Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) (CCT19/05) [2005] ZACC 22; 2007 (3) SA 210 (CC); 2007 (9) BCLR 929 (CC); 2006 (2) SACR 319 (CC) (5 December 2005)

Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) (CCT19/05) [2005] ZACC 22; 2007 (3) SA 210 (CC); 2007 (9) BCLR 929 (CC); 2006 (2) SACR 319 (CC) (5 December 2005)

The Constitutional Court held that the regional court's retrospective application of increased penal jurisdiction to sentence the applicant to 15 years for murder, when the maximum at the time of plea was 10 years, violated the applicant's right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution. Although section 35(3)(n) does not apply to increases in sentencing jurisdiction, the general right to a fair trial and the rule of law require that the legal parameters at the time of plea remain stable throughout the trial. The applicant was entitled to certainty regarding the maximum sentence he faced when pleading. The retrospective application of the amended section 92(1)(a) of the...

Citation
[2005] ZACC 22
Parties
Applicant: Donald Veldman; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division)
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2005
Case Number
CCT 19/05
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Judgment on Leave to Appeal and Merits
Outcome
Appeal granted; sentence reduced.
Judges
Mokgoro, Moseneke, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, O'Regan, Langa, Ngcobo, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Retrospective Application of Law, Fair Trial Rights, Sentencing Jurisdiction, Rule of Law, Magistrates Courts Act, Minimum Sentences Act
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Retrospective Application of Law Fair Trial Rights Sentencing Jurisdiction Rule of Law Magistrates Courts Act Minimum Sentences Act

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Veldman

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Judgment on Leave to Appeal and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the regional court was entitled to impose a sentence of 15 years for murder when the applicant pleaded before the increase in penal jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the retrospective application of increased penal jurisdiction violates the right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether section 35(3)(n) of the Constitution applies to increases in sentencing jurisdiction or only to prescribed punishments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the regional court's retrospective application of increased penal jurisdiction to sentence the applicant to 15 years for murder, when the maximum at the time of plea was 10 years, violated the applicant's right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution. Although section 35(3)(n) does not apply to increases in sentencing jurisdiction, the general right to a fair trial and the rule of law require that the legal parameters at the time of plea remain stable throughout the trial. The applicant was entitled to certainty regarding the maximum sentence he faced when pleading. The retrospective application of the amended section 92(1)(a) of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal granted; sentence reduced.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal succeeds.