Tarr v S (CCT07/18) [2018] ZACC 35; 2019 (1) BCLR 151 (CC) (27 September 2018)

Tarr v S (CCT07/18) [2018] ZACC 35; 2019 (1) BCLR 151 (CC) (27 September 2018)

The Constitutional Court held that, although the extra-curial statement should not have been admitted in light of the Nkosi judgment, the conviction of the applicant was nonetheless supported by other compelling evidence, specifically ballistic evidence linking the murder weapon to the applicant and circumstantial facts establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge did not rely solely on the inadmissible statement, and the remaining evidence was sufficient for conviction. The sentence imposed was not excessive given the brutal nature of the crime. Accordingly, the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2018] ZACC 35
Parties
Applicant: Ishaq Tarr; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2018
Case Number
CCT 07/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Sentence in the High Court
Outcome
Application for condonation granted; leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Mogoeng, Zondo, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay, Extra Curial Statements, Unfair Trial, Minimum Sentencing Legislation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Admissibility of Hearsay Extra Curial Statements Unfair Trial Minimum Sentencing Legislation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ishaq Tarr

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Conviction and Sentence in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of an extra-curial statement by a co-accused rendered the applicant's trial unfair.
  2. 2 Whether, absent the extra-curial statement, the remaining evidence was sufficient to convict the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly warned about the application of minimum sentencing legislation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that, although the extra-curial statement should not have been admitted in light of the Nkosi judgment, the conviction of the applicant was nonetheless supported by other compelling evidence, specifically ballistic evidence linking the murder weapon to the applicant and circumstantial facts establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge did not rely solely on the inadmissible statement, and the remaining evidence was sufficient for conviction. The sentence imposed was not excessive given the brutal nature of the crime. Accordingly, the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the application.
  • Leave to appeal is refused.