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
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
DOWNLOAD
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Naidoo & Others - 62 KB
 

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.

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
  Photos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online Publishers Association