Zuma and Others v S (CCT5/94) [1995] ZACC 1; 1995 (2) SA 642; 1995 (4) BCLR 401 (SA); 1995 (1) SACR 568; [1996] 2 CHRLD 244 (5 April 1995)

Zuma and Others v S (CCT5/94) [1995] ZACC 1; 1995 (2) SA 642; 1995 (4) BCLR 401 (SA); 1995 (1) SACR 568; [1996] 2 CHRLD 244 (5 April 1995)

Section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, imposes a reverse onus on the accused to prove that a confession made before a magistrate was not freely and voluntarily given. This provision violates the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial as entrenched in section 25 of the Constitution. The common law rule requiring the prosecution to prove voluntariness is integral to these rights and has a long historical pedigree. The State's justification for the reverse onus—preventing dishonest retractions and shortening trials—is insufficient to outweigh the fundamental rights infringed. The provision does not meet the criteria for a reasonable and justifiable...

Citation
[1995] ZACC 1
Parties
Applicant: Zuma and Two Others; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 April 1995
Case Number
CCT5/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Referral From Trial Court; Direct Access Granted Under Section 100(2) of the Constitution
Outcome
Section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, is declared invalid as inconsistent with the Constitution.
Judges
Kentridge, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mahomed, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Reverse Onus, Admissibility of Confessions, Right to Silence, Fair Trial Rights, Limitation of Rights
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Presumption of Innocence Reverse Onus Admissibility of Confessions Right to Silence Fair Trial Rights Limitation of Rights

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 34 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zuma and Two Others

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Referral From Trial Court; Direct Access Granted Under Section 100(2) of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, is inconsistent with the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the reverse onus provision violates the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial under section 25 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether any limitation of these rights is justifiable under section 33(1) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, imposes a reverse onus on the accused to prove that a confession made before a magistrate was not freely and voluntarily given. This provision violates the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial as entrenched in section 25 of the Constitution. The common law rule requiring the prosecution to prove voluntariness is integral to these rights and has a long historical pedigree. The State's justification for the reverse onus—preventing dishonest retractions and shortening trials—is insufficient to outweigh the fundamental rights infringed. The provision does not meet the criteria for a reasonable and justifiable...

Court Disposition

Section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, is declared invalid as inconsistent with the Constitution.

Orders

  • It is declared that section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, is invalid.
  • The declaration shall invalidate any application of section 217(1)(b)(ii) in any criminal trial commenced on or after 27 April 1994 and in which the verdict has not been given as of the date of this order.