The respondent, Peet Rens, was convicted in the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division on charges of abduction and attempted murder. He received a suspended sentence and fine for abduction, and ten years’ imprisonment for attempted murder. He applied for leave to appeal against both his convictions and the sentence. The trial judge, Rose-Innes J, found that there were no reasonable prospects of success and would have refused leave to appeal, but suspended the proceedings and referred a constitutional question to the Constitutional Court concerning the constitutionality of section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which requires leave to appeal, in light of section 25(3)(h) of the Interim Constitution of 1993, which guarantees an accused the right to have recourse by way of appeal or review to a higher court.
The Constitutional Court declared that section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is not inconsistent with section 25(3)(h) or section 8 of the Interim Constitution. The constitutional question was answered accordingly, and the matter was referred back to the Cape Provincial Division to be dealt with in accordance with the Court’s order.
This was one of the earliest Constitutional Court decisions interpreting the fair trial rights in section 25 of the Interim Constitution. It confirmed that the Constitution does not guarantee an automatic right of appeal in criminal cases and validated the long-standing South African leave to appeal system. The case established an important precedent on harmonising fair trial rights with procedural rules regulating access to appellate courts.