Devenish v Minister of Safety And Security (07151/2013) [2016] ZAGPJHC 151 (20 May 2016)

Devenish v Minister of Safety And Security (07151/2013) [2016] ZAGPJHC 151 (20 May 2016)

The defendant failed to prove the lawfulness of the plaintiff's arrest and detention. The arresting officer did not exercise proper discretion, did not consider less invasive means to secure attendance at court, and failed to ascertain the plaintiff's particulars or risk of flight. There was no physical obstruction by the plaintiff as required by section 40(1)(j) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conditions of detention were appalling and contrary to constitutional standards. The plaintiff, a respectable citizen, was deprived of liberty, dignity, and suffered humiliation. The claim for malicious prosecution was abandoned as academic. The plaintiff is entitled to general damages for...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 151
Parties
Plaintiff: Barry Phillip Devenish; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Case Number
07151/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of general damages, interest, and costs.
Judges
Nochumsohn
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Wrongful Detention, Police Discretion, General Damages, Malicious Prosecution
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Wrongful Detention Police Discretion General Damages Malicious Prosecution

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Phillip Devenish

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest and detention of the plaintiff by the police was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus to prove lawfulness under section 40(1)(j) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for deprivation of liberty, distress, inconvenience, humiliation and injury to dignity.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove the lawfulness of the plaintiff's arrest and detention. The arresting officer did not exercise proper discretion, did not consider less invasive means to secure attendance at court, and failed to ascertain the plaintiff's particulars or risk of flight. There was no physical obstruction by the plaintiff as required by section 40(1)(j) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conditions of detention were appalling and contrary to constitutional standards. The plaintiff, a respectable citizen, was deprived of liberty, dignity, and suffered humiliation. The claim for malicious prosecution was abandoned as academic. The plaintiff is entitled to general damages for...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of general damages, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R150,000.00.
  • Interest at the mora rate from the date of summons is payable.