S v Singo (CCT49/01) [2002] ZACC 10; 2002 (4) SA 858 (CC); 2002 (8) BCLR 793 (CC); 2002 (2) SACR 160 (CC) (12 June 2002)

S v Singo (CCT49/01) [2002] ZACC 10; 2002 (4) SA 858 (CC); 2002 (8) BCLR 793 (CC); 2002 (2) SACR 160 (CC) (12 June 2002)

Section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, imposes a legal burden on the accused to prove absence of fault for failing to appear in court, which limits the constitutional rights to be presumed innocent and to remain silent. While the summary procedure serves a pressing social purpose in ensuring the effective administration of justice, the imposition of a legal burden is not justifiable under section 36(1) of the Constitution, as less restrictive means—such as an evidentiary burden—could achieve the same objective without infringing fundamental rights. The Court held that the offending phrase in section 72(4) is inconsistent with the Constitution and ordered that words be read in...

Citation
[2002] ZACC 10
Parties
Appellant: Maluto Singo; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2002
Case Number
CCT49/01
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Review / Confirmation of Order of Constitutional Invalidity
Outcome
The order of constitutional invalidity made by the Venda High Court is not confirmed. Instead, section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to be read as though the words 'there is a reasonable possibility that' appear between 'that' and 'his failure', establishing an evidentiary burden.
Judges
Ngcobo, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, O'Regan, Sachs, Du Plessis, Skweyiya
Legal Topics
Reverse Onus, Presumption of Innocence, Right to Silence, Fair Trial Rights, Criminal Procedure Act, Constitutional Remedy
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Reverse Onus Presumption of Innocence Right to Silence Fair Trial Rights Criminal Procedure Act Constitutional Remedy

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maluto Singo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Review / Confirmation of Order of Constitutional Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, infringe the right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Does the reverse onus in section 72(4) unjustifiably limit the rights to be presumed innocent and to remain silent?
  3. 3 Is the limitation imposed by section 72(4) justifiable under section 36(1) of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, imposes a legal burden on the accused to prove absence of fault for failing to appear in court, which limits the constitutional rights to be presumed innocent and to remain silent. While the summary procedure serves a pressing social purpose in ensuring the effective administration of justice, the imposition of a legal burden is not justifiable under section 36(1) of the Constitution, as less restrictive means—such as an evidentiary burden—could achieve the same objective without infringing fundamental rights. The Court held that the offending phrase in section 72(4) is inconsistent with the Constitution and ordered that words be read in...

Court Disposition

The order of constitutional invalidity made by the Venda High Court is not confirmed. Instead, section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to be read as though the words 'there is a reasonable possibility that' appear between 'that' and 'his failure', establishing an evidentiary burden.

Orders

  • Section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is to be read as though the words 'there is a reasonable possibility that' appear between 'that' and 'his failure'.
  • The omission of these words is declared inconsistent with the Constitution.