Mzizi and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (10719/18P) [2019] ZAKZPHC 83 (30 April 2019)

Mzizi and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (10719/18P) [2019] ZAKZPHC 83 (30 April 2019)

The court held that the parole regime applicable to offenders is an integral part of the sentence and must be determined by the law in force at the time of the offence, not the date of sentencing. Applying the more onerous post-1 October 2004 parole regime to offenders who committed their crimes and were arrested before that date constitutes retrospective application of a harsher punishment, which is impermissible under the Constitution and the principle against retrospectivity. The transitional provisions of the Correctional Services Act do not adequately cater for offenders in the applicants' position, and the failure to do so infringes their constitutional rights. The applicants are...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 83
Parties
Applicant: Thulebona Mzizi; Applicant: Sandile Zikode; Applicant: Thokozani Sibisi; Applicant: Mzamo Zuma; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services; Respondent: National Council of Correctional Services; Respondent: Correctional Supervision and Parole Board; Respondent: Pietermaritzburg Correctional Centre; Respondent: Case Management Committee, Pietermaritzburg
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2019
Case Number
10719/18P
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Declaratory relief issued in favour of the applicants.
Judges
Mngadi
Legal Topics
Parole Eligibility, Retrospective Application, Bill of Rights Limitation, Declaratory Relief, Life Imprisonment, Transitional Provisions
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Parole Eligibility Retrospective Application Bill of Rights Limitation Declaratory Relief Life Imprisonment +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thulebona Mzizi

Applicant

Sandile Zikode

Applicant

Thokozani Sibisi

Applicant

Mzamo Zuma

Applicant

Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

National Council of Correctional Services

Respondent

Correctional Supervision and Parole Board

Respondent

Pietermaritzburg Correctional Centre

Respondent

Case Management Committee, Pietermaritzburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which parole regime governs offenders sentenced after 1 October 2004 for crimes committed and arrested before that date.
  2. 2 Whether applying the post-1 October 2004 parole regime to such offenders is constitutionally permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to be considered for parole under the law applicable at the time of their offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the parole regime applicable to offenders is an integral part of the sentence and must be determined by the law in force at the time of the offence, not the date of sentencing. Applying the more onerous post-1 October 2004 parole regime to offenders who committed their crimes and were arrested before that date constitutes retrospective application of a harsher punishment, which is impermissible under the Constitution and the principle against retrospectivity. The transitional provisions of the Correctional Services Act do not adequately cater for offenders in the applicants' position, and the failure to do so infringes their constitutional rights. The applicants are...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaratory relief issued in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • It is declared that, since each of the four applicants were arrested and detained before 1 October 2004, the four applicants are eligible to be considered for release and placement under community corrections in terms of the law, policy and guidelines that were applicable immediately prior to 1 October 2004,...
  • No order as to costs.