What was in issue was the effect that section 60(14) may have on the right in section 35(1)(f) of the Constitution, to be released from detention if the interests of justice permit.
Notwithstanding the provisions of ss (14), a prosecutor may have to be ordered by the court (in terms of ss (11)) to lift the veil in order to afford the arrested person access to such docket.
Subsection (14) can therefore not be read as sanctioning a flat refusal on the part of the prosecution to divulge any information relating to the pending charge even where the information is necessary to give effect to the 'reasonable opportunity' requirement of ss (11).
Furthermore, there is a ready - and less absolute - interpretation of ss (14) which is both consistent with its language and in harmony with ss (11).
The words 'have access to' in ss (14) are to be interpreted as barring physical access to the contents of the docket, in the sense of having sight of or perusing such contents.
Thus ss (14), read restrictively as indicated, does no more than make plain that, whatever access to the police docket an accused may have to be afforded in order to protect the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no correspondingly general right at the bail stage.
In order to make that intention completely plain, the proviso to the subsection expressly excludes access required for trial purposes from its prohibitory ambit.
It follows, the court found, that there is no constitutional fault to be found with the subsection.
Related Research Articles
The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
The Constitution Act, 1982 is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of patriating the constitution, introducing several amendments to the British North America Act, 1867, including re-naming it the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition to patriating the Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1982 enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; guaranteed rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada; provided for future constitutional conferences; and set out the procedures for amending the Constitution in the future.
Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. It was proposed by the California Legislature and overwhelmingly approved by the voters in an initiative held as part of the November 2004 elections.
In law, coming into force or entry into force is the process by which legislation, regulations, treaties and other legal instruments come to have legal force and effect. The term is closely related to the date of this transition. The point at which such instrument comes into effect may be set out in the instrument itself, or after the lapse of a certain period, or upon the happening of a certain event, such as a proclamation or an objective event, such as the birth, marriage, reaching a particular age or death of a certain person. On rare occasions, the effective date of a law may be backdated to a date before the enactment.
Section 51(xxxi) is a section of the Constitution of Australia.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes".
The Constitution of Nigeria is the supreme law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Criminal Law Act 1977 (c.45) 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.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2001 was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland to tighten the constitutional ban on abortion. It would have removed the threat of suicide as a grounds for legal abortion in the state, as well as introducing new penalties for anyone performing an abortion, by giving constitutional status to legislation proposed to be enacted after the amendment. It was narrowly rejected in a referendum held on 6 March 2002, with 50.4% against.
Human rights in New Zealand are addressed in the various documents which make up the constitution of the country. Specifically, the two main laws which protect human rights are the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, New Zealand has also ratified numerous international United Nations treaties. The 2009 Human Rights Report by the United States Department of State noted that the government generally respected the rights of individuals, but voiced concerns regarding the social status of the indigenous population.
The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.
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.
S v Singo is an important case in South African criminal procedure, heard in the Constitutional Court on 12 March 2002, with judgment delivered on 12 June 2002. The presiding officers were Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Du Plessis AJ and Skweyiya AJ. JG Wasserman SC appeared for the applicant at the request of the Court, and JA van S d'Oliveira SC for the State.
In Phato v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape & Another; Commissioner of the South African Police Services v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape & Others, in two applications, which were combined for the purposes of the judgment, the issue was the right of an accused to access to the police docket relating to the accused's impending trial in a magistrate's court on a charge under the Witchcraft Suppression Act 3 of 1957.
Shabalala & Others v Attorney-General of Transvaal and Another is an important case in South African criminal procedure, in which the applicants had been indicted to stand trial in a Provincial Division on a charge of murder.
Khala v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African law.
Constitutional litigation in South Africa is an area of the law that deals with the rules and principles concerning constitutional matters. It examines the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. It considers the rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
