YG v S (A263/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 290; 2018 (1) SACR 64 (GJ) (19 October 2017)

YG v S (A263/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 290; 2018 (1) SACR 64 (GJ) (19 October 2017)

The court held that the common-law defence of reasonable chastisement is unconstitutional and no longer applies in South African law. The defence permits parents to inflict violence on children, undermining their rights to dignity, equality, and protection from violence as guaranteed by the Constitution. The arbitrariness inherent in the defence, which allows parents to determine what constitutes reasonable discipline, is incompatible with the child-centred model of rights required by the Constitution. The court found that the defence treats children as second-class citizens by affording them less protection than adults, and this differentiation is not rational or justifiable under...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 290
Parties
Appellant: YG; Respondent: The State; Amicus Curiae: Children's Institute; Amicus Curiae: Quaker Peace Centre; Amicus Curiae: Sonke Gender Justice; Amicus Curiae: Freedom of Religion South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Case Number
A263/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Constitutional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The common-law defence of reasonable chastisement is declared unconstitutional and prospectively invalid.
Judges
R M Keightley, E Francis
Legal Topics
Assault, Reasonable Chastisement, Children's Rights, Constitutional Invalidity, Parental Discipline, Best Interests of Child
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Family and Children Assault Reasonable Chastisement Children's Rights Constitutional Invalidity Parental Discipline +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YG

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Children's Institute

Amicus Curiae

Quaker Peace Centre

Amicus Curiae

Sonke Gender Justice

Amicus Curiae

Freedom of Religion South Africa

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Constitutional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the common-law defence of reasonable chastisement constitutionally compatible with the Bill of Rights?
  2. 2 Did the appellant exceed the bounds of reasonable chastisement in disciplining his child?
  3. 3 Was the appellant's conduct towards his wife justified as self-defence or did it constitute assault?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the common-law defence of reasonable chastisement is unconstitutional and no longer applies in South African law. The defence permits parents to inflict violence on children, undermining their rights to dignity, equality, and protection from violence as guaranteed by the Constitution. The arbitrariness inherent in the defence, which allows parents to determine what constitutes reasonable discipline, is incompatible with the child-centred model of rights required by the Constitution. The court found that the defence treats children as second-class citizens by affording them less protection than adults, and this differentiation is not rational or justifiable under...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The common-law defence of reasonable chastisement is declared unconstitutional and prospectively invalid.

Orders

  • The common law defence of reasonable chastisement is unconstitutional and no longer applies in South African law.
  • This development of the common law applies only to conduct occurring after the date of judgment.