- National Director of Public Prosecutions v Naidoo & Others0.06 MB
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal by the National Director of Public Prosecutions in which the NDPP argued that Section 26 of POCA should be restricted to the property of the defendant/accused and should not be interpreted to refer to property of another person. The Court held that the plain grammatical meaning of s 26(6)(b) read with s26(6)(a) is that a restraint order may make provision for the legal expenses of ‘a person against whom the restraint order is being made’ – not for the legal expenses of a third person
against whom a restraint order is also being made.
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
