Explore 3 related cases • Click to navigate
The Court disagrees with and overrules the majority in Schoeman's holding that the court must determine whether exceptional circumstances exist as a threshold…
Court considers the presumption against retrospective application of legislation in support of AMCU's contention, but ultimately distinguishes it as applying…
Cited for the principle that confirmation proceedings are not routine and that this Court must evaluate the provision thoroughly even if proceedings are not…
Applied the principle that in certain cases a court may be unable to rely solely upon the evidence of a single witness, whether the witness is an adult or a…
Applied for the proposition that in confirmation proceedings, this Court must conduct its own evaluation and satisfy itself that the impugned provision does…
Applied to determine the correct approach where a magistrate's sentencing reasons are not available on record, holding that the appellate court must consider…
Cited for the definition of mandamus as an order directing a party to do or refrain from doing something.
Applied for the principle that the Constitutional Court must make its own determination of constitutional validity even when parties do not oppose relief.
Court applies the principle that although the respondents abide the decision, this Court is obliged to consider the constitutionality of the section to assess…
This court held that it had no jurisdiction to determine an appeal against a sentence imposed by a high court sitting as a court of appeal, because s 316B(1)…
This court followed Olivier, holding that the State's right to appeal against sentence is limited to cases where trial took place in the high court as a court…
Cited to support the three-phase structure of extradition proceedings for foreign States.
Cited for the principle that the right to freedom of expression may be limited by a law of general application that complies with section 36 of the…
Court applies the principle governing appellate interference with sentencing discretion.
Considered for the proposition that appellants should not have their position worsened without notice, and that notice facilitates informed exercise of the…
Referenced in the context of determining whether the matter should be referred back to the trial judge for reconsideration.
Cited for the description of the limitation process as a proportionality analysis.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (majority judgment by Unterhalter JA) declared that exceptional circumstances existed under s 17(2)(f), set aside the 30 August…
This Court held that in deciding whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal, relevant factors include the importance of the issue and…
Cited as authority that trial courts must take into account time spent in custody awaiting trial.
Cited for the importance of the right to freedom of expression, which is integral to democracy, human development and human life itself, and to be zealously…
Cited for the proposition that the word offence embraces both the facts which constitute the crime and the legal characteristics which make it an offence.
Court disapproved of the minority approach in this case which held that exceptional circumstances is not a jurisdictional fact for reconsideration applications…
This case was the basis on which the full court of the Witwatersrand Local Division found that the sentencing court should have obtained further evidence…
Cited to support that the public must be the general public, not a special class of members, and use must be more than casual or isolated.
Cited for the principle that the court has power to review a decision by the DPP not to prosecute, but that the power is to be sparingly exercised.
The court applies the principle from Rammoko that life imprisonment is the heaviest sentence and an accused must not be subjected to the risk that substantial…
Cited that even in the absence of state evidence or argument, the Court is not exempted from the obligation to conduct a justification analysis.
Cited for the proposition that during the sentencing phase, formalism takes a back seat and a more inquisitorial approach aimed at collating all relevant…
Cited for the golden thread of the presumption of innocence in criminal trials.
Cited for the principle that freedom of expression is subject to justifiable limitation under section 36 of the Constitution.
Cited in support of the principle from R v Turner regarding the accused's ultimate choice in pleading guilty.
Discussed comparatively to illustrate safeguards from Lord Pearce's dissenting judgment regarding the admission of hearsay under common law in Canadian and…
This case is cited regarding the justification analysis under section 36.
Cited for the proposition that the presiding officer bears the responsibility of satisfying himself regarding substantial and compelling circumstances and…
Cited for the end of the creation of new exceptions to the hearsay rule by courts.
Court applies reasoning from this case to clarify the right of the DPP to appeal against sentences imposed by lower and superior courts.
Cited for the principle that courts must be satisfied that limitations on rights are not justified.
Applied for the principle that the accused cannot be compelled to give evidence but must risk the consequences if he does not do so, and for the principle that…
Cited for the holding that this court only has jurisdiction to deal with an appeal against sentence brought by the state under s 316B of the CPA where the high…
Cited to define 'the state' as denoting the organs of government of a national community in a legal context.
Cited for the principle that every judgment must account for the systemic consequences of its decision.
Cited for guidance on the use of cross-headings in statutory interpretation.
A minority judgment in this Court declined to follow Motsoeneng and Bidvest as it questioned their correctness.
Court cited this case to illustrate the golden thread running through criminal law requiring the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cited as authority from Mauritius recognising scandalising the court as a form of contempt of court.
Cited for the centuries-old principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This judgment is considering confirmation of the High Court order which declared subsections (1) to (5) of section 1 of Act 105 of 1997 to be inconsistent with…
This judgment is deciding confirmation of the High Court order which declared subsections (1) to (5) of section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997…
The Court applies the principle that even in unopposed confirmation proceedings this Court must itself be satisfied that the impugned provisions are…
Cited as example of this Court extending the period of time within which a report required by it had to be filed.