Lategan and Another v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another

The appellants were charged in 2018 in the Wynberg Regional Court with common-law sexual offences allegedly committed between 1974 and 1979, prior to the commencement of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007. Although the charges were framed under the common law, the Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape) indicated reliance on sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Act, which regulate evidential and procedural aspects in sexual offence trials. The regional court ordered that these sections be removed from the charge sheet on the basis that the Act was not retrospective. The DPP successfully reviewed that decision in the Western Cape High Court, which held that the sections applied to prosecutions instituted after the Act’s commencement. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The judgment clarifies that key evidential and procedural protections introduced by the Sexual Offences Act apply to prosecutions instituted after its commencement, even where the alleged offences were committed before the Act. It confirms the distinction in South African law between substantive retrospectivity (which is impermissible absent clear legislative intent) and procedural retrospectivity, which is generally allowed. The case provides authoritative guidance on the application of sections 58, 59 and 60 and reinforces a victim-centred evidential approach in sexual offence trials.