S v Mercer (CCT43/03) [2003] ZACC 22; 2004 (2) SA 598 (CC); 2004 (2) BCLR 109 (CC); 2004 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (24 November 2003)

S v Mercer (CCT43/03) [2003] ZACC 22; 2004 (2) SA 598 (CC); 2004 (2) BCLR 109 (CC); 2004 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (24 November 2003)

The Constitutional Court held that condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal could not be granted as there were no prospects of success on the merits. The applicant's challenge to the Problem Animal Control Ordinance, 1957 was irrelevant as he was not convicted under that ordinance, and no legally relevant relationship was established between the 1957 and 1974 Ordinances. The challenge to the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance, 1974 was without substance, as the High Court had already found that any limitation of rights was justified and the applicant did not contest this reasoning. The refusal of a permit by the Northern Cape Nature Conservation...

Citation
[2003] ZACC 22
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Lance Mercer; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2003
Case Number
CCT43/03
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Unsuccessful Appeals in Lower Courts.
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Permit System for Wildlife, Constitutional Validity of Ordinance, Fair Trial Rights, Administrative Action Review, Section 24 Environmental Rights
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Environmental Law Permit System for Wildlife Constitutional Validity of Ordinance Fair Trial Rights Administrative Action Review Section 24 Environmental Rights

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Lance Mercer

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Unsuccessful Appeals in Lower Courts.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the Problem Animal Control Ordinance, 1957 is unconstitutional and invalid.
  3. 3 Whether the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance, 1974 is unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal could not be granted as there were no prospects of success on the merits. The applicant's challenge to the Problem Animal Control Ordinance, 1957 was irrelevant as he was not convicted under that ordinance, and no legally relevant relationship was established between the 1957 and 1974 Ordinances. The challenge to the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance, 1974 was without substance, as the High Court had already found that any limitation of rights was justified and the applicant did not contest this reasoning. The refusal of a permit by the Northern Cape Nature Conservation...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.