S v Price (CCT23/01) [2001] ZACC 1; 2001 (11) BCLR 1193 (4 September 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] ZACC 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Yacoob, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Du Plessis, Skweyiya
- Case number
- CCT23/01
More details
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Yacoob, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Du Plessis, Skweyiya
- Case number
- CCT23/01
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Assuming in favour of the applicant that it was impermissible to draw any adverse inference from his silence, the evidence of guilt was so compelling that there was no prospect of the convictions being set aside on appeal. Therefore, it was unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue regarding the right to silence, and special leave to appeal was refused.
Court disposition
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Orders
- Special leave to appeal is refused.
02
Material facts
Parties
David Ashley Price
ApplicantThe State
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge's approach to the applicant's exercise of the right to silence under section 35(1)(a) of the Constitution was constitutionally permissible.
- 02
Whether any adverse inference could be drawn from the applicant's silence during police questioning.
- 03
Whether the evidence against the applicant was sufficient to sustain the conviction absent any adverse inference from silence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the trial judge's rejection of his explanation for remaining silent during police questioning violated his constitutional right to silence under section 35(1)(a) of the Constitution. He contended that it was impermissible for the court to draw any adverse inference from his silence and that this approach tainted the fairness of his trial.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that, even if no adverse inference was drawn from the applicant's silence, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The respondent argued that the constitutional issue was not material to the outcome, as the conviction would stand regardless.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 35(1)(a) of the Constitution
An accused's right to silence under section 35(1)(a) of the Constitution prohibits courts from drawing adverse inferences from the exercise of that right.
- 02
S v Price (CCT23/01) [2001] ZACC 1
Where the evidence of guilt is compelling, the outcome of the case does not depend on the resolution of a constitutional issue regarding the right to silence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Assuming in favour of the applicant that it was impermissible to draw any adverse inference from his silence, the evidence of guilt was so compelling that there was no prospect of the convictions being set aside on appeal. Therefore, it was unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue regarding the right to silence, and special leave to appeal was refused.
Obiter and limits
- No purpose would be served by considering the validity of the constitutional issue in circumstances where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
- The approach to the right to silence may be material in other cases where the evidence is less compelling.
Court disposition
Special leave to appeal is refused.
- Special leave to appeal is refused.
Source and reliance status
Constitutional Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Constitutional Court
Judgment
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 23/01DAVID ASHLEY PRICE ApplicantversusTHE STATE Respondent
Decided on : 4 September 2001
JUDGMENT
YACOOB J:
[1] The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against his conviction by the South Eastern Cape High Court on two counts of fraud. The High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The only constitutional issue of potential substance is said to arise from the approach of the judge to the applicant’s evidence that his decision not to provide certain information to the police was an exercise of his right to silence in terms of section 35(1)(a) of the Constitution. The judge found that evidence unacceptable in the circumstances of the case. The applicant contends that this approach offends against his right to silence.
[2] It is, however, not necessary to decide the question. If it is assumed in favour of the applicant that it was not permissible to draw any adverse inference against him from his silence and this aspect is excluded from consideration altogether, the evidence of the applicant’s guilt is so compelling that there is no prospect that the applicant’s convictions will be set aside on appeal. In the circumstances no purpose would be served by considering the validity of the constitutional issue that is said to arise. Special leave to appeal is accordingly refused.
Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Du Plessis AJ and Skweyiya AJ concur in the judgment of Yacoob J.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.