| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:26:04Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:26:04Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2016-08-08 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2017] ZACC 27 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2017 (2) SACR 535 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2017 (11) BCLR 1357 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3868 | |
| dc.title | Barlow v S | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT233/15 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT233/15 | en |
| dc.date.hearing | 7 March 2017 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Froneman J Majority judgment | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Zondo J separate judgment | |
| dc.date.judgment | 3 August 2017 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3868/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%203%20August%202017.pdf?sequence=31&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Application for leave to appeal — no prospects of success — not in the interests of justice to grant leave — application is dismissed Section 35(3)(a) of the Constitution — right to be informed of charge with sufficient detail to answer to it — inadvertent omission — detail given in the course of judgment —no violation Section 35(3)(o) — right to appeal — no express consideration — no reason to interfere with factual finding of trial Court — no violation | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Johannesburg High Court: Barlow v S (A365/2012) [2015] ZAGPJHC 318 (30 January 2015) |