Centre for Child Law and Others v Media 24 Limited and Others (CCT261/18) [2019] ZACC 46; 2020 (3) BCLR 245 (CC); 2020 (1) SACR 469 (CC); 2020 (4) SA 319 (CC) (4 December 2019)

Centre for Child Law and Others v Media 24 Limited and Others (CCT261/18) [2019] ZACC 46; 2020 (3) BCLR 245 (CC); 2020 (1) SACR 469 (CC); 2020 (4) SA 319 (CC) (4 December 2019)

Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes child victims from identity protection in criminal proceedings and fails to provide ongoing protection after a child turns 18. The differentiation between child accused, witnesses, and victims is arbitrary and unjustifiable, violating the right to equality. The lack of protection for child victims infringes the best interests of the child, dignity, and privacy, and places an unreasonable burden on vulnerable children to seek interdicts against media publication. The limitation of media freedom and open justice by extending identity protection is minimal and justified by the need to protect...

Citation
[2019] ZACC 46
Parties
Applicant: Centre for Child Law; Applicant: KL; Applicant: Childline South Africa; Applicant: National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders; Applicant: Media Monitoring Africa Trust; Respondent: Media 24 Limited; Respondent: Independent Newspapers (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Times Media Group Limited; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2019
Case Number
CCT261/18
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Appeal / Final Judgment and Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity
Outcome
Declaration of constitutional invalidity confirmed; appeal upheld; interim reading-in granted; costs order: each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron
Legal Topics
Identity Protection of Children, Best Interests of the Child, Freedom of Expression Limitation, Open Justice, Equality Before the Law, Restorative Justice
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Identity Protection of Children Best Interests of the Child Freedom of Expression Limitation Open Justice Equality Before the Law +1 more

Case Brief

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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centre for Child Law

Applicant

KL

Applicant

Childline South Africa

Applicant

National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders

Applicant

Media Monitoring Africa Trust

Applicant

Media 24 Limited

Respondent

Independent Newspapers (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Times Media Group Limited

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Appeal / Final Judgment and Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act unconstitutionally exclude child victims from identity protection in criminal proceedings?
  2. 2 Is the limitation of identity protection to persons under 18 years constitutionally valid, or should protection extend into adulthood?
  3. 3 Does the lack of ongoing protection infringe the rights to equality, dignity, privacy, and the best interests of the child?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes child victims from identity protection in criminal proceedings and fails to provide ongoing protection after a child turns 18. The differentiation between child accused, witnesses, and victims is arbitrary and unjustifiable, violating the right to equality. The lack of protection for child victims infringes the best interests of the child, dignity, and privacy, and places an unreasonable burden on vulnerable children to seek interdicts against media publication. The limitation of media freedom and open justice by extending identity protection is minimal and justified by the need to protect...

Court Disposition

Declaration of constitutional invalidity confirmed; appeal upheld; interim reading-in granted; costs order: each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The declaration by the Supreme Court of Appeal that section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is constitutionally invalid to the extent that it does not protect the identity of children as victims of crimes in criminal proceedings is confirmed.
  • Leave to appeal is granted against the part of the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal that dismissed an appeal challenging the constitutionality of section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the issue of ongoing protection.