Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:07:07Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:07:07Z
dc.date.created 2006-09-11 en
dc.identifier.citation [2007] ZACC 3
dc.identifier.citation 2007 (5) BCLR 474 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2007 (2) SACR 28 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2007 (4) SA 611 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3075
dc.title S v Shinga (Society of Advocates (Pietermaritzburg) as Amicus Curiae); S v O'Connell and Others en
dc.title.alternative CCT56/06 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT56/06 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT80/06
dc.contributor.judge Yacoob J
dc.date.judgment 8 March 2007
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3075/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28244%20Kb%29-11074.pdf?sequence=11&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Confirmation proceedings, in two cases, regarding the constitutionality of s.309(3A), s.309C(4)(c) and s.309C(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act governing the rights of people convicted in the Magistrates' Court to appeal to the High Court against their convictions or sentences. S v Shinga: s.309(3A) provided for an appeal to be disposed of in chambers without oral argument. The Court confirmed the finding that this provision was inconsistent with the right of an accused person to a fair trial as appeals are to be held in open court. s.309C(4)(c) provided that the record was only to be forwarded to the High Court in limited circumstances. This provision was held to be inconsistent with the right to a fair trial. The record is now required in all matters. The finding in S v O' Connell that s. 309C(5)(a) was invalid to the extent that it requires only one judge to consider an application for leave to appeal, was confirmed. Two judges are now required. Yacoob J wrote for the Court.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account