David Ashley Price v Minister of Correctional Services

The appellant was sentenced to an effective period of 15 years imprisonment on two counts of fraud, commencing on 21 December 2000. After serving four and a half years while still imprisoned at St Albans Medium B Prison in Port Elizabeth, he launched proceedings to review the decision of correctional services functionaries not to consider him eligible for placement under correctional supervision in terms of s 276A(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The Case Management Committee (CMC) had decided that his 'date of release' was more than five years in the future based on the interpretation that this meant the expiration of his sentence less any remission. The appellant argued that 'date of release' should mean the earliest date he became eligible for parole consideration, which was less than five years away. On 2 October 2006, the appellant was released on parole but continued with the appeal to establish the correct interpretation and to seek possible reconsideration of his sentence.

• What is the correct interpretation of 'date of release' in s 276A(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 in relation to a prisoner subject to the provisions of the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959 relating to placement under community corrections?
• Whether a prisoner who has reached parole consideration date should be denied the opportunity of having his sentence reconsidered under s 276A(3)(a)(ii)?
• Whether a person released on parole (no longer a prisoner) is entitled to have his sentence reconsidered in terms of s 276A(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act?

The appeal succeeded in part. The order of the court a quo was set aside. It was declared that 'date of release' in s 276A(3)(a)(ii) means, for prisoners subject to the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959, the date on which such prisoner may be considered for placement on parole or the date of release upon expiration of sentence, whichever occurs first. It was further declared that while on parole, the appellant is not entitled to have his sentence reconsidered in terms of s 276A(3)(a)(ii). The respondent (Minister of Correctional Services) was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of appeal, including costs of two counsel, and the costs in the court a quo.

For purposes of s 276A(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, the 'date of release' for a prisoner subject to the provisions of the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959 relating to placement under community corrections means the earliest date on which such prisoner may be considered for placement on parole or the date on which the prisoner may be released upon expiration of sentence, whichever occurs first. This interpretation is mandated by the deeming provision in s 63(1)(b)(i) of the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959. A person who has been released on parole is no longer a prisoner and therefore not entitled to have his or her sentence reconsidered in terms of s 276A(3)(a)(ii), which requires that the person 'has already been admitted to prison' and contemplates a 'date of release' that is in the future.

The Court commented on the policy adopted by the Department of Correctional Services (based on dicta in S v Leeb 1993(1) SACR 315 (T)) that once a prisoner had reached parole consideration date, that prisoner would no longer be considered for correctional supervision. The Court stated that while there may be no point in considering correctional supervision if a prisoner has recently been found unfit for parole based on the same criteria, there is no good reason why a prisoner who has reached parole consideration date should be arbitrarily denied the opportunity of having sentence reconsidered while still a prisoner as a matter of blanket policy. However, the Court did not finally determine this issue as it had become academic given the appellant's release on parole. The Court also noted material differences between release on parole and the possible consequences of referral for reconsideration of sentence under s 276A(3)(a)(ii).

This judgment is significant in South African correctional services law as it authoritatively settled conflicting High Court decisions regarding the interpretation of 'date of release' in s 276A(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The SCA overruled the full court decision in Steenkamp and clarified that for prisoners subject to the transitional provisions of the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959, the date of release includes eligibility for parole consideration, not merely expiration of sentence. This expanded the pool of prisoners eligible for consideration for conversion to correctional supervision. The judgment also clarified the scope of the court's powers upon reconsideration of sentence under s 276A(3), confirming that the court has full sentencing powers and is not limited to imposing correctional supervision. The decision has important implications for prisoners' rights and access to alternative sentencing options, while also establishing clear limits by holding that parole releases are not entitled to such reconsideration.