Goodwin v Minister of Justice and Another (22537/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 579 (26 November 2010)

Goodwin v Minister of Justice and Another (22537/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 579 (26 November 2010)

The application was found to be premature because the statutory process for consideration of placement under correctional supervision had not yet been completed. The Commissioner of Correctional Services or the parole board must first decide whether the applicant is fit for correctional supervision. Only after such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 579
Parties
Applicant: S. W. Goodwin; Respondent: The Minister of Justice; Respondent: The Minister of Correctional Services
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2010
Case Number
22537/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Motion Court
Outcome
Application postponed sine die with leave to amplify papers and set the matter down once ripe for hearing. Costs reserved.
Judges
W.J. Louw
Legal Topics
Correctional Supervision, Parole Eligibility, Review of Administrative Decision
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Correctional Supervision Parole Eligibility Review of Administrative Decision

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. W. Goodwin

Applicant

The Minister of Justice

Respondent

The Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Motion Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to be declared suitable for placement under correctional supervision under section 73(7)(c)(i) of the Correctional Services Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application is premature given the statutory process for consideration by the Commissioner or parole board.
  3. 3 Whether the court can intervene before a decision is made by the Commissioner or parole board.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was found to be premature because the statutory process for consideration of placement under correctional supervision had not yet been completed. The Commissioner of Correctional Services or the parole board must first decide whether the applicant is fit for correctional supervision. Only after such a decision is made can the matter be brought before the court for review. The court cannot substitute its decision for that of the Commissioner or parole board at this stage. The process must be allowed to run its course, and if the applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome, he may then seek review by the court.

Court Disposition

Application postponed sine die with leave to amplify papers and set the matter down once ripe for hearing. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is postponed sine die.
  • The parties may in due course amplify their papers and either party may set the matter down again for an order reviewing a decision by the respondents or for dismissal of the application.