S v Julies (CCT7/96) [1996] ZACC 14; 1996 (7) BCLR 899; 1996 (4) SA 313 (11 June 1996)

S v Julies (CCT7/96) [1996] ZACC 14; 1996 (7) BCLR 899; 1996 (4) SA 313 (11 June 1996)

The Constitutional Court held that section 21(1)(a)(iii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is inconsistent with section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent. The provision creates a presumption of dealing in drugs based solely on possession of any quantity of a listed substance, which is not rationally connected to the likelihood of dealing and imposes an unreasonable burden on the accused. The Court found that such a presumption cannot be justified under section 33(1) of the interim Constitution. The reasoning in S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso, which invalidated a similar presumption for dagga,...

Citation
[1996] ZACC 14
Parties
Applicant: State; Respondent: Julies
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 1996
Case Number
CCT7/96
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Review / Referral From Cape Provincial Division for Constitutional Validity Determination
Outcome
Section 21(1)(a)(iii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is declared invalid and unconstitutional from the date of judgment.
Judges
J C Kriegler, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Dicott, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Drug Offences, Bill of Rights Limitation, Retrospective Application
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Presumption of Innocence Burden of Proof Drug Offences Bill of Rights Limitation Retrospective Application

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State

Applicant

Julies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Review / Referral From Cape Provincial Division for Constitutional Validity Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is section 21(1)(a)(iii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 constitutionally valid under the interim Constitution?
  2. 2 Does the statutory presumption infringe the right to be presumed innocent and the right to remain silent under section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution?
  3. 3 Is any limitation of these rights justified under section 33(1) of the interim Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that section 21(1)(a)(iii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is inconsistent with section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent. The provision creates a presumption of dealing in drugs based solely on possession of any quantity of a listed substance, which is not rationally connected to the likelihood of dealing and imposes an unreasonable burden on the accused. The Court found that such a presumption cannot be justified under section 33(1) of the interim Constitution. The reasoning in S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso, which invalidated a similar presumption for dagga,...

Court Disposition

Section 21(1)(a)(iii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is declared invalid and unconstitutional from the date of judgment.

Orders

  • Section 21(1)(a)(iii) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is declared inconsistent with the interim Constitution and invalid from the date of this judgment.
  • The declaration of invalidity applies to any criminal case where conviction occurred after the interim Constitution came into force and where appeal or review is pending or can still be lodged.