scholarly journals ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT: THE SCA BRINGS CLARITY Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto 2011 1 SACR 315 (SCA); [2011] 2 All SA 157 (SCA)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter du Toit
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Charles V ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Peace Officer ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Section 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for a number of different instances where a peace officer may effect an arrest without an arrest warrant. A perusal of the reported case law pertaining to the lawfulness of arrests without warrant reveals that section 40(1)(b) of the Act, in particular, has received much attention from the courts. In terms of this subsection a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects of having committed an offence referred to in Schedule 1, other than the offence of escaping from lawful custody. It is settled law that any deprivation of freedom is regarded as prima facie unlawful. The arrestor therefore bears the onus of proving that the arrest was justified. The following jurisdictional facts must be present for a peace officer to rely on the defence created by section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act in cases, where it is alleged that the arrest was unlawful: (i) the arrestor must be a peace officer; (ii) the arrestor must entertain a suspicion; (iii) the suspicion must be that the suspect committed an offence in Schedule 1; and (iv) the suspicion must rest on reasonable grounds. For a discussion of the differenttypes of jurisdictional facts provided for in section 40(1) see Watney. In Louw v Minister of Safety and Security Bertelsman J held, with reference to the right to personal liberty, that arresting officers are under a constitutional obligation to consider whether there are no less invasive options to bring the suspect to court than the drastic measure of arrest, thereby effectively requiring a further jurisdictional fact for successful reliance by a peace officer on the provisions of section 40(1). If a reasonable apprehension exists that the suspect will abscond, or fail to appear in court if a warrant is first obtained for his or her arrest, or awritten notice or summons to appear in court is obtained, then the arrest would be constitutionally untenable and unlawful. Bertelsman J relied on academic opinion and an obiter remark made by De Vos J in Ralekwa v Minister of Safety and Security and held that the approach in Tsose v Minister of Justice that there is no rule that requires the milder method of bringing a person to court if it would be as effective as arrest, could no longer be acceptable in a constitutional dispensation. This approach was followed in a number of reported High Court judgments but not approved of in Charles v Minister of Safety and Security. In Minister of Safety and Security v Van Niekerk the Constitutional Court found it not to be in the interests of justice on the facts of the case before it to pronounce on the constitutional tenability of the approach in Tsose, but nevertheless held that the constitutionality of an arrest will be dependent upon its factual circumstances. Watney succinctly discusses some of the abovementioned developments. However, on 19 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto (2011 1 SACR 315 (SCA), also reported in [2011] 2 All SA 157 (SCA)) held that the approach of the different high courts requiring a further jurisdictional fact for the lawfulness of an arrest did nothave proper regard for the principles in terms of which statutes must be interpreted in the light of the Bill of Rights and that they have conflated the issue of jurisdictional facts with the issue of discretion. This lucid judgment brings clarity to the issue of the lawfulness of arrests without warrant. 

Quantification of damages for unlawful arrest and detention: South Africa, Namibia and Eswatini/Swaziland (2)

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 617-645
Author(s):  
Chuks Okpaluba
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Development ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Present Part ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The discussion of the South African case law on the quantification of damages arising from wrongful arrest and detention which commenced in part (1) of this series, continues in the present part. In part (1), the Constitutional Court judgment in Zealand v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2008 (4) SA 458 (CC) which emphasised the respect and reverence for the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, and De Klerk v Minister of Police 2018 (2) SACR 28 (SCA) as well as the recent Constitutional Court judgment in the same case – De Klerk v Minister of Police 2020 (1) SACR 1 (CC); [2019] ZACC 32 (22 August 2019) – were among a host of important cases discussed. The Supreme Court of Appeal cases on quantification of damages for wrongful arrest and detention also discussed include: Mashilo v Prinsloo 2013 (2) SACR 648 (SCA); Minister of Police v Zweni (842/2017) [2018] ZASCA 97 (1 June 2018); Minister of Safety and Security v Magagula (991/2016) [2017] ZASCA 103 (6 September 2017). The first section of this part continues with the discussion of the other instances not involving failure to take the detainee to court within 48 hours or consequences of the accused person’s first appearance in court whereby Hendricks v Minister of Safety and Security (CA&R/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 61 (4 June 2015); Mrasi v Minister of Safety and Security 2015 (2) SACR 28 (ECG); and Ramphal v Minister of Safety and Security 2009 (1) SACR 211 (E) are among the cases discussed. The second limb of the discussion in this part concerns the issue of wrongful arrest and detention under the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 where the law has developed side by side with the traditional law of wrongful arrest and police negligence as illustrated by the case of Naidoo v Minister of Police 2016 (1) SACR 468 (SCA).

scholarly journals SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROSECUTOR'S PARTICIPATION IN REHABILITATION (IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 747-752
Author(s):  
A.I. Shmarev
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The author of the article, based on the analysis of statistical indicators of the Prosecutor's office for 2018-2019 and examples of judicial practice, including the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, examines the problematic issues of implementing the right to rehabilitation of persons unlawfully and unreasonably subjected to criminal prosecution, and the participation of the Prosecutor in this process. According to the author, the ambiguous judicial practice of considering issues related to the rehabilitation of this category of citizens requires additional generalization and analysis in order to make appropriate changes to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 of 29.11.2011 "On the practice of applying the norms of Chapter 18 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regulating rehabilitation in criminal proceedings". The examples given in the article of cancellation of lower-level court decisions were based on complaints of persons who independently sought to restore their rights, and not on the representations of the prosecutors involved in them, who were called upon to ensure the possibility of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms at the court session. The adoption of organizational measures, including those proposed by the author, in the system of the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation will increase the role of the Prosecutor in protecting the rights of illegally and unreasonably prosecuted persons.

On the possibility of appeals in the appeal procedure of decisions of investigating judges according to the results of the consideration of the complaint on the inaction of the investigator and prosecutor, which lies in the failure to enter information about criminal offense into unified register of pre-trial investigations, which were determined before June 17, 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-170
Author(s):  
Iryna Basysta
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Decisions ◽  
Appeal Procedure

Purpose. The publication is an attempt of the author to present the scientific community with the existing approaches and objective problems of appealing the decisions of investigating judges on the results of the complaint on the inaction of the investigator and prosecutor, which lies in the failure to enter information about a criminal offense to Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, which were determined before June 17, 2020. Methodology. Analysis and synthesis of scientific achievements of a number of researchers and available precedents, study of the state of regulatory support, formation of author’s conclusions. Structured system method, analysis and synthesis, functional, and other methods have been used in carrying out this scientific research. Results. In the course of writing this article, arguments have been put forward to support the conclusions below. 1. Since one of the constitutional principles of judicial proceedings, in accordance with the requirements of article 129, paragraph 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, is to ensure the right to an appellate review of the case, and the right to appeal against procedural decisions, acts or omissions as the basis of criminal proceedings guarantees everyone the right to appeal against procedural decisions, acts or omissions of a court, investigating judge, prosecutor or investigator in a manner regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (article 24, paragraph 1 of the CCP of Ukraine), all criminal proceedings participants authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure are entitled to exercise their constitutional and procedural right to appeal against decisions, acts or omissions of authorized entities, among other things through appeal procedure if there are grounds for doing so. 2. However, the procedure for appealing procedural decisions, acts or omissions of individual entities should be divided into two conventional blocks, namely, those procedural decisions, acts or omissions that take place during the preliminary investigation and those, which are common in the judicial stages. The appeals against decisions, acts or omissions during pre-trial investigations are regulated by chapter 26 of the CCP of Ukraine, which unites three different appeal procedures with their own procedural features, solutions and different constituents within its structure. In this chapter, among other things, the legislature also sets limits on appeals against certain procedural decisions, some of which are express prohibitions. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine has already declared some of these prohibitions unconstitutional. This unconstitutional bun on appeal decisions in pre-trial investigations cease to have effect, in accordance with article 152, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Ukraine, from the date of the adoption of the relevant decision by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, unless otherwise indicated in the decision itself. 3. It is logical, that on common grounds from the day when the Constitutional Court of Ukraine adopted its decision 4-r (II) /2020, that is, from June 17, 2020, on the following issue: «... prohibition of appeal against the decision of the investigating judge following consideration of a complaint of inaction on the part of the investigator, the prosecutor, which consists in failing to report a criminal offence to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations after receiving the complaint, criminal offence reports», criminal proceedings participants authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure have the right to appeal the decisions of the investigating judge on the basis of the outcome of the examination of the complaint of inaction by the investigator, prosecutor, which consists of failing to report a criminal offence to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations upon receipt of the complaint, criminal offence reports. 4. Court of Appeal while adopting its procedural decision on the basis of an appeal of a criminal proceedings participant authorized by the CCP of Ukraine regarding his disagreement with the investigating judge’s decision on the results of resolving the complaint, including the inaction of the investigator or prosecutor, which consists of failing to report a criminal offence to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations upon receipt of a complaint, a criminal offence report, must be based on the current regulations on criminal procedure and must justify its decision in accordance with the provisions of the CCP, applicable at the time of the adoption of the decision (article 5, paragraph 1, of the CCP of Ukraine). Scientific novelty. There are some differences in the legal positions of the various judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court on the application of the provisions of article 307, paragraph 3 of the CCP of Ukraine when reviewing through the cassation procedure decisions of the appellate court refusing to open proceedings through the appeal procedure against decisions of the investigating judges made regarding a complaint about the inaction of the investigator, prosecutor, which lies in the failure to report a criminal offence in Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations after the receipt of the complaint, the reported criminal offence. Today, there is a decision of the joint chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court in case 133/3337/19, which has also been controversial among legal practitioners, thus I will try to share my own thoughts on this issue. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in law enforcement activities during investigation of criminal offenses.

scholarly journals Judicial legal positions in the context of conflicts related to the formation of the procedural status of persons against whom acts of criminal prosecution are actually implemented

2019 ◽  
pp. 114-119
Author(s):  
Sergey Grachev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article considers the grounds for the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in a criminal case. The rights and obligations of the specified person, including the right to protection are analyzed. Subject to the requirements of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the conclusion about the necessity of legislative consolidation of the procedural status of the person whose rights and lawful interests are affected carried out in relation to proceedings for verification of a crime report in accordance with article 144 of the Criminal procedure code and equating it to the status of a suspect, since during the pre-investigation check he has the right to protection from the criminal prosecution actually carried out against him.

The Right to Housing: Challenges Associated with the ‘Waiting List System’ Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality V Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 3 SA 23 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-121
Author(s):  
Shamier Ebrahim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
The State ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The right to adequate housing is a constitutional imperative which is contained in section 26 of the Constitution. The state is tasked with the progressive realisation of this right. The allocation of housing has been plagued with challenges which impact negatively on the allocation process. This note analyses Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 51 which dealt with a situation where one of the main reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Appeal for refusing the eviction order was because the appellants subjected the unlawful occupiers to defective waiting lists and failed to engage with the community regarding the compilation of the lists and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries. This case brings to the fore the importance of a coherent (reasonable) waiting list in eviction proceedings. This note further analyses the impact of the waiting list system in eviction proceedings and makes recommendations regarding what would constitute a coherent (reasonable) waiting list for the purpose of section 26(2) of the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade and the History of Abortion Regulation

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Benjamin Linton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that “[the] right of privacy … founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty … is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The Court acknowledged that “[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” Nevertheless, the Court held that a “right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” However, “only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ … are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.”

Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution: Could it include ‘Right to Sanitation’?

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 291-296
Author(s):  
Anil Kumar Mohapatra
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Safe Drinking Water ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Sanitation Facility ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Long before India gained independence, M.K. Gandhi remarked that the availability of Sanitation facility is more important than gaining Independence for an Indian. Of late, it is now increasingly felt and realized in India that facilities like toilet, safe drinking water, accompanied by good hygienic conditions are fundamental necessities of a person. These are prerequisites of social and economic justice and genuine development. The Supreme Court of India in one judgement held that Right to life and personal liberty, should include right to privacy and human dignity etc. Despite that it has been an admitted shame that India still has the largest number of people defecating in open in the world. There are reported incidences of rape and murder of women in many places in India as women rely on open field for attending to the call of nature in morning and evening. The attempts like Community toi-let system, pay-and-use toilet system and schemes like ‘Mo Swabhiman -Mo Paikhana’ have been found to be less effective. In this connection the ‘Clean India Mission’ campaign launched by the Government of India in 2014 has been regarded as a right approach in that direction. Government of the day is actively considering the demand to convert the Right to Sanitation from a developmental right to a fundamental right. It would make the state more accountable and responsible. Against this background, the paper argues that spending huge money on that would yield good dividend in future for the country.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

scholarly journals Primary law in medicine, its legal nature

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 01002
Author(s):  
K. Zarins
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Economic Opportunities ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

Thework will discuss the problems arising from the thesis that the economic opportunities are incompatible with the person's primary law - the right to life and equality of treatment. An actively maintained hypothesis claims that the country's economic opportunities and funding should not restrict or reduce a person's right to life and health. In this aspect, it will also study the role of the constitutional court. The author points to the fact that the adoption of such, here the Supreme Court decision, successive constitutional court for a preliminary inaccurate claim and interpretation of the country's economic interests, could deny the right of people to life only after the consideration that they are of no use and financially expensive to be maintained.

scholarly journals Legality and Validity of Property Seizure in the Investigation of a Criminal Case

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
O. A. Malysheva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The importance of the measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure of property increases against the background of the high amount of damage caused by crimes, namely about 550 billion rubles annually. This measure of procedural coercion has a high security potential in order not only to satisfy claims in civil lawsuits, but also to recover a fine and other property claims provided for in Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Investigators (interrogators) annually initiate the seizure of property about 40 thousand times. 90% of cases are a success. The application of this measure is accompanied by the restriction of the property rights of both natural and legal persons, including those who are not recognized as a civil defendant in a criminal case, in the first case, and the accused (suspect).The seizure of property in criminal procedure practice is accompanied by the need for the investigator to overcome a number of difficulties, which are caused, firstly, by the intersectoral nature of the regulation of this legal institution; secondly, by the presence of gaps in the regulation of relations arising in connection with the imposition of this arrest; thirdly, by the inconsistency of the objectives of proof to establish the nature and amount of damage caused by a crime and the implementation of security activities in a criminal case. This gives rise to numerous violations of the legality and validity of the seizure of property on the part of not only the investigator, but also the court, despite the expression of a number of positions of the ECHR on this issue, despite the explanations of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.The author concludes that without the release of the investigator as a subject of proof in a criminal case from performing an unusual function — providing compensation for property penalties in a criminal case — it is impossible to achieve the full legality and validity of the seizure of property.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document