Wild and Another v Hoffert NO and Others (CCT28/97) [1998] ZACC 5; 1998 (3) SA 695; 1998 (6) BCLR 656 (12 May 1998)

Wild and Another v Hoffert NO and Others (CCT28/97) [1998] ZACC 5; 1998 (3) SA 695; 1998 (6) BCLR 656 (12 May 1998)

The Constitutional Court held that even if the time elapsed between charge and trial was unreasonable, the appellants were not entitled to a permanent stay of prosecution in the absence of trial-related prejudice or extraordinary circumstances. The delays were attributable to both parties, including the appellants' own interlocutory applications and lack of urgency in prosecuting those applications. The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, but the remedy of a permanent stay is reserved for cases where the delay causes irreparable trial prejudice. The court emphasized that appropriate relief for infringement of the right to a speedy trial may take various forms and must be tailored to...

Citation
[1998] ZACC 5
Parties
Appellant: Jennifer Emily Hutchinson Wild; Appellant: Brian Alfred Cutler; Respondent: AP Hoffert NO; Respondent: The State; Respondent: The Attorney-General; Respondent: Dirk Jan Donders
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 1998
Case Number
CCT 28/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal High Court Judgment Refusing Constitutional Relief; Appeal Heard and Dismissed by the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Kriegler, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Right to Speedy Trial, Fair Trial, Appropriate Relief, Permanent Stay of Prosecution, Trial Prejudice, Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Speedy Trial Fair Trial Appropriate Relief Permanent Stay of Prosecution Trial Prejudice Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Emily Hutchinson Wild

Appellant

Brian Alfred Cutler

Appellant

AP Hoffert NO

Respondent

The State

Respondent

The Attorney-General

Respondent

Dirk Jan Donders

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal High Court Judgment Refusing Constitutional Relief; Appeal Heard and Dismissed by the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time after being charged was infringed.
  2. 2 Whether a permanent stay of prosecution is an appropriate remedy for unreasonable delay absent trial-related prejudice.
  3. 3 How the principles from Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape apply to the facts of this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that even if the time elapsed between charge and trial was unreasonable, the appellants were not entitled to a permanent stay of prosecution in the absence of trial-related prejudice or extraordinary circumstances. The delays were attributable to both parties, including the appellants' own interlocutory applications and lack of urgency in prosecuting those applications. The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, but the remedy of a permanent stay is reserved for cases where the delay causes irreparable trial prejudice. The court emphasized that appropriate relief for infringement of the right to a speedy trial may take various forms and must be tailored to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.