S v Price (CCT23/01) [2001] ZACC 1; 2001 (11) BCLR 1193 (4 September 2001)

S v Price (CCT23/01) [2001] ZACC 1; 2001 (11) BCLR 1193 (4 September 2001)

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.

Citation
[2001] ZACC 1
Parties
Applicant: David Ashley Price; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2001
Case Number
CCT23/01
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
Yacoob, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Du Plessis, Skweyiya
Legal Topics
Right to Silence, Adverse Inference, Leave to Appeal, Fraud Conviction
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Silence Adverse Inference Leave to Appeal Fraud Conviction

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ashley Price

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 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.
  2. 2 Whether any adverse inference could be drawn from the applicant's silence during police questioning.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence against the applicant was sufficient to sustain the conviction absent any adverse inference from silence.

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.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal is refused.