S v Price (CCT23/01) [2001] ZACC 1; 2001 (11) BCLR 1193 (4 September 2001)

65 Reportability
Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Right to silence — Appeal against conviction — Applicant contended that the trial judge improperly considered his silence as an adverse inference, infringing his constitutional right to silence under section 35(1)(a) — Court assumed, for argument's sake, that such inference was impermissible but found the evidence of guilt overwhelmingly compelling, rendering the constitutional issue moot — Special leave to appeal refused.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2001
>>
[2001] ZACC 1
|

|

S v Price (CCT23/01) [2001] ZACC 1; 2001 (11) BCLR 1193 (4 September 2001)

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT
23/01
DAVID ASHLEY PRICE Applicant
versus
THE
STATE Respondent
Decided on : 4 September
2001
JUDGMENT
YACOOB J:
[1]
The applicant seeks special
leave to appeal against his conviction by the South Eastern Cape High Court on
two counts of fraud. The
High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal refused
leave to appeal. The only constitutional issue of potential substance is said
to arise from the approach of the judge to the applicant’s evidence that
his decision not to provide certain information to
the police was an exercise of
his right to silence in terms of section 35(1)(a) of the Constitution. The
judge found that evidence
unacceptable in the circumstances of the case. The
applicant contends that this approach offends against his right to
silence.
[2]
It is, however, not
necessary to decide the question. If it is assumed in favour of the applicant
that it was not permissible to
draw any adverse inference against him from his
silence and this aspect is excluded from consideration altogether, the evidence
of
the applicant’s guilt is so compelling that there is no prospect that
the applicant’s convictions will be set aside on
appeal. In the
circumstances no purpose would be served by considering the validity of the
constitutional issue that is said to
arise. Special leave to appeal is
accordingly refused.
Chaskalson P, Langa
DP, Ackermann J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Du
Plessis AJ and Skweyiya AJ concur
in the judgment of Yacoob J.