The case of S v Baloyi arose from a declaration by the Transvaal High Court that section 3(5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act 133 of 1993 was invalid.
The Constitutional Court was tasked with determining whether this section, which applied the procedures of section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) to breaches of domestic violence interdicts, imposed an unconstitutional reverse onus on the accused.
The dispute involved the Appellant, an army officer, and his wife, the Complainant. After alleging that the Appellant assaulted her, the Complainant approached the police and was advised to obtain a Protection Order under the Act.
The magistrate in Pretoria granted the interdict, prohibiting the Appellant from assaulting the Complainant and their child and preventing them from restricting their movements. As per the Act, the warrant for his arrest was issued but suspended.
Despite the interdict, the Appellant allegedly assaulted the Complainant again and threatened her life. She reported the incident to the police and provided an affidavit detailing the breach.
The Appellant was then arrested and brought before a magistrate for an inquiry into the alleged violation of the interdict. The legal issue before the court was whether or not section 3(5) of the Act violated the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent under section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution, as it placed the burden on the accused to prove that they had not wilfully breached the interdict.
The principle of reverse onus requires an accused person to disprove an element of the offence rather than obligating the state to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
This can create a risk of convicting an accused despite the existence of reasonable doubt, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence guaranteed by section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution.
The Appellant, Baloyi, argued that section 3(5) imposed a reverse onus by requiring him to prove that he had not wilfully violated the interdict. He contended that this violated his constitutional rights, particularly the right to a fair trial, by shifting the burden of proof away from the state.
The Transvaal High Court agreed with Baloyi and declared section 3(5) unconstitutional. It reasoned that the provision effectively placed the burden on the accused to prove innocence rather than requiring the state to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Section 3(5) states that the procedures outlined in section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis to enquiries regarding breaches of domestic violence interdicts. Section 170 of the CPA deals with an accused’s failure to appear in court after an adjournment, allowing for conviction unless the accused proves their absence was not due to their own fault. The Constitutional Court had to determine whether this procedural framework, including its reverse onus provision, applied to breaches of domestic violence interdicts.
The first interpretation of section 3(5) incorporated only the procedural aspects of section 170, ensuring that an enquiry into an alleged breach followed a structured legal process. Under this view, the state would still bear the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused would retain the presumption of innocence.
Another possible interpretation was that section 3(5) incorporated all aspects of section 170, including its reverse onus provision. This would mean that once a breach was alleged, the accused would have to prove that they had not acted wilfully in violating the interdict.
Such an interpretation would effectively shift the burden of proof onto the accused, potentially infringing on their constitutional rights.
The third, hybrid interpretation suggested that section 3(5) first required the court to establish a breach beyond a reasonable doubt before shifting the burden onto the accused to show that their actions were not intentional or wilful.
The Constitutional Court favoured the first interpretation, concluding that section 3(5) incorporated only procedural aspects and did not impose a reverse onus. It held that the burden of proof is a matter of substantive law, not procedural law.
Therefore, the accused in a domestic violence interdict breach enquiry retained the presumption of innocence, and the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The term mutatis mutandis appears in section 3(5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act, which was central to the court’s interpretation in the case.
This legal phrase means “with the necessary changes” or “with the respective differences considered.” In legal contexts, it signifies that while a provision or principle from one situation applies to another, it does so with the necessary adjustments.
In S v Baloyi, the Constitutional Court had to determine how section 170 of the CPA should be applied to inquiries concerning breaches of domestic violence interdicts. The court assessed which aspects of section 170 were procedural and could be applied mutatis mutandis and which were substantive and thus inapplicable.
The court ultimately concluded that only the procedural aspects of section 170 applied, with necessary modifications to fit the domestic violence context. The reverse onus was deemed a matter of substantive law and was not incorporated.
The court emphasised that fairness to Complainants required a summary process without unnecessary procedural delays, while fairness to the accused ensured that general protections under the CPA applied. The mutatis mutandis application had to strike a balance, preserving the efficiency of domestic violence protections and constitutional trial rights.
The Constitutional Court declared that section 3(5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act did not impose a reverse onus and was, therefore, constitutional. The judgment reinforced the state’s responsibility to combat domestic violence while ensuring that accused persons retain their fair trial rights.
The Court acknowledged the severe impact of domestic violence on individuals, families, and society. Domestic violence threatens family stability, contributes to gender-based violence, and reinforces societal inequality.
It is a leading cause of physical and psychological harm, particularly for women and children, and has significant economic and social costs. The judgment emphasised that domestic violence is a violation of constitutional rights, including dignity, equality, and security of the person.
By clarifying the procedural application of section 3(5), the Court sought to balance the protection of domestic violence survivors with the fundamental rights of accused individuals, ensuring that justice is both fair and effective.
The ruling in S v Baloyi reaffirmed the constitutional principles of fairness, justice, and protection of fundamental rights. It underscored the judiciary’s role in ensuring that laws designed to protect victims of domestic violence do not inadvertently infringe on the rights of accused persons.
The decision highlights the need for robust and constitutionally sound legal mechanisms to address domestic violence while safeguarding fair trial guarantees, ultimately strengthening South Africa’s commitment to justice and human rights.
© 2025 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
