SemantisAI Reportable Judgments > Schoeman v Director of Public Prosecutions (972/2023) [2025] ZASCA 124 (3 September 2025)

Schoeman v Director of Public Prosecutions (972/2023) [2025] ZASCA 124 (3 September 2025)

REPORTABILITY SCORE: 80/100 Execution — Superior Courts Act — Interpretation of s 17(2)(f) — Appellant sought reconsideration of refusal of leave to appeal against convictions and sentences for possession of illegal firearms and drugs — President of the Supreme Court of Appeal referred the matter for reconsideration, asserting exceptional circumstances existed — Legal issue centered on whether the determination of exceptional circumstances is within the President's discretion or the Court's — Court held that the President has the exclusive power to determine exceptional circumstances, and the previous interpretation in Bidvest was incorrect — Appellant's convictions on counts 1-3 were overturned, while convictions on counts 4-8 were upheld, with sentences on counts 4, 6, and 7 reduced to eight years’ imprisonment, all to run concurrently.

Sept. 4, 2025 Criminal Law
Schoeman v Director of Public Prosecutions (972/2023) [2025] ZASCA 124 (3 September 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Schoeman v Director of Public Prosecutions
Citation: (972/2023) [2025] ZASCA 124
Date: 3 September 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications regarding the interpretation of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The judgment clarifies the discretionary power of the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal to refer a refusal of leave to appeal for reconsideration, establishing the criteria for determining whether exceptional circumstances exist. This ruling is crucial for future cases involving similar legal questions, as it addresses the balance of powers between the judiciary and the executive in the context of appellate procedures.

Cases Cited

  • Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd v Mabena [2025] ZASCA 23; 2025 (3) SA 362 (SCA)
  • Motsoeneng v South African Broadcasting Corporation [2024] ZASCA 80; 2025 (4) SA 122 (SCA)
  • Avnit v First Rand Bank Ltd (2014) ZASCA 132; 2014 JDR 2014 (SCA)
  • S v Liesching [2016] ZACC 41; 2017 (2) SACR 193 (CC); 2017 (4) BCLR 454 (CC)
  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa [2022] ZACC 31; 2023 (2) SA 1 (CC)
  • S v Adams 1986 (4) SA 882 (A)
  • S v Mbuli 2003 (1) SACR 97 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

  • Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
  • Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000
  • Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
  • Explosives Act 15 of 2003
  • Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992

Rules of Court Cited

  • None specified in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeal addressed the interpretation of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, focusing on the President's discretion to refer a refusal of leave to appeal for reconsideration. The court found that the determination of exceptional circumstances lies solely within the President's discretion, rejecting the previous interpretation that required judicial validation. The court ultimately granted leave to appeal, modified certain convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant on several counts.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include: - The interpretation of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. - The nature of the inquiry regarding the President's discretion to refer a matter for reconsideration. - The application of the minimum sentencing regime in relation to the charges against the appellant.

Held

The court held that: 1. Exceptional circumstances exist for the referral of the case. 2. The previous decision denying leave to appeal was set aside. 3. The appeal against convictions on counts 5 and 8 was dismissed, while the appeal against sentences on counts 4, 6, and 7 was upheld. 4. The appellant was acquitted on counts 1, 2, and 3, and new sentences were imposed.

THE FACTS

The appellant, Jonathan Reagan Schoeman, was charged with unlawful possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and drugs. The charges were linked to events from 2019 to 2020, including serious crimes such as murder and conspiracy. The high court acquitted Schoeman on the more serious charges but convicted him on counts related to possession. He was sentenced to a total of eighteen years' imprisonment, which he appealed. The high court's refusal to grant leave to appeal was subsequently referred for reconsideration under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal had the discretion to determine the existence of exceptional circumstances for the referral of the case. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriateness of the sentences imposed on the appellant and whether the minimum sentencing regime was correctly applied.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the interpretation of section 17(2)(f) and concluded that the determination of exceptional circumstances is a matter solely for the President's discretion. The court criticized the previous interpretation in Bidvest, which required judicial validation of the President's decision, arguing that it undermined the legislative intent and created unnecessary procedural hurdles. The court emphasized the importance of respecting the separation of powers and the President's role in the appellate process.

REMEDY

The court granted the appellant leave to appeal, set aside the previous decision denying leave, and modified the sentences imposed on counts 4, 6, and 7. The appellant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on each of these counts, with all sentences running concurrently, resulting in an effective term of eight years' imprisonment. Additionally, the appellant was declared unfit to possess a firearm.