S v Baloyi (Minister of Justice and Another Intervening) (1999)

In this case, the Constitutional Court faced the complex task of finding the balance between the state’s duty to provide effective remedies against domestic violence, and its obligation to respect the constitutional rights to a fair trial of those accused of committing domestic violence.

The case involved an army officer who was convicted for breaching an interdict issued by a magistrate ordering him not to assault his wife or prevent her or their child from leaving their home. The officer appealed to the Transvaal High Court, which declared that Section 3 (5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it placed the burden on him to disprove his guilt. The High Court interpreted section 3(5) to impose such onus because it invoked the procedure of section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which required accused persons who failed to appear after an adjournment to prove that their absence had not been wilful.

However, the Constitutional Court overturned the High Court’s judgment. The Court found that the purpose of an interdict was to protect the victim of domestic violence and indicate that society would not stand by in the face of spousal abuse. The Court noted that domestic violence was hidden and repetitive in character and had an immeasurable ripple effect in society. It transgressed a constitutionally guaranteed right to be free from violence from either public or private sources.

The Court also acknowledged that a person charged at an enquiry with an offence carrying possible imprisonment for twelve months had to be considered an accused person. Such person was accordingly entitled to be presumed innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt2. The Court decided that when faced with different possible interpretations of section 3(5), it should prefer the one which best balanced these competing constitutional concerns.

In conclusion, the Constitutional Court managed to strike a balance between the state’s constitutional duty to provide effective remedies against domestic violence, and its simultaneous obligation to respect the constitutional rights to a fair trial of those who might be affected by the measures taken. This case serves as a significant precedent in the legal discourse around domestic violence and the rights of the accused in South Africa.

For further information relating to this matter, please visit the Constitutional Court's repository of court cases and documentation.