S v Williams and Others (CCT20/94) [1995] ZACC 6; 1995 (3) SA 632 ; 1995 (7) BCLR 861 (CC) (9 June 1995)

S v Williams and Others (CCT20/94) [1995] ZACC 6; 1995 (3) SA 632 ; 1995 (7) BCLR 861 (CC) (9 June 1995)

Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which authorises juvenile whipping, violates sections 10 and 11(2) of the Constitution by subjecting juveniles to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. The deliberate infliction of physical pain by the State, regardless of age, is incompatible with respect for human dignity and cannot be justified by resource constraints, deterrence, or retribution. The limitation imposed by section 294 is not reasonable, justifiable, or necessary in an open and democratic society. There are sufficient alternative sentencing options available, and the practice of juvenile whipping is inconsistent with the values underlying the Constitution and international...

Citation
[1995] ZACC 6
Parties
Applicant: Henry Williams; Applicant: Jonathan Koopman; Applicant: Tommy Mampa; Applicant: Gareth Papier; Applicant: Jacobus Goliath; Applicant: Samuel Witbooi; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 1995
Case Number
CCT20/94
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Review / Referral From Full Bench of Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division; Consolidated Review of Sentences
Outcome
Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the words 'or a whipping' in section 290(2) are declared unconstitutional and invalid. No sentences imposed under section 294 shall be carried out from the date of this order.
Judges
Langa, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Didcott, Kentridge, Kriegler, Madala, Mahomed, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Punishment, Juvenile Justice, Limitation of Rights, Human Dignity, Sentencing Options, Corporal Punishment
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Punishment Juvenile Justice Limitation of Rights Human Dignity Sentencing Options Corporal Punishment

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 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Williams

Applicant

Jonathan Koopman

Applicant

Tommy Mampa

Applicant

Gareth Papier

Applicant

Jacobus Goliath

Applicant

Samuel Witbooi

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Review / Referral From Full Bench of Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division; Consolidated Review of Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act, authorising juvenile whipping, is consistent with the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether juvenile whipping constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under section 11(2) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the limitation of rights by section 294 is reasonable, justifiable, and necessary in an open and democratic society.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which authorises juvenile whipping, violates sections 10 and 11(2) of the Constitution by subjecting juveniles to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. The deliberate infliction of physical pain by the State, regardless of age, is incompatible with respect for human dignity and cannot be justified by resource constraints, deterrence, or retribution. The limitation imposed by section 294 is not reasonable, justifiable, or necessary in an open and democratic society. There are sufficient alternative sentencing options available, and the practice of juvenile whipping is inconsistent with the values underlying the Constitution and international...

Court Disposition

Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the words 'or a whipping' in section 290(2) are declared unconstitutional and invalid. No sentences imposed under section 294 shall be carried out from the date of this order.

Orders

  • Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977 (as amended) is declared invalid and of no force and effect.
  • The words 'or a whipping' in section 290(2) are declared invalid.