S v Ntsele (CCT25/97) [1997] ZACC 14; 1997 (11) BCLR 1543 (14 October 1997)

S v Ntsele (CCT25/97) [1997] ZACC 14; 1997 (11) BCLR 1543 (14 October 1997)

Section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 creates a statutory presumption that a person in charge of cultivated land with dagga plants is presumed to have dealt in such plants. This presumption imposes a legal burden on the accused, which offends the constitutional presumption of innocence. The Constitutional Court found that the provision risks conviction despite reasonable doubt, which is the antithesis of the presumption of innocence protected by both the interim and new Constitutions. No compelling justification was presented to save the provision from invalidation under either section 33(1) of the interim Constitution or section 36(1) of the new Constitution....

Citation
[1997] ZACC 14
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Sipho Zakele Ntsele
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 1997
Case Number
CCT25/97
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Review / Confirmation of Declaration of Invalidity
Outcome
Declaration of invalidity confirmed; matter remitted to the High Court for further disposal.
Judges
Kriegler, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, Automatic Review, Constitutional Invalidity
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Presumption of Innocence Burden of Proof Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act Automatic Review Constitutional Invalidity

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Sipho Zakele Ntsele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Review / Confirmation of Declaration of Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
  2. 2 Whether the presumption created by section 21(1)(b) infringes the presumption of innocence under the Constitution.
  3. 3 Which Constitution applies to the proceedings and the validity of the High Court's process.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 creates a statutory presumption that a person in charge of cultivated land with dagga plants is presumed to have dealt in such plants. This presumption imposes a legal burden on the accused, which offends the constitutional presumption of innocence. The Constitutional Court found that the provision risks conviction despite reasonable doubt, which is the antithesis of the presumption of innocence protected by both the interim and new Constitutions. No compelling justification was presented to save the provision from invalidation under either section 33(1) of the interim Constitution or section 36(1) of the new Constitution....

Court Disposition

Declaration of invalidity confirmed; matter remitted to the High Court for further disposal.

Orders

  • The order of the Natal High Court declaring section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 to be invalid is confirmed.
  • The declaration of invalidity shall invalidate any application of section 21(1)(b) in any criminal trial where the verdict was entered after the interim Constitution came into force and where, as at the date of this judgment, either an appeal or a review is pending or the time for noting an appeal has not yet expired.