Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    S v Williams and Others
    S v Williams and Others
    S v Williams and Others
    Ebook53 pages46 minutes

    S v Williams and Others

    By Pius Nkonzo Langa

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    This is a 1995 decision by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in which the judge, Pius Nikonzo Langa, ruled that judicial corporal punishment of juveniles was unconstitutional. Six juveniles had been sentenced in separate hearings to receive prison sentences and Whipping.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherGood Press
    Release dateApr 11, 2021
    ISBN4064066314699
    S v Williams and Others

    Related to S v Williams and Others

    Related ebooks

    History For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Rough Justice

      Jan 29, 2024

      The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 introduced the “three strikes law”. The legislation was intended to deter repeat offenders with the threat of progressively longer mandatory prison terms, and to penalise those who continued to reoffend throu

      2 min read

    • Article

      Road To 2024 Elections ‘Abuse Of Judicial Power’ Under Scrutiny In Zuma IEC Review

      Apr 7, 2024

      Ordinarily, the decision by the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to uphold the objection to the candidacy of former president Jacob Zuma shouldn’t raise any eyebrows. Section 47 of the Constitution is unequivocal: “Every citizen who is qual

      6 min read

    • Article

      Bad Reading, Bad Precedent

      Jun 29, 2018

      Bad Reading, Bad Precedent
      2 min read

    • Article

      What Not To Wear...To Court

      Jan 19, 2018

      What Not To Wear...To Court
      3 min read

    • Article

      Let’s Put an End to Prosecutorial Immunity

      Mar 14, 2018

      Jabbar Collins languished in jail for over 16 years for a murder he apparently never committed. He was only freed a few years ago when it was revealed at a post-conviction hearing that the main witness at his trial had told the prosecutor that he was

      4 min read

    • Article

      Free Pass

      Mar 28, 2023

      What would a “get out of jail free” card be worth to you, the armed citizen who carries a gun for self-defense? A card that, once played, either the prosecutor would drop all charges or the jury would acquit. That would be a pretty powerful card. If

      3 min read

    • Article

      Commentary: Justice Thomas' Two Attacks On Basic Freedoms

      Mar 6, 2019

      Twice in the last two weeks, Justice Clarence Thomas has written alarming opinions that call into question fundamental constitutional protections. In one, he disputed the right to counsel for those accused of crimes; in the other he called for revisi

      3 min read

    • Article

      Overruled: Is Precedent In Danger At The Supreme Court?

      Jun 25, 2019

      As this year’s term closes, the conservative-majority United States Supreme Court is placing a shrinking value on legal precedent.

      5 min read

    • Article

      Concourt Decision On Zuma Misguided

      Apr 14, 2021

      I WAS dumbfounded by the near-unprecedented direction of the Concourt in requesting that former president Jacob Zuma file an affidavit stating that if the court found him guilty of contempt, what he thought his punishment should be. This ruling not o

      3 min read

    • Article

      STATE OF JUDICIARY Time For Judges’ To Walk Their Talk On Independence, Impartiality

      Dec 17, 2023

      Recently, judges – those serving and those retired – have been in the media for various reasons. Former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng shook President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Cabinet when he openly criticised the president on how he has handled certain issu

      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for S v Williams and Others

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      S v Williams and Others - Pius Nkonzo Langa

      Pius Nkonzo Langa

      S v Williams and Others

      Published by Good Press, 2022

      goodpress@okpublishing.info

      EAN 4064066314699

      Table of Contents

      Cover

      Titlepage

      Text

      Case No: CCT/20/94

      In the matter of:

      The State

      versus

      Henry Williams

      Jonathan Koopman

      Tommy Mampa

      Gareth Papier

      Jacobus Goliath

      Samuel Witbooi

      Judgment

      Langa, J:

      [1] This matter has been referred to this Court by the Full Bench of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division of the Supreme Court (Conradie, Scott and Farlam JJ). It is a consolidation of five different cases in which six juveniles were convicted by different magistrates and sentenced to receive a moderate correction of a number of strokes with a light cane. The issue is whether the sentence of juvenile whipping, pursuant to the provisions of section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act,[1] is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution.[2]

      [2] Mr. Bozalek appeared with Mr. Hathorn as amicus curiae on behalf of the accused; they were assisted by the Legal Resources Centre's Cape Town office. We are indebted to both Counsel and to the Legal Resources Centre. Before the date of the hearing, the President of this Court was advised by the Attorney General of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial ​Division that he wished to withdraw the argument which had been filed on his behalf (and on behalf of the State) as he shared the view that the provisions relating to corporal punishment in section 294 of the Act were unconstitutional. Mr. Slabbert, who is a member of the Attorney General's staff, however agreed to present the opposing argument as amicus curiae in accordance with the written argument which had been filed on behalf of the State. We place on record our appreciation to him for having undertaken this task.

      [3] Purely for the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the accused as the applicants and to the position adopted by Mr. Slabbert in his argument as that of the State.

      [4] Although each of the cases has a history of its own, much is in common. The applicants are all males and they are all juveniles. Three of them, namely, Williams, Koopman and Mampa were each sentenced to suspended prison sentences in addition to the juvenile whipping. The remaining three were sentenced to juvenile whipping only. All the trials had commenced before 27 April 1994; each of the sentences was passed after 27 April 1994.

      [5] The Provincial Division became seized of the matters in two ways: all five cases were subject to automatic review in terms of section 302(1)(a) of the Act because of the terms of imprisonment, albeit suspended, imposed on the applicants themselves or on their fellow accused who do not feature in the present proceedings. In addition to this, Mr. A.P. Dippenaar who presided over the case involving Williams, requested that the sentence of strokes be subjected to special review in terms of section 304(4) of the Act. He took this step because he doubted whether juvenile whipping was a permissible punishment in the light of the provisions of the Constitution and in view of the decision in Ex Parte Attorney-General, Namibia: In re Corporal Punishment By Organs of State.[3]

      [6] Whether, as a matter of strict law, the Magistrate was correct in deferring the execution of the whipping[4], is not in issue. He deserves to be commended for treating as a matter of ​priority an issue involving fundamental human rights and in particular, the application of the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Constitution. He indeed went further than merely taking the initiative to submit the matter for special review.

      [7] A

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1