Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
25 May 2012
   
 
 
Article by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
DOWNLOAD
 

On 30 September 2010, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment in which Mr van Vuren was an applicant and was successful. Paragraph 78(g) of the judgment, ordered the “[t]he Case Management Committee, to the extent that it is statutorily authorised to do so, the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board and the Minister for Correctional Services . . . to consider [Mr van Vuren] for release and placement under community corrections, with immediate effect.”

Pursuant to that judgment, the Minister and Commissioner of Correctional Services (applicants) filed an urgent application to have paragraph 78(g) of the judgment varied. The applicants pointed out that the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS) considered itself to no longer have jurisdiction for purposes of making a recommendation to the Minister for placement on parole of offenders such as Mr van Vuren because the order excludes it. The applicants argued that it is necessary to include the NCCS in the paragraph in order to enable it to make a recommendation to the Minister. They pointed out that absent a recommendation by the NCCS, the Minister could not consider the placement of Mr van Vuren or any other similarly placed offenders on parole. If the Minister did so, that conduct would amount to unlawful administrative action.

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants did not meet the requirements of rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court which specify when a court can rescind or vary a judgment. Further, the Court held that the contention that the implementation of paragraph 78(g) by the Minister will amount to an unlawful administrative action must be rejected. As a result, it held that the judgment handed-down on 30 September 2010 is clear and requires no variation.
 

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
  Photos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Related social media
 
Related social media terms:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Topics on this page
 
 
 
Company
 
Person
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online Publishers Association