Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 71/13) [2014] ZACC 5; 2014 (5) BCLR 606 (CC); 2014 (1) SACR 545 (CC); 2014 (5) SA 317 (CC) (20 March 2014)

Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 71/13) [2014] ZACC 5; 2014 (5) BCLR 606 (CC); 2014 (1) SACR 545 (CC); 2014 (5) SA 317 (CC) (20 March 2014)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of POCA, but their challenge fails on all substantive grounds. The definitions of 'pattern of racketeering activity' and 'enterprise' in POCA are not void for vagueness or overbroad; they are sufficiently clear and tailored to address the multifaceted nature of organised crime. The procedural challenge to section 2(2) of POCA fails because the provision contains an explicit safeguard: evidence may only be admitted if it does not render the trial unfair, and the determination of fairness is left to the trial court. The retrospective challenge fails as POCA does not criminalise conduct that...

Citation
[2014] ZACC 5
Parties
Applicant: Gaston Savoi; Applicant: Intaka Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Fernando Praderi; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2014
Case Number
CCT 71/13
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Confirmation and Appeal / Application for Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity and Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted; applicants' appeal dismissed; respondents' cross-appeal upheld; High Court's order of constitutional invalidity not confirmed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla AJ, Nkabinde J, Zondo J
Legal Topics
Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Void for Vagueness, Overbreadth, Retrospectivity, Fair Trial Rights, Admissibility of Evidence
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Prevention of Organised Crime Act Void for Vagueness Overbreadth Retrospectivity Fair Trial Rights Admissibility of Evidence

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

Gaston Savoi

Applicant

Intaka Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Fernando Praderi

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Confirmation and Appeal / Application for Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity and Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the definitions of 'pattern of racketeering activity' and 'enterprise' in POCA are void for vagueness or overbroad.
  2. 2 Whether section 2(1) and section 2(2) of POCA violate the fair trial rights under section 35 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether Chapter 2 of POCA operates retrospectively in violation of section 35(3)(l) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of POCA, but their challenge fails on all substantive grounds. The definitions of 'pattern of racketeering activity' and 'enterprise' in POCA are not void for vagueness or overbroad; they are sufficiently clear and tailored to address the multifaceted nature of organised crime. The procedural challenge to section 2(2) of POCA fails because the provision contains an explicit safeguard: evidence may only be admitted if it does not render the trial unfair, and the determination of fairness is left to the trial court. The retrospective challenge fails as POCA does not criminalise conduct that...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted; applicants' appeal dismissed; respondents' cross-appeal upheld; High Court's order of constitutional invalidity not confirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal and cross-appeal is granted.
  • The applicants' appeal is dismissed.