The six applicants were convicted in the Eastern Cape High Court on two counts of attempted murder and four counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, based solely on incriminating statements and pointings-out made to police or a magistrate. These statements were admitted after trials-within-a-trial, but the trial court’s judgment did not set out the reasons for admitting them, referring instead to reasons elsewhere in the record. The applicants contended that the statements were not made freely and voluntarily and that they had not been informed of their right to legal representation. Their applications for leave to appeal were refused by the High Court, and their subsequent petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was summarily dismissed without reasons. The SCA considered the petition without calling for the relevant portions of the trial record containing the rulings and reasons from the trials-within-a-trial. The applicants approached the Constitutional Court, alleging that this procedure infringed their constitutional right of appeal under section 35(3)(o) of the Constitution.
Condonation for late filing was granted; leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court was granted; the appeal was upheld; the Supreme Court of Appeal’s order dismissing the petition for leave to appeal was set aside; and the petition was remitted to the Supreme Court of Appeal for reconsideration with regard to the relevant portions of the record.
This case clarifies the constitutional requirements for a fair petition procedure in the Supreme Court of Appeal and reinforces that the right of appeal under section 35(3)(o) entails an informed and adequate reappraisal. It emphasises the necessity of appellate courts having access to the reasons for contested trial rulings, particularly where convictions depend entirely on disputed evidence, and strengthens procedural fairness in criminal appeals.