Shebe v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2338/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 154 (19 September 2013)

Shebe v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2338/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 154 (19 September 2013)

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to an order compelling his release from prison, as the granting of parole is a discretionary function of the Parole Board and not a right that can be claimed by the applicant. The statutory framework provides only for consideration for parole, not automatic release....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 154
Parties
Applicant: Lazarus Mokete Shebe; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services; Respondent: Regional Commissioner of Free State and Northern Cape; Respondent: State Attorney; Respondent: Chairperson of the Parole Board
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Case Number
2338/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Mandatory Order to Compel Release From Prison
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
S.J. Thamage
Legal Topics
Parole Decisions, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Correctional Services Act, Victim Engagement
Administrative Law Criminal Law Parole Decisions Separation of Powers Judicial Review Correctional Services Act Victim Engagement

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lazarus Mokete Shebe

Applicant

Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

Regional Commissioner of Free State and Northern Cape

Respondent

State Attorney

Respondent

Chairperson of the Parole Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Mandatory Order to Compel Release From Prison

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order compelling the respondents to release him from prison.
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board's decision not to grant parole is subject to judicial intervention in this context.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established grounds for mandatory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to an order compelling his release from prison, as the granting of parole is a discretionary function of the Parole Board and not a right that can be claimed by the applicant. The statutory framework provides only for consideration for parole, not automatic release. The failure to engage the victims, as required by section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act, justified the postponement of parole consideration. The court further found that it cannot interfere with the Parole Board's decision except in review proceedings, which were not instituted in this case. The application was therefore dismissed, and no costs order was made against the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.