Synopsis:
Application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) denied. Applicant alleged that the SCA decision infringed his rights under sections 35(3)(h) of the Constitution. The accused's rights to be presumed innocent, to remain silent and not to testify found not to have been infringed by the SCA when it found that the accused's failure to testify contributed to a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Primary question: what constitutes a "constitutional matter" under section 167(3)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 20(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court? The applicant also alleged that his section 12(1)(a) right had been infringed. Langa DP found that the accused had been duly convicted of theft and that his imprisonment could therefore not have been "without just cause". Circumstances in which appeal from SCA in criminal matter would be appropriate outlined.
