About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2000
>>
[2000] ZACC 13
|
|
Saane v Hulme NO and Another (CCT33/00) [2000] ZACC 13; 2000 (4) SA 788 (CC); 2000 (2) SACR 520 (CC) (7 September 2000)
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT 33/00
SUNNYBOY EDWARD
SAANE Appellant
versus
SUSAN R. HULME NO First
Respondent
(Acting-Magistrate)
Johannesburg Magistrates
Court
MINISTER OF JUSTICE Second Respondent
Decided on : 7 September
2000
JUDGMENT
SACHS J:
[1]
The applicant in this matter
is a law student at the University of South Africa who has applied for leave to
appeal directly to this
Court against his conviction and sentence in the
Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court on a charge of corruption. In support of
his application he makes a number of allegations, both of a procedural and
substantive nature, concerning the fairness of the proceedings
against him and
the correctness of the decision.
[2]
It appears that the trial
court sentenced him to two years imprisonment on 27 September 1999, and on 30
September 1999 granted him
leave to appeal to the High Court against his
conviction and sentence. By 6 July 2000, when he made his application to this
Court,
the appeal had not as yet been set down for hearing in the High Court.
One of his complaints was that he had been denied the right
to a speedy
trial.
[3]
At the request of the
President of this Court, the Director of the Constitutional Court made enquiries
to the Clerk of the Magistrates
Court about the lack of progress in establishing
a date for the hearing of the appeal. It appears that the delay occurred in
relation
to the preparation of a corrected copy of the trial record, which ran
to 1296 pages. We are informed that the record has now been
lodged with the
High Court and that a date for the appeal will be
set.
[4]
In the circumstances, the
applicant, who is on bail, will be able to canvass at the hearing of his appeal
in the High Court all the
issues raised in his application to this Court. That
Court, before which the appeal is pending, is the appropriate court to hear
the
appeal, which raises factual as well as legal issues. His application for leave
to appeal directly to this Court is accordingly
refused.
Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann
J, Kriegler J, Goldstone J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Yacoob J and
Madlanga AJ concur
in the judgment of Sachs J.