Lawrence; Negal; Solberg v The State and Another

The three appellants, employees of Seven Eleven stores, were separately convicted in magistrates’ courts of contravening provisions of the Liquor Act 27 of 1989. Ms Lawrence sold wine after permitted hours on a weekday; Ms Solberg sold wine on a Sunday, a prohibited day; and Mr Negal sold cider and beer despite the store’s grocer’s wine licence authorising only the sale of table wine. The appellants admitted the factual allegations but challenged the constitutionality of the relevant Liquor Act provisions under the interim Constitution. Magistrates refused postponements to allow referral of constitutional issues, assumed the legislation valid, and convicted them. Appeals to the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division were dismissed. The appellants then appealed to the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of the right to economic activity (section 26 of the interim Constitution) and, regarding Sunday trading, freedom of religion (section 14).

The appeals were dismissed and the convictions of all three appellants were confirmed.

This case is a leading authority on the scope of the right to economic activity under the interim Constitution. It clarifies that the right does not guarantee freedom from regulation and affirms the constitutionality of state regulation of liquor trading in the public interest. The judgment also provides important guidance on the admissibility of new evidence on appeal to the Constitutional Court and on the concept of legislative facts.