2019)

The Constitutional Court was evenly divided on whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Five judges held that the matter did not raise a constitutional issue, as the dispute was factual and did not involve the development or interpretation of the doctrine of common purpose. They found that the lower courts' factual findings should not be disturbed and that the applicants failed to demonstrate a constitutional issue. The other five judges held that the proper application of the doctrine of common purpose is a constitutional matter, as it is rooted in public policy and constitutional values, and that the applicants' rights to freedom and a fair trial were implicated. They found...

Citation
[2019] ZACC 4
Parties
Applicant: Shane Jacobs; Applicant: Frank Anthony; Applicant: Sulaiman Ferris; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Case Number
CCT 73/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Unsuccessful Appeals in the High Court, Full Court, and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; order of the Full Court stands due to absence of a majority decision in the Constitutional Court.
Judges
Zondo, Cachalia, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Petse, Theron
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Fair Trial Rights, Arbitrary Deprivation of Freedom, Application of Constitution, Mens Rea, Active Association
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Common Purpose Fair Trial Rights Arbitrary Deprivation of Freedom Application of Constitution Mens Rea Active Association

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Jacobs

Applicant

Frank Anthony

Applicant

Sulaiman Ferris

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Unsuccessful Appeals in the High Court, Full Court, and Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied by the Trial Court and Full Court.
  2. 2 Whether the misapplication of the doctrine of common purpose constitutes a constitutional issue engaging the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were present when the fatal blow was struck and thus liable for murder under common purpose.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court was evenly divided on whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Five judges held that the matter did not raise a constitutional issue, as the dispute was factual and did not involve the development or interpretation of the doctrine of common purpose. They found that the lower courts' factual findings should not be disturbed and that the applicants failed to demonstrate a constitutional issue. The other five judges held that the proper application of the doctrine of common purpose is a constitutional matter, as it is rooted in public policy and constitutional values, and that the applicants' rights to freedom and a fair trial were implicated. They found...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; order of the Full Court stands due to absence of a majority decision in the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment and order of the Full Court stand.