William Mello and Another v The State

The appellants were tried in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on charges of dealing in, alternatively possession of, dagga under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. Dagga was found hidden in various parts of a truck driven by one accused, with the others as passengers. They were convicted on the alternative charge of possession, relying on the statutory presumption in section 20 of the Act, which presumed possession if a drug was found in the immediate vicinity of an accused. On appeal, the Transvaal High Court referred the constitutional validity of this presumption to the Constitutional Court.

Section 20 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 was declared inconsistent with section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution and invalid from the date of judgment. The declaration of invalidity was given limited retrospective effect to invalidate applications of section 20 in cases where verdicts were entered after the interim Constitution came into force and where appeals or reviews were pending or still possible. The matter was referred back to the Transvaal High Court for disposal in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s judgment.

This case reinforced the Constitutional Court’s firm stance against statutory presumptions that impose reverse onuses in criminal law. It confirmed that presumptions based solely on proximity to contraband violate the presumption of innocence and are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. The judgment contributed to the development of fair trial jurisprudence and aligned drug-related offences with constitutional standards previously applied to arms and other criminal statutes.