S v Mhlungu

S v Mhlungu established that the fair trial rights in the interim Constitution's Bill of Rights apply retrospectively to all pending trials and appeals, not only to offences committed after the Constitution came into force. The Constitutional Court held that constitutional protections must benefit all accused persons still before the courts, overruling earlier restrictive interpretations and giving full effect to the presumption of innocence and right to silence.

The accused were charged with offences committed before the interim Constitution came into operation on 27 April 1994. Their trials and appeals were pending or ongoing after that date. The question arose whether they could invoke fair trial protections in the Bill of Rights, particularly the presumption of innocence and privilege against self-incrimination, despite the offences having been committed under the previous legal order.

Whether the fair trial rights in Chapter 3 of the interim Constitution apply to prosecutions for offences committed before the Constitution came into force.

The Constitutional Court held that the fair trial rights in the Bill of Rights apply to all pending criminal proceedings, regardless of when the offence was committed. The Court adopted a generous, purposive interpretation of constitutional rights, emphasizing that procedural protections attach to the trial process itself, not to the date of the offence.

Constitutional fair trial rights apply retrospectively to benefit all accused persons whose trials or appeals are pending after the Constitution's commencement, because these are procedural protections inherent in the right to a fair trial rather than substantive criminal prohibitions.

The Court reasoned that fair trial guarantees are procedural rather than substantive, designed to ensure justice in the adjudicative process itself. Applying them retrospectively does not unfairly prejudice the state or violate rule-of-law principles against retrospective criminal liability. A purposive interpretation of the Constitution requires that its protections extend to all persons still engaged with the criminal justice system, giving immediate effect to fundamental human rights.

The Court discussed the interpretive approach to the Bill of Rights, endorsing a generous, purposive methodology that favors the protection of human dignity and fundamental rights over narrow, literalist readings.

This landmark decision is foundational to South African constitutional criminal procedure, establishing the principle of generous interpretation of Bill of Rights protections and ensuring immediate, broad application of fair trial rights. It is essential study for understanding the Constitutional Court's approach to rights interpretation and the relationship between constitutional and common-law criminal procedure.

S v Mhlungu 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC) [1995] ZACC 4