IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CCT 44/13
In the matter of:
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL First Appellant DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Second Appellant
and
NANTOMBI MASINGILI First Respondent SIYABULELA VOLO Second Respondent MZONKE MLINDALAE Third Respondent SITHUMBELE GOVUZA Fourth Respondent
SECOND APPELLANT’S PRACTICE NOTE
___________________________________________________________________
Nature of the proceedings
1. This is an application for the confirmation of an order of constitutional invalidity of the provisions of an Act of Parliament.
2
The issues
2. Whether section 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act violates an accused rights under sections 12(1) and 35(3)(h) of the Constitution, in that the application of the definition of aggravating circumstances has the effect that an accomplice is strictly liable and may be convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Relevant portions of the record
3. Counsel for second appellant is of the opinion that only Volume 6 of the record is necessary for determination of this matter.
Duration of oral argument
4. Oral argument should not require more than one day.
Key authorities to be relied upon in oral argument 5. S v Dhlamini 1974 (1) SA 90 (A)
6. S v Hess and Another (A596/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 251 (22 August 2008) 7. S v Legoa 2003 (1) SACR 13 (SCA)
8. S v Gagu 2006 (1) SACR 547 (SCA) 9. S v Mokela 2012 (1) SACR 431 (SCA)
10. Bertie van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2010 (2) SA 181 (CC)
11. S v Coetzee and Others 1997 (1) SACR 379 (CC) 12. S v Manamela and Others 2000 (1) SACR 414 (CC)
3
Summary of argument
13. Second appellent’s main submission is that no constitutional issue arise as the application of the definition of aggravating circumstances as set out in Section 1(1)(b) of the CPA, does not attach strict liability to an accused who was only an accomplice to robbery, but such an accused is convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances since it is impossible to be so convicted.
14. Second appellant wil further highlight the basis for criminal liability as an accomplice to the crime of robbery.
________________________________
ADV W B TARANTAL
COUNSEL FOR SECOND APPELLANT
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIOS: WESTERN CAPE CAPE TOWN
