S v Rens (CCT1/95) [1995] ZACC 15; 1996 (2) BCLR 155; 1996 (1) SA 1218 (28 December 1995)

S v Rens (CCT1/95) [1995] ZACC 15; 1996 (2) BCLR 155; 1996 (1) SA 1218 (28 December 1995)

Section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires leave to appeal from a superior court, is not inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) of the Constitution. The right to recourse by way of appeal or review does not entail an absolute right of appeal; rather, it requires that provision be made for access to a higher court, which is satisfied by the leave to appeal and petition procedures. These procedures allow for a re-assessment of the issues by judges of a higher court and are consistent with the requirements of fairness. The distinction between appellate procedures in superior and lower courts is rational and does not amount to unfair discrimination under section 8 of the...

Citation
[1995] ZACC 15
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Peet Rens
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 December 1995
Case Number
CCT1/95
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Referral From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division on Constitutional Question
Outcome
Section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) or section 8 of the Constitution. The matter is referred back to the Cape Provincial Division for further proceedings in accordance with this order.
Judges
T.H. Madala, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Trengove
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Fair Trial Rights, Constitutional Interpretation, Discrimination, Petition Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Leave to Appeal Fair Trial Rights Constitutional Interpretation Discrimination Petition Procedure

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Peet Rens

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Referral From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division on Constitutional Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, requiring leave to appeal from a superior court, is inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the leave to appeal procedure discriminates against persons tried in superior courts contrary to section 8 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the petition procedure constitutes adequate recourse to a higher court as required by the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires leave to appeal from a superior court, is not inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) of the Constitution. The right to recourse by way of appeal or review does not entail an absolute right of appeal; rather, it requires that provision be made for access to a higher court, which is satisfied by the leave to appeal and petition procedures. These procedures allow for a re-assessment of the issues by judges of a higher court and are consistent with the requirements of fairness. The distinction between appellate procedures in superior and lower courts is rational and does not amount to unfair discrimination under section 8 of the...

Court Disposition

Section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) or section 8 of the Constitution. The matter is referred back to the Cape Provincial Division for further proceedings in accordance with this order.

Orders

  • The provisions of section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, are not inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 200 of 1993.
  • The case is referred back to the Cape Provincial Division to be dealt with in accordance with the terms of this order.