S v Vermaas, S v Du Plessis (CCT1/94, CCT2/94) [1995] ZACC 5; 1995 (3) SA 292 ; 1995 (7) BCLR 851 (CC) (8 June 1995)

S v Vermaas, S v Du Plessis (CCT1/94, CCT2/94) [1995] ZACC 5; 1995 (3) SA 292 ; 1995 (7) BCLR 851 (CC) (8 June 1995)

The Constitutional Court held that the referrals from the Transvaal Provincial Division were incompetent, as section 102(2) does not provide for referrals of issues that the lower court has the power to decide. Section 102 only allows for referrals of issues within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, which was not the case here. The Court further clarified that section 241(8) applies to proceedings pending before the commencement of the Constitution, meaning those trials should be conducted as if the Constitution had not been passed. However, the majority interpretation in S v Mhlungu and Others dispelled uncertainty regarding the application of section 25(3)(e. The...

Citation
[1995] ZACC 5
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Wessel Albertus Vermaas; Respondent: Johan Petrus Lafras Du Plessis
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 1995
Case Number
CCT1/94, CCT2/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Referral / Referral From Transvaal Provincial Division to Constitutional Court for Determination of Constitutional Issues During Ongoing Criminal Trials
Outcome
Referrals declared incompetent; cases remitted to the Transvaal Provincial Division for continuation and completion of trials.
Judges
Didcott, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Kentridge, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mahomed, Mokgoro, O’Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Right to Legal Representation, Section 25 3 E, Section 241 8, Direct Access to Constitutional Court
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Legal Representation Section 25 3 E Section 241 8 Direct Access to Constitutional Court

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Wessel Albertus Vermaas

Respondent

Johan Petrus Lafras Du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Referral / Referral From Transvaal Provincial Division to Constitutional Court for Determination of Constitutional Issues During Ongoing Criminal Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 25(3)(e) of the Constitution applies to criminal trials that commenced before the Constitution came into operation.
  2. 2 Whether the referrals from the Transvaal Provincial Division to the Constitutional Court were constitutionally competent under section 102.
  3. 3 Whether Vermaas and Du Plessis are entitled to legal representation at state expense under section 25(3)(e).

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the referrals from the Transvaal Provincial Division were incompetent, as section 102(2) does not provide for referrals of issues that the lower court has the power to decide. Section 102 only allows for referrals of issues within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, which was not the case here. The Court further clarified that section 241(8) applies to proceedings pending before the commencement of the Constitution, meaning those trials should be conducted as if the Constitution had not been passed. However, the majority interpretation in S v Mhlungu and Others dispelled uncertainty regarding the application of section 25(3)(e. The...

Court Disposition

Referrals declared incompetent; cases remitted to the Transvaal Provincial Division for continuation and completion of trials.

Orders

  • The cases of Vermaas and Du Plessis are remitted to the Transvaal Provincial Division for their trials to be resumed and completed.
  • No determination is made by the Constitutional Court on the merits of the applications for legal representation at state expense.