S v Jordan

Last updated

S v Jordan
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case name The State v Jordan and Others
Decided9 October 2002 (2002-10-09)
Docket nos.CCT 31/01
Citations [2002] ZACC 22; 2002 (6) SA 642; 2002 (11) BCLR 1117
Case history
Appealed fromS v Jordan and Others 2002 (1) SA 797 (T); 2001 (10) BCLR 1055 (T); 2002 (1) SACR 17 (T) in the High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division
Court membership
Judges sitting 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
Case opinions
Decision byNgcobo J (Chaskalson, Kriegler, Madala, du Plessis and Skweyiya concurring)
DissentO'Regan and Sachs JJ (Langa, Ackermann and Goldstone concurring)

S v Jordan and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which confirmed the constitutionality of statutory prohibitions on brothel-keeping and prostitution. It was handed down on 9 October 2002 with a majority judgment by Justice Sandile Ngcobo.

Contents

Hearing a challenge to provisions of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957, the court held unanimously that it is constitutional to criminalise brothel-keeping. However, the bench split six-to-five on the constitutionality of section 20(1)(aA) of the Act, which criminalises prostitution. Writing on behalf of the minority, Justices Kate O'Regan and Albie Sachs argued that the prostitution prohibition discriminated indirectly but unfairly against women, while the majority dismissed this view on the grounds that both men and women are barred from conducting sex work.

Background

The applicants, three women, were arrested in 1996 at their workplace, a brothel in Pretoria. Charged in the Magistrate's Court, they were convicted of contraventions of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957 – the brothel's owner and receptionist were convicted of keeping a brothel, an offence under section 2, and a sex worker was convicted of conducting indecent sexual acts for reward, an offence under section 20(1)(aA). In particular, the sex worker had been paid R250 to administer a pelvic massage to an undercover policeman. [1]

Though the women did not dispute their involvement in sex work, they appealed their convictions to the High Court of South Africa, contending that the relevant provisions of the Sexual Offences Act are unconstitutional. In August 2001, the High Court's Transvaal Provincial Division found in the appellants' favour on the prostitution provision, finding that it is unconstitutional to criminalise prostitution. However, the challenge to the brothel-keeping provisions was dismissed.

The matter went to the Constitutional Court of South Africa, which was charged with confirming the invalidity of the prostitution provision; in addition, the first and second women appealed the unfavourable finding on the brothel-keeping provisions. The state opposed both applications, represented by Wim Trengove SC; the appellants were represented by David Unterhalter SC, and their applications were supported by several amici curiae. Argument was heard from 5 to 6 March 2002, and judgment was handed down on 9 October 2002.

Judgment

Brothel-keeping

Unlike the High Court, the Constitutional Court decided the constitutionality question with reference to the Interim Constitution, which had prevailed at the time of the offence, rather than with reference to the 1996 Constitution. On this basis, the court agreed unanimously to uphold the High Court's finding that the prohibition on brothel-keeping is constitutionally compliant, thereby dismissing the appeals of the first and second appellants.

Prostitution

However, the bench divided six-to-five on the constitutionality of the prohibition on prostitution. The minority judgment was co-written by Justices Kate O'Regan and Albie Sachs, with the concurrence of Deputy Chief Justice Pius Langa and Justices Laurie Ackermann and Richard Goldstone. Although the minority dismissed the appellants' arguments from the rights to human dignity, freedom of person, privacy, and economic activity, respectively, the minority was persuaded by the argument that the prostitution provision indirectly brought about unfair discrimination, in violation of the right to equality in Section Nine of the Constitution. O'Regan and Sachs held that insofar as the law makes the prostitute (typically a woman) the primary offender and her patron (typically man) nothing more than an accomplice, it reinforces sexist double standards and perpetuates gender stereotypes in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional commitment to gender equality. On these grounds, the minority would have confirmed the High Court's order that section 20(1)(aA) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional and invalid.

However, writing for the six-person majority, Justice Sandile Ngcobo argued that the criminalisation of prostitution is not discriminatory because the law criminalises prostitution by men as well as by women. Moreover, the majority agreed with the minority (though for slightly different reasons) that the appellants' other constitutional arguments failed. It therefore held that the prohibition is constitutional; the court therefore declined to confirm the High Court's order and instead set it aside, dismissing the women's applications and reinstating their criminal sentences. Ngcobo's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, Justices Johann Kriegler and Tholie Madala, and Acting Justices Ben du Plessis and Thembile Skweyiya.

Reception

The majority judgment was unpopular among many feminist activists and some legal commentators. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Ntombizozuko Dyani-Mhango observed that the majority judgment's deference to the political branches was characteristic of Ngcobo's jurisprudence. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Immorality Act was the title of two acts of the Parliament of South Africa which prohibited, amongst other things, sexual relations between white people and people of other races. The first Immorality Act, of 1927, prohibited sex outside of marriage between whites and blacks, until amended in 1950 to prohibit sex between whites and all non-whites. The second Immorality Act, of 1957, continued this prohibition and also dealt with many other sex offences. The ban on interracial sex was lifted in 1985, but certain sections of the 1957 act dealing with prostitution remain in force as the "Sexual Offences Act, 1957".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prostitution in the United Kingdom</span>

In Great Britain, the act of engaging in sex or exchanging various sexual services for money is legal, but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, and pimping, are illegal. In Northern Ireland, which previously had similar laws, paying for sex became illegal from 1 June 2015.

Prostitution in Ireland is legal. However, since March 2017, it has been an offence to buy sex. All forms of third party involvement are illegal but are commonly practiced. Since the law that criminalises clients came into being, with the purpose of reducing the demand for prostitution, the number of prosecutions for the purchase of sex increased from 10 in 2018 to 92 in 2020. In a report from UCD's Sexual Exploitation Research Programme the development is called ”a promising start in interrupting the demand for prostitution.” Most prostitution in Ireland occurs indoors. Street prostitution has declined considerably in the 21st century, with the vast majority of prostitution now advertised on the internet.

Prostitution in South Africa is illegal for both buying and selling sex, as well as related activities such as brothel keeping and pimping. However, it remains widespread. Law enforcement is poor.

Current laws passed by the Parliament of Canada in 2014 make it illegal to purchase or advertise sexual services and illegal to live on the material benefits from sex work. The law officially enacted criminal penalties for "Purchasing sexual services and communicating in any place for that purpose."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prostitution Reform Act 2003</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 is an Act of Parliament that decriminalised prostitution in New Zealand. The Act also gave new rights to sex workers. It has attracted international attention, although its reception has been mixed. The Act repealed the Massage Parlours Act 1978 and the associated regulations.

<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.

Sandile Ngcobo is a retired South African judge who was the Chief Justice of South Africa from October 2009 to August 2011. He served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from August 1999 until his retirement in August 2011. Before that, he was a judge of the Cape Provincial Division and the Labour Appeal Court.

Prostitution in Northern Ireland is governed by the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act 2015, which makes it illegal to pay for sex in Northern Ireland. Prior to the act coming into effect, prostitution in Northern Ireland was regulated by the same or similar laws to those in England and Wales, as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. At that time, prostitution in Northern Ireland was legal subject to a number of restraints which controlled certain activities associated with prostitution, such as soliciting, procuring, living on the proceeds of prostitution (pimping), exploitation of prostitutes, under-age prostitution, and keeping a brothel. However, devolution provided the opportunity for separate legislation in Northern Ireland.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

The Sexual Offences Act, 1957 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which, in its current form, prohibits prostitution, brothel-keeping and procuring, and other activities related to prostitution. Before the law relating to sex offences was consolidated and revised by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2007, it also prohibited various other sex offences, including sex with children under the age of consent and sex with the mentally incompetent. As the Immorality Act it was infamous for prohibiting sex between a white person and a person of another race, until that prohibition was removed by a 1985 amendment.

<i>Hoffmann v South African Airways</i> South African legal case

Hoffmann v South African Airways is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of South African labour law and constitutional law. It concerned employment discrimination on the basis of HIV status and was decided on 28 September 2000.

<i>President v M&G Media</i> South African legal case

President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v M & G Media Ltd is 2011 decision in South African administrative law. Decided in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, it concerned access to information and the adjudication of disputes under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000.

<i>Volks v Robinson</i> South African legal case

Volks NO v Robinson and Others is an important decision in South African family law and law of succession. In a majority judgment written by Justice Thembile Skweyiya, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990. The court held that it is not discriminatory for the Act to exclude the survivors of permanent life partnerships from the protections it extends to the survivors of legal marriages. Married couples are entitled to claim maintenance from their deceased spouse's estate because the institution of marriage creates unique reciprocal duties of support which do not exist between permanent life partners.

Prostitution in American Samoa is illegal, as are related activities such as brothel keeping and pimping. These acts are punishable by law, including a fine of more than $500 or a jail sentence of up to a year for customers of prostitution. Prostitution occurs in bars and nightclubs, and in boats moored in the harbours.

Kylie v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others is an important decision in South African labour law, handed down on 26 May 2010 in the Labour Appeal Court of South Africa. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge of Appeal Dennis Davis held that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applied to sex workers and that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration therefore had jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a sex worker and the brothel that had fired her. Although the court affirmed that sex workers' employment contracts were legally unenforceable, it held that sex workers were nonetheless protected by the labour rights granted in section 23 of the Constitution of South Africa.

<i>Doctors for Life v Speaker</i> South African legal case

In Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that Parliament and the provincial legislatures are constitutionally obliged to take reasonable steps to enable effective public participation in the legislative process in respect of every law passed. The court invalidated the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2004 and the Traditional Health Practitioners Act, 2004 on the basis that the National Council of Provinces had not solicited public submissions on the laws before passing them.

<i>Khumalo v Holomisa</i> South African legal case

Khumalo and Others v Holomisa is a landmark decision in the South African law of delict. It was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 21 May 2002. Handing down judgment for a unanimous court, Justice Kate O'Regan held that the existing common law of defamation is consistent with the Bill of Rights. The case emanated from a challenge by members of the press, who argued, in the main, that falsity should be an element of the delict of defamation in suits brought by public officials. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that existing common law does not impose an undue limitation on freedom of expression.

<i>Prince v Law Society</i> South African legal case

Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others is a 2002 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal law. It concerned the constitutionality of criminalising cannabis given Rastafaris' constitutional right to freedom of religion. A majority of the court held that the Constitution did not obligate the state to exempt bona fide religious uses from statutory prohibitions against cannabis use and possession.

<i>Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> South African legal case

Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division and Others is a 2003 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the right to freedom of expression. The case concerned a statutory prohibition against obscene or nude performances, such as striptease, on premises where liquor was sold. In Justice Albie Sachs's summation, the question was "whether it is constitutionally permissible to prohibit the combination of tipples and nipples".

References

  1. ↑ https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2002/22.html [34]
  2. ↑ Spies, Amanda (2015). "Better Late than Never: Lessons from S v Jordan in Strengthening Women's Participation in Litigation". Southern African Public Law. 30 (2): 505–518. doi:10.25159/2522-6800/3591. ISSN   2522-6800.
  3. ↑ Krüger, Rósaan (2004). "Sex Work from a Feminist Perspective: a Visit to the Jordan Case". South African Journal on Human Rights. 20 (1): 138–150. doi:10.1080/19962126.2004.11864812. ISSN   0258-7203.
  4. ↑ Bonthuys, Elsje (1 December 2006). "Women's Sexuality in the South African Constitutional Court: Jordan v. S. 2002 (6) SA 642 (CC)". Feminist Legal Studies. 14 (3): 391–406. doi:10.1007/s10691-006-9034-x. ISSN   1572-8455.
  5. ↑ Fritz, Nicole (2004). "Crossing Jordan: Constitutional Space for (un)Civil Sex ?". South African Journal on Human Rights. 20 (2): 230–248. doi:10.1080/19962126.2004.11864818. ISSN   0258-7203.
  6. ↑ Louw, Ronald (2003). "The Constitutional Court Upholds the Criminalisation of Sex Work". Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity (57): 104–110. ISSN   1013-0950. JSTOR   4066397.
  7. ↑ Kroeze, Irma J. (2003). "Sin and simulacra: some comments on the Jordan case: regspraak". Journal of South African Law. 3. S2CID   157146013.
  8. ↑ Dyani-Mhango, Ntombizozuko (2017). "Reflecting on Former Chief Justice Ngcobo's Approach to Gender Equality: Revisiting the Jordan and Volks Judgments". Southern African Public Law. 32 (1&2): 33 pages–33 pages. doi:10.25159/2522-6800/3569. ISSN   2522-6800.
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.