Jacobus Bogaards was charged in the Regional Court with contravening sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act 33 of 2004 for allegedly harbouring two accused persons who had escaped from custody during the so-called Boeremag trial, and for failing to report their presence to the police. In the alternative, he was charged with contravening section 115(e) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 for harbouring escaped offenders. The Regional Court convicted him on the terrorism-related counts and imposed an effective sentence of imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court dismissed his appeal but upheld his wife’s appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) set aside the terrorism convictions and sentences but convicted Bogaards on the alternative count under section 115(e) and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The SCA was divided, with a majority holding that the offence under section 115(e) had been proved. Bogaards thereafter sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, contending that the escapees were not ‘offenders’ or ‘prisoners’ as defined in the Correctional Services Act because they were not detained pursuant to valid warrants of detention, and that his conviction and sentence infringed his constitutional rights to a fair trial and legality.