Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997

Last updated
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997
Coat of arms of South Africa (heraldic).svg
Parliament of South Africa
  • Act to make provision for the setting aside of all sentences of death in accordance with law and their substitution by lawful punishments; to amend certain laws so as to repeal provisions relating to capital punishment; to provide for minimum sentences for certain serious offences; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
CitationAct No. 105 of 1997
Territorial extent Republic of South Africa
Enacted by Parliament of South Africa
Assented to27 November 1997
Commenced13 November 1998 (§1–50); 1 May 1998 (§51–53)
Legislative history
Bill titleCriminal Law Amendment Bill
Bill citationB46—1997
Introduced by Dullah Omar, Minister of Justice
Summary
Establishes procedure for replacing death sentences with other sentences; repeals provisions related to capital punishment; sets minimum sentences for certain offences.
Keywords
capital punishment, mandatory sentencing
Status: In force

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 (Act No. 105 of 1997) is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which dealt with the consequences of the Constitutional Court's ruling in S v Makwanyane in which capital punishment was declared to be unconstitutional. The act repealed the laws allowing for the death penalty and amended various other laws referring to death sentences or capital offences. It also established a procedure by which existing death sentences could be converted to prison sentences, and fixed minimum sentences for certain serious crimes. The act came into force on 13 November 1998, except for the minimum sentencing provisions, which came into force on 1 May 1998.

Contents

Background

The Interim Constitution of South Africa, which came into force on 27 April 1994, created for the first time in South Africa a justiciable bill of rights; section nine of that bill of rights stated that, "Every person shall have the right to life." The Constitutional Court was also created by the Interim Constitution; the first case on which it heard argument was S v Makwanyane and Another , a test case to determine the constitutionality of the death penalty. On 6 June 1995 the court handed down its judgment, ruling that the death penalty violated the right to life, the right to dignity, and the protection against cruel and inhuman punishment. The judgment invalidated the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act that allowed for capital punishment, and any similar provision in any other law in force. The court also ruled that prisoners already sentenced to death could not be executed, and that they should remain in prison until their sentences were set aside and replaced according to law. [1]

Provisions

Replacement of sentences

Section 1 of the act established the procedure for replacing death sentences. For people sentenced to death and whose appeals were exhausted, the Minister of Justice was required to refer each case back to the court which had imposed the death sentence, to be heard by the judge who had imposed the sentence, if possible, or by another judge of that court. The judge would then receive written argument from the prosecuting authority and from the convict, and determine an appropriate sentence. The President would then exercise the power of commutation to set aside the death sentence and replace it by the sentence determined by the court. In cases where an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was pending, and that appeal was against the sentence only, the case was to be referred back to the original court for a new sentence to be imposed. In cases where an appeal against the conviction was pending, the Supreme Court of Appeal was required to impose a new sentence when it ruled on the appeal.

Repeal of laws

The act repealed sections 276(1)(a), 277, 278 and 279 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which made the death sentence a valid sentence for certain offences and established the procedure for carrying it out. It also amended other sections of the CPA and various other acts which referred to the death sentence or to capital offences. It made similar amendments to the Defence Act to abolish capital punishment in the military justice system. A schedule to the act contained similar amendments to laws of the formerly independent bantustans, which remained in force for their territories.

Minimum sentences

Sections 51 to 53 of the act provided for certain minimum sentences to be required for certain serious crimes. These mandatory sentencing provisions were initially to have effect only for two years, subject to extension by Presidential proclamation. Such extensions were repeatedly made to keep the provisions in force until 2007, when the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act, 2007 made them permanent. The act prescribes life imprisonment for certain convictions of murder or rape; subsequent amendments added certain terrorism-related crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and human trafficking. Various lesser minimum sentences are prescribed for other crimes, including 15 years for a first conviction of murder, 20 years for a second conviction, and 25 years for any third or subsequent conviction.

See also

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary offence</span> Crime tried without a jury

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. A pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

In law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Capital murder refers to a category of murder in some parts of the US for which the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty. In its original sense, capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which was later adopted as a legal provision to define certain forms of aggravated murder in the United States. Some jurisdictions that provide for death as a possible punishment for murder, such as California, do not have a specific statute creating or defining a crime known as capital murder; instead, death is one of the possible sentences for certain kinds of murder. In these cases, "capital murder" is not a phrase used in the legal system but may still be used by others such as the media.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

A discharge is a type of sentence imposed by a court whereby no punishment is imposed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

Capital punishment in Malaysia is a legal penalty in Malaysian law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law Act 1977</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Law Act 1977 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Most of it only applies to England and Wales. It creates the offence of conspiracy in English law. It also created offences concerned with criminal trespass in premises, made changes to sentencing, and created an offence of falsely reporting the existence of a bomb.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Criminal Procedure (India)</span> Erstwhile Code of Criminal Law of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

<i>S v Makwanyane</i> South African legal case

S v Makwanyane and Another was a landmark 1995 judgement of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. It established that capital punishment was inconsistent with the commitment to human rights expressed in the Interim Constitution. The court's ruling invalidated section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which had provided for use of the death penalty, along with any similar provisions in any other law in force in South Africa. The court also forbade the government from carrying out the death sentence on any prisoners awaiting execution, ruling that they should remain in prison until new sentences were imposed. Delivered on 6 June, this was the newly established court's "first politically important and publicly controversial holding."

Being involved in the illegal drug trade in certain countries, which may include illegally importing, exporting, selling or possession of significant amounts of drugs constitute capital offences and may result in capital punishment for drug trafficking, or possession assumed to be for drug trafficking. There are also extrajudicial executions of suspected drug users and traffickers in at least 2 countries without drug death penalties by law: Mexico and Philippines.

The United States Constitution contains several provisions related to criminal sentencing.

Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.

Remedies for copyright infringement in the United States can be either civil or criminal in nature. Criminal remedies for copyright infringement prevent the unauthorized use of copyrighted works by defining certain violations of copyright to be criminal wrongs which are liable to be prosecuted and punished by the state. Unlike civil remedies, which are obtained through private civil actions initiated by the owner of the copyright, criminal remedies are secured by the state which prosecutes the infringing individual or organisation.

References

  1. S v Makwanyane and Another [1995] ZACC 3 at para. 151, 1995 (6) BCLR 665; 1995 (3) SA 391