Van der Walt v S (CCT180/19) [2020] ZACC 19; 2020 (2) SACR 371 (CC); 2020 (11) BCLR 1337 (CC) (21 July 2020)

Van der Walt v S (CCT180/19) [2020] ZACC 19; 2020 (2) SACR 371 (CC); 2020 (11) BCLR 1337 (CC) (21 July 2020)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's right to a fair trial was infringed by two serious irregularities: (1) The Regional Magistrate's late ruling on the admissibility of exhibits deprived the applicant of the opportunity to know the case against him and to respond appropriately, violating section 35(3) of the Constitution. (2) The Magistrate relied on medical literature not introduced in evidence, denying the applicant the opportunity to challenge or counter that evidence, contrary to section 35(3)(i). These irregularities were sufficiently serious to vitiate the proceedings in a constitutionally impermissible manner. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the...

Citation
[2020] ZACC 19
Parties
Applicant: Danie Van der Walt; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2020
Case Number
CCT 180/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Merits Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for decision on re-arraignment.
Judges
Mogoeng CJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J, Victor AJ
Legal Topics
Fair Trial Rights, Admissibility of Evidence, Expert Evidence, Culpable Homicide, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Fair Trial Rights Admissibility of Evidence Expert Evidence Culpable Homicide Sentencing Principles

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danie Van der Walt

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Merits Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late pronouncement on the admissibility of exhibits infringed the applicant's right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether reliance on medical literature not introduced in testimony violated the applicant's right to adduce and challenge evidence under section 35(3)(i) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the trial irregularities were sufficiently serious to vitiate the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's right to a fair trial was infringed by two serious irregularities: (1) The Regional Magistrate's late ruling on the admissibility of exhibits deprived the applicant of the opportunity to know the case against him and to respond appropriately, violating section 35(3) of the Constitution. (2) The Magistrate relied on medical literature not introduced in evidence, denying the applicant the opportunity to challenge or counter that evidence, contrary to section 35(3)(i). These irregularities were sufficiently serious to vitiate the proceedings in a constitutionally impermissible manner. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for decision on re-arraignment.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.