The applicant, Deshwin Barlow, was initially charged with eight criminal counts arising from a shooting incident on 24 October 2009 at Reiger Park, Johannesburg. At the close of the State’s case, he was discharged on three counts in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The trial proceeded on five counts: murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The trial court convicted him of murder, attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, and theft as a competent verdict on the robbery charge. He was sentenced to an effective term of 15 years’ imprisonment. His appeal to the Full Court against his convictions was dismissed, although the Full Court failed expressly to address the theft conviction. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, contending that inaccuracies and omissions in the trial and appeal judgments violated his constitutional right to a fair trial and his right to appeal.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The case clarifies that not every inaccuracy or omission in a criminal judgment amounts to a violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial. It confirms that appellate courts may look to the substance of the reasoning and factual findings as a whole when assessing whether an accused’s rights under section 35 have been infringed. The judgment also emphasises the importance of clear and careful reasoning in criminal cases, while setting a high threshold for Constitutional Court intervention in fact-bound criminal appeals.