Carl Hansmann was convicted of dealing in cannabis in the Graskop Magistrate's Court in December 1998. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with two years conditionally suspended. His appeal to the Transvaal High Court was dismissed on 20 March 2000. After the dismissal of his appeal, Hansmann became a fugitive from justice. His bail was estreated by the Magistrate on 14 April 2000 and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The police were unable to trace his whereabouts. In his application to the Constitutional Court for special leave to appeal, Hansmann stated he had no set address or contact number and only provided his father's address. Upon inquiry by the Director of the Constitutional Court, it emerged that Hansmann was a fugitive and he had withheld this fact from the Court.
The Constitutional Court declined to consider the application for special leave to appeal. The application was effectively dismissed without consideration of its merits.
The Constitutional Court will not consider an application for special leave to appeal where the applicant is a fugitive from justice and has withheld that fact from the Court. Such conduct makes it inappropriate for the Court to entertain the application. The principle established is that fugitives from justice who conceal their status cannot expect the Court to exercise its discretion in their favour to grant special leave to appeal.
The judgment does not contain obiter dicta as it is a brief procedural ruling that does not engage with any substantive legal issues beyond the immediate question of whether to entertain the application. The Court confined itself strictly to the question of the applicant's status as a fugitive and did not make any observations on the underlying cannabis conviction, sentencing, or any constitutional issues that may have been raised in the application.
This case establishes the Constitutional Court's clear policy that it will not entertain applications from fugitives from justice, particularly where the applicant's fugitive status has been concealed from the Court. It demonstrates the Court's commitment to the integrity of the judicial process and the principle that applicants must come to court with clean hands. The case reinforces that access to the Constitutional Court is not unconditional and that conduct that undermines the administration of justice will result in refusal to consider an application, regardless of any potential constitutional merit.