CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Donald Veldman v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division)

CitationCCT 19/05 (Decided 5 December 2005)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawCriminal Procedure
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Sentencing

Facts of the Case

Donald Veldman was convicted of murder and other offences in the regional magistrate's court. At the time he committed the offences and entered his not guilty plea, the regional court's maximum penal jurisdiction for murder was 10 years' imprisonment under section 92(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944. However, after he pleaded but before sentencing, two legislative changes occurred: (1) on 7 October 1998, section 92(1)(a) was amended increasing the regional court's maximum jurisdiction for murder from 10 to 15 years; and (2) section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (Minimum Sentences Act) was promulgated, prescribing minimum sentences for murder. The regional court sentenced Veldman to 15 years' imprisonment for murder. His appeals to the High Court and application to the Supreme Court of Appeal were dismissed. He applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal, arguing the increased sentence violated his right to a fair trial under section 35(3)(n) of the Constitution.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the regional court applied section 51 of the Minimum Sentences Act or section 92(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act in sentencing
  • Whether section 35(3)(n) of the Constitution applies to increases in a court's penal jurisdiction (as opposed to prescribed punishments for specific offences)
  • Whether the retrospective application of section 92(1)(a) to impose a 15-year sentence violated the applicant's right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution
  • Whether section 92(1)(a), properly and constitutionally interpreted, authorized the regional magistrate to impose a 15-year sentence where the accused had pleaded before the amendment came into force
  • The proper approach to constitutional interpretation of legislation under section 39(2) of the Constitution

Judicial Outcome

The application for condonation was granted. Leave to appeal directly from the High Court was granted. The appeal succeeded. The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for murder was set aside and replaced with 10 years' imprisonment. No order as to costs. The Court declined to make a general order substituting sentences for all persons similarly situated, as sentencing requires consideration of individual circumstances and such an order would cause uncertainty in prison administration. Those wishing to rely on this judgment must approach a competent court for relief.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 92(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, properly and constitutionally interpreted in light of section 39(2) and the right to a fair trial under section 35(3), does not authorize a court to apply an increased penal jurisdiction to sentence an accused person who pleaded before the amendment came into force. To do so would violate the rule of law and the right to a fair trial by creating uncertainty and exposing the accused to a more severe sentence than was competent at the time of plea, when the parameters of the trial were defined. Although increases in sentencing jurisdiction do not fall within section 35(3)(n) (which applies to prescribed punishments), they are subject to the general fair trial guarantee in section 35(3). Once an accused has pleaded, there is a legitimate expectation that the rules of the trial will not be changed to the accused's substantive disadvantage.

Obiter Dicta

Mokgoro J (with concurrence from Moseneke DCJ, Sachs J, Skweyiya J and Van der Westhuizen J) noted that while the crime was heinous and may have deserved a harsher sentence if prosecuted in the High Court, the guarantee of a fair trial applies in all criminal trials regardless of the nature of the offence. The unfairness is not assessed by proportionality between offence and sentence, but by the retrospective application of legislation rendering the sentence unauthorized. The Court declined to make a general order affecting all similarly situated persons, noting that sentencing requires individual consideration and such an order would cause administrative difficulties. O'Regan J (with concurrence from Langa CJ, Ngcobo J and Yacoob J) observed that English courts have held it an abuse of process for a judge to promise a non-custodial sentence and then impose a custodial one. Ngcobo J emphasized the shift from parliamentary supremacy to constitutional supremacy, noting that courts must now interpret legislation to promote the Bill of Rights values rather than relying on common law presumptions, though those presumptions reflected similar concerns about fairness and the rule of law.

Legal Significance

This case is significant for establishing that: (1) The right to a fair trial under section 35(3) is comprehensive and extends beyond the specific enumerated rights; (2) Procedural legislation that has substantive adverse effects on an accused's rights cannot be applied retrospectively merely because it is characterized as procedural; (3) Section 92(1)(a) must be interpreted, in light of section 39(2) and constitutional values, not to apply to trials that commenced before it came into force; (4) The rule of law requires certainty in criminal proceedings - once an accused has pleaded, the parameters of the trial (including maximum sentence exposure) should not be altered to the accused's detriment; (5) It provides important guidance on constitutional interpretation of legislation affecting fair trial rights; and (6) It clarifies the distinction between prescribed punishments (covered by section 35(3)(n)) and general increases in sentencing jurisdiction.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 10 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Bruce Robert Sanderson v The Attorney-General, Eastern CapeCCT 10/97
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that criminal trials must be conducted in accordance with open-ended notions of fairness and justice and to avoid narrow approaches to…

  • Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education2000 (10) BCLR 1051 (CC); CCT 4/00
    Cites

    Cited as an example in the corporal punishment case where the execution of the sentence itself had become unconstitutional.

  • Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Others v Open Heaven Community Radio and Others(1133/2023) [2025] ZASCA 117 (12 August 2025)
    Cites

    Cited on whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • J D Pennington and M E Summerley v The StateCase CCT 14/97 (unreported, decided 18 September 1997)
    Cites

    Cited for the consideration of reasonable prospects of success in determining the interests of justice for leave to appeal.

Cited By 42 Cases

  • Ahmed Raffik Omar v Minister of Justice and Constitutional DevelopmentCase CCT 32/03
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that it is important in any constitutional challenge to legislation to have the attitude of the member of the executive responsible for…

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited and Others[2020] ZACC 1
    Cites

    The Court cites De Reuck on the procedure for raising constitutional matters that were not previously raised in lower courts.

  • Baaitse Elizabeth Nkabinde and Christopher Nyaole Jafta v The Judicial Service Commission and Others(20857/2014) [2016] ZASCA 12 (10 March 2016)
    Applies

    The Constitutional Court held that legislation is generally not to be interpreted to extinguish existing rights and obligations, and emphasised that some…

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 39/10) [2010] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited for the test of whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

  • Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Mabando(736/10) [2011] ZASCA 122
    Cites

    Cited for the discretion of the Court in granting condonation and the interests of justice test.

  • N K v Minister of Safety and Security2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) [also reported as 2005 (8) BCLR 661 (CC); Case CCT 52/04]
    Cites

    Cited on the principle that the impact on existing substantive rights and obligations determines the retrospective effect of amending statutes.

  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte President of RSA2000 (2) SA 674 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for observations on the rule of law and its substantive and procedural content, the supremacy of Parliament, and fundamental rights under common law.

  • Phillips and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions(CCT 55/04) [2005] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited on the factors to consider in determining whether to grant leave to appeal, including whether a constitutional issue is raised and the interests of…

  • Sunnyboy Edward Saane v Susan R. Hulme NO (Acting-Magistrate, Johannesburg Magistrates Court) and Minister of JusticeCCT 33/00
    Cites

    Cited on section 39(2) requiring interpretation that promotes the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.

  • S v Bhulwana and S v GwadisoCCT 12/95 and CCT 11/95
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that central to considerations of the interests of justice is that a successful applicant should obtain the relief sought.

  • The Minister of Transport NO v D Du Toit(602/04) [2006] ZASCA 40
    Cites

    Cited on the Court's duty to provide guidance and bring certainty to legal issues.

  • The State v Sipho Zakele NtseleCCT 25/97 (decided 14 October 1997)
    Cites

    Cited on the factors relevant to condonation applications.

  • William Frederick Gerber and Others v Member of the Executive Council of the Gauteng Provincial Government, Development Planning & Local Government and AnotherCase no: 303/2001
    Cites

    Cited on the time it would take for an appeal to be remitted to and heard by the SCA before reverting to this Court as a factor in the interests of justice.

  • BE obo JE v Member of the Executive Council for Social Development, Western Cape[2021] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the importance of the issue and whether a decision by this Court is desirable are relevant factors in considering the interests of…

  • Centre for Child Law v Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg and Others[2022] ZACC 35
    Cites

    Cited for the recognition that children deserve special protection under the law and that a child's right to dignity can be limited by a reasonable and…

  • Chisuse and Others v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Another[2020] ZACC 20
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the presumption against retrospectivity protects against taking away existing rights and is integral to the rule of law and…

  • City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others(CCT 89/09) [2010] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the interests of justice in determining leave to appeal involves balancing all relevant factors.

  • City of Tshwane v Marius Blom & GC Germishuizen Incorporated and Kawari Beleggings CC(433/2012) [2013] ZASCA 88 (31 May 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for guidelines on the interpretation of the word 'includes' in a statute and how its meaning must be ascertained from context.

  • De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others(CCT 5/03) [2003] ZACC 19
    Appeal From

    This is the judgment of the High Court from which leave to appeal is sought. The High Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional challenge. Appeal granted…

  • Director General: Department of Employment and Labour and Another v Green Secure GroupCase No: P 76/2018
    Applies

    Applied to confirm the common law rule that in the absence of express provision to the contrary, statutes should be considered as affecting future matters only…

  • Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Tucker[2021] ZACC 25
    Applies

    Applied for the proposition that a magistrate is obliged to receive evidence which could have a bearing on the Minister's decision under section 11, and that…

  • Du Toit v Ntshinghila(733/2015) [2016] ZASCA 15
    Cites

    Cited for the purpose of the Films and Publications Act to curb child pornography, the definition of child pornography at the time, the State's constitutional…

  • Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another[2020] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the distinction between limitations concerning the core and those concerning the periphery of the right to freedom of expression.

  • Essop v State(432/2020) [2021] ZASCA 66 (1 June 2021)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that child pornography strikes at the dignity of children, is harmful to children used in its production, and is potentially harmful…

  • eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Limited[2018] ZACC 43
    Cites

    Cited as example that it is generally not in the interests of justice to grant leave where there are no reasonable prospects of success on the merits.

  • Islamic Unity Convention v Minister of Telecommunications and Others(CCT 33/07) [2007] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited to express displeasure at the failure of organs of state to participate in constitutional challenges against provisions they administer.

  • Izak Andreas Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others(CCT 26/08) [2008] ZACC 21
    Cites

    The respondents cited De Reuck for the proposition that children are persons below the age of 18 years in the context of child abuse.

  • Jakobus Petrus Marais N.O. and Others v Jacques Daniels and Others (and related cases)LCC 130/2023; LCC 63/2023; LCC 98/2023; LCC 27/2023; LCC 145/2022; LCC 163/2023; LCC 162/2023; LCC 105/2024 (Land Court)
    Applies

    The Court applies Veldman on the general presumption against retrospectivity and the distinction between substantive rights and procedure.

  • Justice Mpondombini Sigcau v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2013] ZACC 18
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that statutes operate only prospectively.

  • J v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another[2014] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the best-interests principle is not absolute and can be limited in terms of section 36 of the Constitution.

  • Kaknis v Absa Bank Limited & another(08/16) [2016] ZASCA 206 (15 December 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the principle that legislation will affect only future matters and not take away existing rights is founded on the rule of law.

  • Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa v The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others(1174/2021) [2022] ZASCA 133 (13 October 2022)
    Follows

    The court treats the judgment of Langa DCJ as particularly instructive regarding the interpretation of the word 'includes' in statutory definitions.

  • Lategan and Another v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another(314/2022) [2024] ZASCA 74 (10 May 2024)
    Cites

    Constitutional Court approved the Carolus approach on the presumption against retrospectivity.

  • Marthinus David de Klerk v Griekwaland Wes Korporatief Bpk[2014] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that prospects of success are not exhaustive of the interests of justice enquiry.

  • Minister of Correctional Services and others v Tony Phakiso Seganoe(20507/2014) [2015] ZASCA 148 (01 October 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that there is a presumption against the retrospective application of a statute increasing a penalty in the absence of express language…

  • Minister of Health and Professor D McIntyre NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and OthersCCT 59/04; 2005 (2) SA 530 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for principles of interpretation of 'includes'

  • Mittal Steel South Africa Limited and Others v Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and AnotherCase No: 70/CAC/Apr07 (Competition Appeal Court) - Judgment delivered 29 May 2009
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the rule of law requires that laws be ascertainable, predictable, and not retrospective.

  • Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Others2005 (1) SA 530 (CC); 2005 (2) BCLR 150 (CC); CCT 57/03, CCT 61/03, CCT 1/04
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of determining constitutionality objectively.

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v Media 24 Limited & others and Henri Christo Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others(425/2017 and 426/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017)
    Cites

    Constitutional Court discussed the important role of the media and freedom of expression in a democratic society.

  • National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others v Aveng Trident Steel (a division of Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd) and Another[2020] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited for the importance of and public interest in the determination of constitutional issues.

  • Paul Francious van Vuren v Minister for Correctional Services and Others(CCT 07/10) [2010] ZACC 17
    Cites

    Cited for the presumption against retrospectivity in statutory interpretation.

  • Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited v Gründlingh and Others(CCT 31/05) [2006] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the factors relevant to the exercise of discretion in granting leave to appeal.

  • Premier, Gauteng and Others v Democratic Alliance and Others; All Tshwane Councillors who are Members of the Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Democratic Alliance and Others; African National Congress v Democratic Alliance and Others[2021] ZACC 34
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretation of the word 'including' as indicating an addition or enlargement.

  • Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another(CCT 113/11) [2012] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that expression not excluded by section 16(2) falls under section 16(1) of the Constitution, and for the importance of protecting…

  • Ramabele v The State; Msimango v The State[2020] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant leave to appeal including the importance of the issue and whether a decision by this…

  • Senwedi v The State[2021] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that there is a presumption against the retrospective operation of a statute.

  • Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs: KwaZulu-Natal(78/2016) [2016] ZASCA 193
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that courts should not find that legislation intended to destroy existing rights unless forced to do so by clear language.

  • Smit v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others[2020] ZACC 29
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that Schedules to an Act form part of the Act.

  • The Road Accident Fund v Vusumzi MdeyideCase CCT 70/06, decided 4 April 2007
    Cites

    Cited in support of the requirement that the responsible Minister must be joined when the constitutional validity of legislation is challenged.

  • The State and Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Acting Regional Magistrate, Boksburg: Mr Phillip Venter and Lucas Van Der Merwe(CCT 109/10) [2011] ZACC 22
    Follows

    This Court approved the presumption against retrospectivity consistent with fair trial provisions of the Constitution.

  • The Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another(CCT 12/13) [2013] ZACC 35
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that children merit special protection through legislation that guards and enforces their rights and liberties.

    • Explore More Cases

    More Constitutional Law cases

    • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
    • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
    • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97