S v Ntuli (CCT17/95) [1995] ZACC 14; 1996 (1) BCLR 141; 1996 (1) SA 1207 (8 December 1995)

S v Ntuli (CCT17/95) [1995] ZACC 14; 1996 (1) BCLR 141; 1996 (1) SA 1207 (8 December 1995)

Section 309(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires unrepresented prisoners to obtain a judge's certificate before prosecuting an appeal, is inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) of the Constitution. The process for obtaining a certificate is unsystematic and fails to ensure an adequate reappraisal of the case, resulting in the denial of the constitutional right to appeal or review. The scheme also violates the right to equality before the law by differentiating between unrepresented prisoners and other convicted persons, denying the former group equal access to the courts. The purported justifications for the scheme, such as preventing frivolous appeals and administrative...

Citation
[1995] ZACC 14
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: Nicko Ntuli; Respondent: Government of South Africa
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 1995
Case Number
CCT17/95
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Review / Referral From Witwatersrand Local Division Under Section 102(1) of the Constitution
Outcome
Section 309(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is declared invalid due to inconsistency with the Constitution. The declaration of invalidity is suspended until 30 April 1997 to allow Parliament to remedy the defect. The case is remitted to the Witwatersrand Local Division for further proceedings.
Judges
Didcott, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngoepe, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Equality Before the Law, Appeal and Review, Judges Certificate, Criminal Procedure Act, 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Nicko Ntuli

Applicant

Government of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Review / Referral From Witwatersrand Local Division Under Section 102(1) of the Constitution

  1. 1 Whether section 309(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, requiring a judge's certificate for appeals by unrepresented prisoners, is inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to appeal or review to a higher court.
  2. 2 Whether the requirement infringes the right to equality before the law under section 8(1) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether any infringement is justifiable under section 33(1) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 309(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires unrepresented prisoners to obtain a judge's certificate before prosecuting an appeal, is inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) of the Constitution. The process for obtaining a certificate is unsystematic and fails to ensure an adequate reappraisal of the case, resulting in the denial of the constitutional right to appeal or review. The scheme also violates the right to equality before the law by differentiating between unrepresented prisoners and other convicted persons, denying the former group equal access to the courts. The purported justifications for the scheme, such as preventing frivolous appeals and administrative...

Court Disposition

Section 309(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is declared invalid due to inconsistency with the Constitution. The declaration of invalidity is suspended until 30 April 1997 to allow Parliament to remedy the defect. The case is remitted to the Witwatersrand Local Division for further proceedings.

Orders

  • Section 309(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is declared invalid for inconsistency with the Constitution.
  • Parliament is required to remedy the defect by 30 April 1997.