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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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 Whether the requirement infringes the right to equality before the law under section 8(1) of the Constitution.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment