Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (97569/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1271 (24 October 2017)

Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (97569/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1271 (24 October 2017)

The respondents seek leave to appeal on the basis that the Full Bench erred in declaring sections 73(6)(b)(iv) and 136(1) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 inconsistent with section 9 of the Constitution. They argue that the differentiation between offenders sentenced before and after 1 October 2004 is rationally connected to legitimate government purposes, such as public safety and maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. The respondents contend that the date of sentencing, rather than the date of commission, should determine the applicable parole regime, as the commission of offences may span periods before and after the Act's commencement, and sentences may...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1271
Parties
Applicant: Oupa Chipane Phaahla; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: Commissioner of Correctional Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2017
Case Number
97569/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Full Bench Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal filed by the respondents against the Full Bench judgment and orders.
Legal Topics
Parole Regime, Equality Rights, Unfair Discrimination, Limitation of Rights, Retroactive Legislation, Costs Order
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Parole Regime Equality Rights Unfair Discrimination Limitation of Rights Retroactive Legislation +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oupa Chipane Phaahla

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Commissioner of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Full Bench Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 73(6)(b)(iv) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 infringes the applicant's rights to equality under section 9(1) and 9(3) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the date of commission of the offence or the date of sentencing should determine the applicable parole regime.
  3. 3 Whether the differentiation between offenders sentenced before and after 1 October 2004 is rationally connected to a legitimate government purpose.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents seek leave to appeal on the basis that the Full Bench erred in declaring sections 73(6)(b)(iv) and 136(1) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 inconsistent with section 9 of the Constitution. They argue that the differentiation between offenders sentenced before and after 1 October 2004 is rationally connected to legitimate government purposes, such as public safety and maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. The respondents contend that the date of sentencing, rather than the date of commission, should determine the applicable parole regime, as the commission of offences may span periods before and after the Act's commencement, and sentences may...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal filed by the respondents against the Full Bench judgment and orders.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is sought to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the judgment and orders of the Full Bench delivered on 3 October 2017.
  • Respondents challenge the declaration of invalidity of sections 73(6)(b)(iv) and 136(1) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998.