Broodryk and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (69585/11) [2013] ZAGPPHC 280; 2014 (1) SACR 471 (GJ) (9 September 2013)

Broodryk and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (69585/11) [2013] ZAGPPHC 280; 2014 (1) SACR 471 (GJ) (9 September 2013)

The court held that section 136(1) of the Correctional Services Act is not inconsistent with section 35(3)(n) of the Constitution. Section 35(3)(n) guarantees the right to benefit from the least severe prescribed punishment only between the time of commission of the offence and sentencing, and does not extend to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 280
Parties
Applicant: K Broodryk; Applicant: RS Sindane; Applicant: HL Botha; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services; Respondent: National Commissioner of Correctional Services; Respondent: Correctional Supervision and Parole Board: Rustenburg Management Area; Respondent: Head of Prison: Lospersfontein Correctional Centre; Respondent: Case Management Committee: Lospersfontein Correctional Centre; Amicus Curiae: Pro-Liberty Constitution Compliance Association
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2013
Case Number
69585/11
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Parole Eligibility, Interpretation of S35 3 N, Correctional Services Act, Constitutional Challenge, Transitional Provisions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Parole Eligibility Interpretation of S35 3 N Correctional Services Act Constitutional Challenge Transitional Provisions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K Broodryk

Applicant

RS Sindane

Applicant

HL Botha

Applicant

Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

National Commissioner of Correctional Services

Respondent

Correctional Supervision and Parole Board: Rustenburg Management Area

Respondent

Head of Prison: Lospersfontein Correctional Centre

Respondent

Case Management Committee: Lospersfontein Correctional Centre

Respondent

Pro-Liberty Constitution Compliance Association

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 136(1) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 is inconsistent with section 35(3)(n) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether offenders sentenced after 1 October 2004 are entitled to parole consideration under the regime applicable at the time of the offence.
  3. 3 Whether the right to benefit from the least severe punishment extends to parole eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 136(1) of the Correctional Services Act is not inconsistent with section 35(3)(n) of the Constitution. Section 35(3)(n) guarantees the right to benefit from the least severe prescribed punishment only between the time of commission of the offence and sentencing, and does not extend to the administration of sentences or parole eligibility. The operative date for determining parole eligibility is the date of sentencing, not the date of the offence. The applicants' reliance on comparative Canadian jurisprudence and the Van Wyk judgment was misplaced, as those authorities do not alter the constitutional interpretation of section 35(3)(n) in the South African...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.