The appellant, David Ashley Price, was sentenced to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment for fraud and began serving his sentence in December 2000. After serving about four and a half years, he applied in the High Court for review of a decision by correctional authorities refusing to consider him for possible placement under correctional supervision in terms of s 276A(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The refusal was based on an interpretation of the phrase ‘date of release’ as meaning the expiry of his sentence (less remission), which placed his release more than five years away. Price contended that ‘date of release’ should mean the earliest date on which he became eligible for parole, which was less than five years away. The High Court dismissed his application, following earlier authority. Price appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. During the appeal process he was released on parole.
The appeal succeeded in part. The SCA set aside the High Court’s order and substituted it with a declaratory order that ‘date of release’ in s 276A(3)(a)(ii) means the earliest parole consideration date or the sentence expiry date, whichever occurs first, for prisoners subject to the 1959 Act. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of appeal, including costs of two counsel. However, the court held that Price was not entitled to have his sentence reconsidered under s 276A(3)(a)(ii) after his release on parole.
This judgment settled conflicting High Court authority and overruled Steenkamp, clarifying the interpretation of ‘date of release’ in s 276A(3)(a)(ii). It significantly affected the rights of prisoners sentenced under the transitional regime of the Correctional Services Act 1959 by expanding access to sentence reconsideration and correctional supervision prior to parole eligibility.