S v Marais (CCT 54/10) [2010] ZACC 16; 2010 (2) SACR 606 (CC) 2011 (1); SA 502 (CC) ; 2010 (12) BCLR 1223 (CC) (21 September 2010)

S v Marais (CCT 54/10) [2010] ZACC 16; 2010 (2) SACR 606 (CC) 2011 (1); SA 502 (CC) ; 2010 (12) BCLR 1223 (CC) (21 September 2010)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the factual findings of the trial court regarding her status as a battered woman does not raise a constitutional issue. The core complaint is that the trial court was wrong on the facts, which is not a constitutional matter. The Court further found that it has no power to admit further evidence or remit the matter for further evidence after the appeal process is exhausted, as neither the Supreme Court Act nor the Criminal Procedure Act nor the Constitutional Court Complementary Act provides such authority. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as it did not raise a constitutional issue, and the application...

Citation
[2010] ZACC 16
Parties
Applicant: Ruby Charmaine Marais; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2010
Case Number
CCT 54/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Sentence in the High Court; Leave to Appeal on Conviction Refused by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal; Sentence Appeal Pending Before Full Bench.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for admission as amicus curiae dismissed.
Judges
Ngcobo, Moseneke, Brand, Cameron, Froneman, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Fair Trial Rights, Battered Woman Syndrome, Leave to Appeal, Admission of Further Evidence, Domestic Violence, Self Defence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Fair Trial Rights Battered Woman Syndrome Leave to Appeal Admission of Further Evidence Domestic Violence Self Defence

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruby Charmaine Marais

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Sentence in the High Court; Leave to Appeal on Conviction Refused by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal; Sentence Appeal Pending Before Full Bench.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the application for leave to appeal raise a constitutional issue?
  2. 2 Was the applicant denied a fair trial under section 35 of the Constitution?
  3. 3 Is the Constitutional Court empowered to admit further evidence or remit the matter for further evidence after the appeal process is exhausted?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the factual findings of the trial court regarding her status as a battered woman does not raise a constitutional issue. The core complaint is that the trial court was wrong on the facts, which is not a constitutional matter. The Court further found that it has no power to admit further evidence or remit the matter for further evidence after the appeal process is exhausted, as neither the Supreme Court Act nor the Criminal Procedure Act nor the Constitutional Court Complementary Act provides such authority. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as it did not raise a constitutional issue, and the application...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for admission as amicus curiae dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The application of Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre to be admitted as amicus curiae is not granted.