Case Summary: Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local
Division (2007 (3) SA 210 (CC))
Court Details
Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa
Case No: CT19/05
Judgment Date: 5 December 2005
Judges: Mokgoro J (majority), O’Regan J and Ngcobo J (minority concurring), Langa CJ,
Moseneke DCJ, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J
Background
Applicant: Donald Veldman
Charges: Murder, kidnapping, assault, unlawful possession of ammunition
Sentence: 15 years for murder (total 22 years)
Issue: At the time of the offence and plea, the regional court’s penal jurisdiction was 10 years.
Before sentencing, legislation increased it to 15 years.
Legal Issues
1. Was the sentence imposed under the Minimum Sentences Act or the amended Magistrates’
Courts Act?
2. Did the retrospective application of increased penal jurisdiction violate the applicant’s
constitutional right to a fair trial under section 35(3)(n)?
Key Findings
1. Application of Law
The trial court did not explicitly apply either the Minimum Sentences Act or the amended
Magistrates’ Courts Act.
No reference to “substantial and compelling circumstances” (required under the Minimum
Sentences Act).
The Court inferred that the sentence was imposed under the increased jurisdiction of the
Magistrates’ Courts Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 35(3)(n)
This section protects against retrospective application of “prescribed punishment.”
The increased penal jurisdiction is discretionary, not a prescribed punishment.
Therefore, section 35(3)(n) does not apply directly.
3. General Right to a Fair Trial
The retrospective application of increased sentencing powers during an ongoing trial
undermines the rule of law.
It creates uncertainty and unfairness, violating the broader right to a fair trial under section
35(3).
Division (2007 (3) SA 210 (CC))
Court Details
Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa
Case No: CT19/05
Judgment Date: 5 December 2005
Judges: Mokgoro J (majority), O’Regan J and Ngcobo J (minority concurring), Langa CJ,
Moseneke DCJ, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J
Background
Applicant: Donald Veldman
Charges: Murder, kidnapping, assault, unlawful possession of ammunition
Sentence: 15 years for murder (total 22 years)
Issue: At the time of the offence and plea, the regional court’s penal jurisdiction was 10 years.
Before sentencing, legislation increased it to 15 years.
Legal Issues
1. Was the sentence imposed under the Minimum Sentences Act or the amended Magistrates’
Courts Act?
2. Did the retrospective application of increased penal jurisdiction violate the applicant’s
constitutional right to a fair trial under section 35(3)(n)?
Key Findings
1. Application of Law
The trial court did not explicitly apply either the Minimum Sentences Act or the amended
Magistrates’ Courts Act.
No reference to “substantial and compelling circumstances” (required under the Minimum
Sentences Act).
The Court inferred that the sentence was imposed under the increased jurisdiction of the
Magistrates’ Courts Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 35(3)(n)
This section protects against retrospective application of “prescribed punishment.”
The increased penal jurisdiction is discretionary, not a prescribed punishment.
Therefore, section 35(3)(n) does not apply directly.
3. General Right to a Fair Trial
The retrospective application of increased sentencing powers during an ongoing trial
undermines the rule of law.
It creates uncertainty and unfairness, violating the broader right to a fair trial under section
35(3).
