The applicants were convicted in separate proceedings in the Regional Court of rape of girls under the age of 16, offences listed in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997. In terms of section 52 of the Act, the Regional Court stopped the proceedings after conviction and committed the accused to the High Court for sentencing because the offences potentially attracted sentences beyond the Regional Court’s jurisdiction, including life imprisonment under section 51. The Witwatersrand High Court (Lewis J) declared section 52 unconstitutional for infringing the right to a fair trial in section 35 of the Constitution, primarily because it split the trial between two courts. That order of constitutional invalidity was referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation. One applicant also sought leave to appeal against his conviction.
The order of constitutional invalidity made by the Witwatersrand High Court was not confirmed. Section 52 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 was declared constitutionally valid. The related application for leave to appeal did not succeed.
This case is a leading Constitutional Court authority on the content of the right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution. It confirms that the Constitution does not require a single-court criminal trial model and that legislative innovations in criminal procedure, including split conviction-and-sentencing mechanisms, are permissible if they ensure substantive fairness. The judgment also clarified the constitutionality of the minimum sentencing regime’s procedural framework.