Moodley v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (21/53385) [2023] ZAGPJHC 260 (24 March 2023)
The court found that the respondents' failure to provide certain directives and regulations referenced in the Parole Board Manual did not amount to contempt of the 15 December 2022 order, as these documents were not specifically mentioned in the order and the breach, if any, was technical rather than wilful. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 260
- Parties
- Applicant: Donovan Samuel Moodley; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: Director-General: Department of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: National Commissioner: Department of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: Johannesburg Area Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services; Respondent: Head of Prison: Johannesburg Correctional Centre B; Respondent: Parole Board: Johannesburg Correctional Centre B
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 24 March 2023
- Case Number
- 21/53385
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Parole Hearing
- Outcome
- Application for urgent interim relief is refused except for the order that the applicant be supplied with the relevant material immediately.
- Judges
- S D J Wilson
- Legal Topics
- Parole Procedure, Contempt of Court Order, Procedural Fairness, Access to Information
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Donovan Samuel Moodley
Applicant
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Respondent
Director-General: Department of Justice and Correctional Services
Respondent
National Commissioner: Department of Justice and Correctional Services
Respondent
Johannesburg Area Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services
Respondent
Head of Prison: Johannesburg Correctional Centre B
Respondent
Parole Board: Johannesburg Correctional Centre B
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Parole Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the 15 December 2022 court order by failing to provide the applicant with relevant material before the parole hearing.
- 2 Whether the scheduled parole hearing on 29 March 2023 should be interdicted or postponed due to alleged non-compliance with the previous order.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to access specific directives and regulations referenced in the Parole Board Manual.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents' failure to provide certain directives and regulations referenced in the Parole Board Manual did not amount to contempt of the 15 December 2022 order, as these documents were not specifically mentioned in the order and the breach, if any, was technical rather than wilful. The absence of a new social worker's report did not constitute non-compliance, as the order only required necessary reports to be completed, and the applicant had already received the updated report. The court held that the parole hearing could proceed, provided the applicant is given immediate access to the outstanding material. The relief sought to interdict or postpone the hearing...
Court Disposition
Application for urgent interim relief is refused except for the order that the applicant be supplied with the relevant material immediately.
Orders
- The fourth to sixth respondents are directed to take the necessary steps to supply Mr. Moodley immediately with the material referred to in paragraph 19.3 of his affidavit dated 21 March 2023.
- The relief sought in Part A of the urgent application dated 21 March 2023 is otherwise refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment