S v Shongwe (CCT45/02) [2003] ZACC 9; 2003 (8) BCLR 858; 2003 (5) SA 276 (CC); 2003 (2) SACR 103 (CC) (30 May 2003)

S v Shongwe (CCT45/02) [2003] ZACC 9; 2003 (8) BCLR 858; 2003 (5) SA 276 (CC); 2003 (2) SACR 103 (CC) (30 May 2003)

The Court held that the applicant's use of rule 17 to seek direct access for the purpose of appealing his conviction was procedurally improper. Rule 17 is not an appeal procedure and may only be used for direct access in exceptional circumstances where the issue has not been considered by another court. The applicant, being represented by an attorney, should have proceeded under rule 18 with an application for leave to appeal, accompanied by an application for condonation. The Court declined to treat the rule 17 application as a rule 18 application, noting that the question of condonation for late appeals in criminal matters would only arise in a proper case where the State has had an...

Citation
[2003] ZACC 9
Parties
Applicant: Sipho Shongwe; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2003
Case Number
CCT45/02
Procedural Posture
Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court Under Rule 17
Outcome
Application for direct access dismissed.
Judges
Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Fair Trial Rights, Direct Access Procedure, Condonation in Criminal Appeals
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Fair Trial Rights Direct Access Procedure Condonation in Criminal Appeals

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sipho Shongwe

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court Under Rule 17

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's right to a fair trial was infringed by the admission of evidence obtained in breach of an undertaking to his attorney.
  2. 2 Whether direct access to the Constitutional Court under rule 17 is permissible for appeals against conviction.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should have proceeded under rule 18 with an application for condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicant's use of rule 17 to seek direct access for the purpose of appealing his conviction was procedurally improper. Rule 17 is not an appeal procedure and may only be used for direct access in exceptional circumstances where the issue has not been considered by another court. The applicant, being represented by an attorney, should have proceeded under rule 18 with an application for leave to appeal, accompanied by an application for condonation. The Court declined to treat the rule 17 application as a rule 18 application, noting that the question of condonation for late appeals in criminal matters would only arise in a proper case where the State has had an...

Court Disposition

Application for direct access dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for direct access to the Constitutional Court is dismissed.