S v Steyn (CCT19/00) [2000] ZACC 24; 2001 (1) BCLR 52 (CC); 2001 (1) SA 1146 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 25 (CC) (29 November 2000)

S v Steyn (CCT19/00) [2000] ZACC 24; 2001 (1) BCLR 52 (CC); 2001 (1) SA 1146 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 25 (CC) (29 November 2000)

Sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which require leave to appeal and a petition procedure for appeals from magistrates' courts, are inconsistent with section 35(3)(o) of the Constitution. The procedure does not provide an adequate mechanism for correcting errors, especially given the higher risk of error in magistrates' courts and the disadvantages faced by unrepresented accused. The information placed before the high court on petition is insufficient for an informed reassessment, and the procedure is highly restrictive. The state failed to justify the limitation under section 36, as no evidence was adduced regarding appeal roll congestion or resource...

Citation
[2000] ZACC 24
Parties
Applicant: Hans Jurgens Steyn; Respondent: The State; Amicus: Gert van Tonder
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2000
Case Number
CCT19/00
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Judgment on Direct Access Application
Outcome
Sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and the words 'subject to section 309B' in section 309(1), are declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The declarations of invalidity are suspended for six months from the date of the order, with interim measures imposed.
Judges
Madlanga AJ, Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J
Legal Topics
Right of Appeal, Fair Trial, Leave to Appeal, Petition Procedure, Criminal Procedure Act, Limitation of Rights
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right of Appeal Fair Trial Leave to Appeal Petition Procedure Criminal Procedure Act Limitation of Rights

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hans Jurgens Steyn

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Gert van Tonder

Amicus

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Judgment on Direct Access Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 are inconsistent with section 35(3)(o) of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.
  2. 2 Whether the leave to appeal and petition procedure from magistrates' courts provides an adequate mechanism for correcting errors and ensuring a fair trial.
  3. 3 Whether any limitation of the right of appeal is reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which require leave to appeal and a petition procedure for appeals from magistrates' courts, are inconsistent with section 35(3)(o) of the Constitution. The procedure does not provide an adequate mechanism for correcting errors, especially given the higher risk of error in magistrates' courts and the disadvantages faced by unrepresented accused. The information placed before the high court on petition is insufficient for an informed reassessment, and the procedure is highly restrictive. The state failed to justify the limitation under section 36, as no evidence was adduced regarding appeal roll congestion or resource...

Court Disposition

Sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and the words 'subject to section 309B' in section 309(1), are declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The declarations of invalidity are suspended for six months from the date of the order, with interim measures imposed.

Orders

  • Sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 are declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
  • The words 'subject to section 309B' in section 309(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 are declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.