Zealand v Minister of Justice

Last updated

Zealand v Minister of Justice is an important case in South African constitutional law.

Contents

Facts

In January 1997, the applicant was charged with crimes which included rape and murder. The matter was postponed. While he was remanded in custody, he escaped. He was re-arrested some three months later and then charged with escaping from custody. He was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment wholly suspended, but remained in prison as an awaiting-trial-prisoner.

In September 1998 he was charged with a second murder, for which he was convicted and sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment. His appeal against the second murder, in August 1999, was successful, but the Registrar of the High Court negligently failed to issue a warrant for the applicant's release. He remained in a maximum-security prison until December 2004, over five years later.

Throughout the years of his detention, his first murder case had been repeatedly postponed. In addition, the record showed that, on October 11, 2001, a magistrate had ordered that his case be postponed, and that he be released on warning. The record did not show why this was not done.

He sued the Ministers of Correctional Services and Justice, the respondents, for damages arising from unlawful detention.

In their defence the respondents admitted negligence but contended that, if the applicant had been released from maximum-security prison he would immediately have been transferred to a medium-security prison as an awaiting-trial prisoner.

High Court

The High Court found that his entire detention had been unlawful.

Supreme Court of Appeal

When the Ministers appealed, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that only the detention since 11 October 2001 had been unlawful.

Constitutional Court

Leave to appeal

The court held that the question of whether the applicant's detention was consistent with the principle of legality and his right to freedom and security of the person in section 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was a constitutional matter. "In light of the view I take of the matter," wrote Langa CJ, "the application for leave to appeal should be granted." [1]

Merits

The legal issue before the Constitutional Court in this application to appeal to it (to have the whole five years declared unlawful) was whether it is lawful to detain a person as if he were a convicted prisoner where

The court held that section 12(1)(a) of the Constitution enshrines the right not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause.

The respondents bore the burden of justifying the applicant's deprivation of liberty. The applicant had been "deprived of liberty" because, inter alia,

Respect for human dignity demanded that this difference be recognised. This obligation, the court observed, is entrenched in article 10(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in sections 82 and 83 of the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959, as well as Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998.

The court held that the deprivation had been "arbitrary and without just cause." Detention in maximum security had not been for any considered reason; it was due to negligence, and was therefore unlawful. The fact that a series of magistrates had ordered it was not sufficient to negate this finding.

Damages

Having found that his detention for the entire period was unlawful, in the sense that section 12(1)(a) of the Constitution was unjustifiably and unreasonably violated, the question now arose: Was that sufficient, in this case, to justify a finding that the applicant's detention was also unlawful or wrongful in the sense required by the private law delictual action of unlawful or wrongful detention?

In Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others , the Constitutional Court had considered the relationship between violations of constitutional rights in public law and delictual claims against the State in private law, and had unanimously held, on the one hand, that "private law damages claims are not always the most appropriate method to enforce constitutional rights." It had held, further, that "it should also be emphasised that a public law obligation does not automatically give rise to a legal duty for the purposes of the law of delict." On the other hand, the court also held that it "should not be understood to suggest that delictual relief should not lie for the infringement of constitutional rights in appropriate circumstances. There will be circumstances where delictual relief is appropriate."

Accordingly, the court had held in Rail Commuters that, when determining whether an action lies in the private law of delict when a public-law duty has been breached, the constitutional norm of accountability should be considered. Furthermore, careful analysis of the relevant constitutional provisions, any relevant statutory duties and the relevant context would be required. It would be necessary, too, to take account of other constitutional norms, important and relevant ones being the principle of effectiveness and the need to be responsive to people's needs.

Having considered Rail Commuters, Langa found that Zealand was

not an appropriate case to traverse fully the complex relationship between public law duties and private law remedies. Suffice it to say the following. I can think of no reason why an unjustifiable breach of s 12(1)(a) of the Constitution should not be sufficient to establish unlawfulness for the purposes of the applicant's delictual action of unlawful or wrongful detention. [2]

Moreover, he noted, South Africa also bears an international obligation in this regard, in terms of article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that "anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation."

The breach of section 12(1)(a) was therefore sufficient, in the circumstances of this case, to render the applicant's detention unlawful for the purposes of a delictual claim for damages. "That," wrote Langa, "will be the most effective way to vindicate the applicant's constitutional right. I expect that to be the case in most instances of unlawful detention." [3] The order made by the Supreme Court of Appeal was accordingly set aside.

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

Delict is a term in civil and mixed law jurisdictions whose exact meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but is always centered on the notion of wrongful conduct.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Delict (Scots law)</span> Actionable civil wrongs in Scots law

Delict in Scots law is the area of law concerned with those civil wrongs which are actionable before the Scottish courts. The Scots use of the term 'delict' is consistent with the jurisdiction's connection with Civilian jurisprudence; Scots private law has a 'mixed' character, blending together elements borrowed from Civil law and Common law, as well as indigenous Scottish developments. The term tort law, or 'law of torts', is used in Anglo-American jurisdictions to describe the area of law in those systems. Unlike in a system of torts, the Scots law of delict operates on broad principles of liability for wrongdoing: 'there is no such thing as an exhaustive list of named delicts in the law of Scotland. If the conduct complained of appears to be wrongful, the law of Scotland will afford a remedy even if there has not been any previous instance of a remedy being given in similar circumstances'. While some terms such as assault and defamation are used in systems of tort law, their technical meanings differ in Scottish delict.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore administrative law</span> Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law</span> Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore constitutional law</span>

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.

Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton is an important case in South African law, in particular the law of delict, but with implications also for criminal law. It was heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 21 August 2003, with judgment handed down on 26 September.

Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10.

Barkhuizen v Napier is an important case in South African contract law, decided by the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2007, having been heard on 4 May 2006. The judges were Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

Minister of Police v Rabie is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Appellate Division on September 3, 1984, with judgment handed down on September 27, 1985. The presiding officers were Jansen JA, Joubert JA, Cillié JA, Van Heerden JA and Vivier AJA. The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters, an important case in the South African law of delict, was heard in the Constitutional Court on August 17, 2006. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J and Kondile AJ presided, handing down judgment on November 30. W. Trengove SC and RT Williams SC appeared for the applicant, and HP Viljoen SC and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The State Attorneys, Cape Town, represented the applicant; the respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville.

The Constitutional Court, in Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening), an important case in South African criminal, delict and constitutional law, found that the State could be held delictually liable for damages arising out of the unlawful omissions of its servants. In casu, the conduct of the police and a prosecutor had resulted in the release of a person, charged with rape, on his own recognisance. This person had subsequently assaulted the complainant.

S v Masiya is an important case in South African criminal law, decided by the Constitutional Court.

Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa 1998 (4) SA 1127 (CC); 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (CC) is an important case in the South African law of medicine, constitutional law, constitutional litigation and criminal procedure.

<i>F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another</i> Irish Supreme Court case

F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another[2014] IESC 1; [2014] 1 IR 280 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court "clarified two important points about the habeas corpus jurisdiction":

  1. that the High Court's jurisdiction does lie in respect of detention orders made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction; and
  2. although the Constitution does not allow for stays to be placed on orders of habeas corpus, "orders can be made for controlling the release of persons who are incapable of protecting themselves."

References

Notes

  1. ↑ Para 22.
  2. ↑ Para 52.
  3. ↑ Para 53.
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.