South Africa Case Law

S v Mkulu (1773)

S v Mkulu (1773) [2018] ZAWCHC 91; 2018 (2) SACR 408 (WCC) (2 August 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1773

Judges

Rogers, Savage

The court found that the accused's conduct, as revealed by s 112(1)(b) questioning, did not go beyond acting as an agent for a friend to acquire dagga for personal use. There was no evidence of supply, sale, or any activity beyond acquisition. The magistrate misapplied the statutory definition and relevant case law, particularly S v Solomon and S v Naidoo, which require clear facts establishing dealing rather than mere possession. The statutory presumption was invalid and not applicable. Given the gross delay in review and the accused's payment of the fine, the interests of justice required f…

Source excerpt

• Dealing In Drugs
• Possession Of Drugs
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Statutory Presumptions
• Magistrates Court Review

S v Marinus en Anders (SS27/2006)

S v Marinus en Anders (SS27/2006) [2010] ZAWCHC 363 (25 February 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

SS27/2006

Judge

Veldhuizen R

Trial judgment on drug trafficking and abalone possession charges. One accused was acquitted for lack of corroboration; the others were convicted on the main counts.

• Drug Trafficking
• Possession Of Illicit Substances
• Marine Resources Protection
• Interpretation Act Application
• Statutory Presumptions
• Constitutional Invalidity

S v Mello (CCT5/98)

S v Mello (CCT5/98) [1998] ZACC 7; 1998 (3) SA 712; 1998 (7) BCLR 908 (28 May 1998)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT5/98

Judges

Mokgoro, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Didcott, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob

Section 20 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 creates a legal presumption that shifts the burden of proof to the accused, requiring them to disprove possession of drugs found in their vicinity. This reverse onus provision is inconsistent with the right to be presumed innocent under section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution, as it relieves the prosecution of its duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and risks convicting innocent persons. Previous Constitutional Court decisions have invalidated similar presumptions in criminal statutes. The Court finds no compelling just…

Source excerpt

• Presumption Of Innocence
• Reverse Onus
• Fair Trial Rights
• Statutory Presumptions
• Limitation Of Rights

Scagell and Others v Attorney-General, Western Cape and Others (CCT42/95)

Scagell and Others v Attorney-General, Western Cape and Others (CCT42/95) [1996] ZACC 18; 1996 (11) BCLR 1446; 1997 (2) SA 368 (12 September 1996)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT42/95

Judges

O'Regan, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Didcott, Kentridge, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, Sachs

Sections 6(3) and 6(4) of the Gambling Act, 51 of 1965, are inconsistent with section 25(3) of the Constitution as they infringe the right to a fair trial. Section 6(4) imposes a legal burden on the accused, allowing conviction even where reasonable doubt exists, which violates the presumption of innocence. Section 6(3), though phrased as an evidential burden, is so sweeping that it allows prosecution and compels defence based on mere possession of items like playing cards, without evidence suggestive of criminality, thereby breaching substantive fairness. The State failed to justify these li…

Source excerpt

• Presumption Of Innocence
• Right To Fair Trial
• Right To Silence
• Limitation Of Rights
• Statutory Presumptions

S v Edwards (304/83)

S v Edwards (304/83) [1984] ZASCA 157 (29 November 1984)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

304/83

Judges

Kotzé, Hefer, Eloff

The appeal succeeded because the court found the magistrate gave inadequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s version and the conviction could not stand.

• Possession Of Illicit Drugs
• Statutory Presumptions
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Criminal-law
• Drug-offences
• Credibility-of-witnesses