The appellants, both practising legal professionals, were arrested in June 1993 on charges of dealing in or possessing cocaine, with an additional charge of attempted murder arising from a police raid. They were released on bail and appeared repeatedly in the Durban Magistrates’ Court. The matter was subject to numerous postponements, many connected to further investigation and to interlocutory constitutional challenges raised by the appellants under the interim Constitution, including challenges to statutory presumptions and demands for access to the police docket. These constitutional proceedings delayed the commencement of the criminal trial, and the matter was eventually struck from the roll in March 1995. The prosecution later re‑instituted charges in the Regional Court. The appellants then applied to the Natal High Court for a permanent stay of prosecution, alleging unreasonable delay in violation of their constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time. The High Court refused relief, and the appellants appealed to the Constitutional Court.
The appeal was dismissed. The refusal by the Natal High Court to grant a permanent stay of prosecution was upheld.
This case confirmed and elaborated the principles in Sanderson regarding the constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time under the interim Constitution. It underscored that permanent stays of prosecution are exceptional remedies and that courts must balance individual rights against societal interests in the prosecution of crime. The judgment clarified that delays attributable to an accused’s own constitutional litigation generally cannot found a successful speedy‑trial claim.