Wilkinson and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (50395/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 229; 2019 (2) SACR 278 (GP) (5 June 2019)

Wilkinson and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (50395/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 229; 2019 (2) SACR 278 (GP) (5 June 2019)

The court held that the application was premature, as constitutional challenges to criminal charges and statutory provisions should be brought within the criminal proceedings, not in abstract before a civil court. The applicants failed to demonstrate why the constitutional issues should be adjudicated before the criminal trial or why such adjudication would be in the interests of justice. On the merits, the court found that the reverse onus provisions in the relevant provincial ordinances are justified under section 36 of the Constitution, given the serious threat posed by rhino poaching and the need for effective conservation measures. The provisions are reasonable and proportionate, as...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 229
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Joshua Wilkinson; Applicant: David Jacobus Steyn; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Premier of Gauteng; Respondent: Premier of North West; Respondent: Premier of Limpopo; Respondent: Premier of Kwa-Zulu Natal; Respondent: MEC of Gauteng of Environmental and Conservational Affairs; Respondent: MEC of North West of Environmental and Conservational Affairs; Respondent: MEC of Limpopo of Environmental and Conservational Affairs; Respondent: MEC of Kwa-Zulu Natal of Environmental and Conservational Affairs; Respondent: Minister of Environmental Affairs
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2019
Case Number
50395/2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Molefe
Legal Topics
Reverse Onus Provisions, Presumption of Innocence, Nature Conservation Legislation, Limitation of Rights, Fair Trial Rights, Rhinoceros Horn Trade
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Environmental Law Reverse Onus Provisions Presumption of Innocence Nature Conservation Legislation Limitation of Rights Fair Trial Rights +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Joshua Wilkinson

Applicant

David Jacobus Steyn

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Premier of Gauteng

Respondent

Premier of North West

Respondent

Premier of Limpopo

Respondent

Premier of Kwa-Zulu Natal

Respondent

MEC of Gauteng of Environmental and Conservational Affairs

Respondent

MEC of North West of Environmental and Conservational Affairs

Respondent

MEC of Limpopo of Environmental and Conservational Affairs

Respondent

MEC of Kwa-Zulu Natal of Environmental and Conservational Affairs

Respondent

Minister of Environmental Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reverse onus provisions in provincial nature conservation ordinances are unconstitutional for infringing the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence.
  2. 2 Whether the application to declare certain charges and legislative provisions unconstitutional is premature and should be brought within the criminal proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the challenged charges constitute criminal offences under the relevant legislation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application was premature, as constitutional challenges to criminal charges and statutory provisions should be brought within the criminal proceedings, not in abstract before a civil court. The applicants failed to demonstrate why the constitutional issues should be adjudicated before the criminal trial or why such adjudication would be in the interests of justice. On the merits, the court found that the reverse onus provisions in the relevant provincial ordinances are justified under section 36 of the Constitution, given the serious threat posed by rhino poaching and the need for effective conservation measures. The provisions are reasonable and proportionate, as...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.