S v Mamabolo (CCT 44/00) [2001] ZACC 17; 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC); 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 686 (CC) (11 April 2001)

S v Mamabolo (CCT 44/00) [2001] ZACC 17; 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC); 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 686 (CC) (11 April 2001)

The Constitutional Court held that the crime of scandalising the court remains constitutionally valid but is now tightly circumscribed. The threshold for conviction is high: only egregious cases where conduct is likely to damage the administration of justice may be prosecuted. The offence is justified by the need to protect the integrity of the judiciary, which is essential for the rule of law. However, the summary procedure employed in the High Court was found to be unconstitutional, as it infringed the appellant's fair trial rights. The appellant's statements did not amount to contempt of court under constitutional standards, as they did not impair the dignity, integrity, or standing of...

Citation
[2001] ZACC 17
Parties
Respondent: The State; Appellant: Russell Mamabolo; Appellant: Freedom of Expression Institute; Appellant: Business Day
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 April 2001
Case Number
CCT 44/00
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Constitutional Court After Conviction and Sentence for Contempt of Court in the High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Kriegler, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Yacoob, Madlanga, Somyalo, Sachs
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Contempt of Court, Scandalising the Court, Fair Trial Rights, Bill of Rights Limitation
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Contempt of Court Scandalising the Court Fair Trial Rights Bill of Rights Limitation

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 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Russell Mamabolo

Appellant

Freedom of Expression Institute

Appellant

Business Day

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Constitutional Court After Conviction and Sentence for Contempt of Court in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the crime of scandalising the court unjustifiably limit the constitutional right to freedom of expression?
  2. 2 Is the summary procedure for contempt of court compatible with the fair trial rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
  3. 3 Did the appellant's conduct amount to contempt of court under constitutional standards?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the crime of scandalising the court remains constitutionally valid but is now tightly circumscribed. The threshold for conviction is high: only egregious cases where conduct is likely to damage the administration of justice may be prosecuted. The offence is justified by the need to protect the integrity of the judiciary, which is essential for the rule of law. However, the summary procedure employed in the High Court was found to be unconstitutional, as it infringed the appellant's fair trial rights. The appellant's statements did not amount to contempt of court under constitutional standards, as they did not impair the dignity, integrity, or standing of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appellant’s conviction and sentence are set aside.