S v Van Der Westhuizen (CCT60/03) [2003] ZACC 21; 2004 (2) BCLR 117 (CC) (24 November 2003)

S v Van Der Westhuizen (CCT60/03) [2003] ZACC 21; 2004 (2) BCLR 117 (CC) (24 November 2003)

The applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for direct access to the Constitutional Court, as set out in rule 17. He did not establish that it was in the interests of justice to grant direct access for the purpose of bail. The judges who dismissed his application for leave to appeal reconsidered the matter after the replying affidavit was filed and found no reason to recall their order. There is no substantive basis before the Court to suggest that the refusal of leave to appeal was incorrect or that the sentence imposed by the Regional Court should be varied due to subsequent facts or circumstances. Accordingly, the application for direct access is refused.

Citation
[2003] ZACC 21
Parties
Applicant: Louis Benjamin Van Der Westhuizen; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2003
Case Number
CCT 60/03
Procedural Posture
Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court for Bail
Outcome
Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court for bail is refused.
Judges
Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Direct Access, Bail Application, Interests of Justice, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Compliance
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Direct Access Bail Application Interests of Justice Leave to Appeal Procedural Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Benjamin Van Der Westhuizen

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court for Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for direct access to the Constitutional Court for bail.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice require the granting of direct access in this case.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with the procedural requirements for direct access under rule 17.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for direct access to the Constitutional Court, as set out in rule 17. He did not establish that it was in the interests of justice to grant direct access for the purpose of bail. The judges who dismissed his application for leave to appeal reconsidered the matter after the replying affidavit was filed and found no reason to recall their order. There is no substantive basis before the Court to suggest that the refusal of leave to appeal was incorrect or that the sentence imposed by the Regional Court should be varied due to subsequent facts or circumstances. Accordingly, the application for direct access is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court for bail is refused.

Orders

  • The application for direct access is refused.