New Road Accident Fund (RAF) legislation places victims of road accidents at the mercy of the fund, which has required "a deserved reputation of unsympathetic and unreasonable treatment of victims", the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

Counsel for the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) Jeremy Gauntlett SC, argued before Acting Judge Hans Fabricius that certain provisions of the RAF Amendment Act, which came into effect in August 2008, should be struck down as unconstitutional and irregular.

The LSSA, which represents South Africa's 18 600 attorneys, joined forces with the South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Quadpara Association, National Council for Persons with Disabilities and seven road accident victims against the transport minister and RAF.

Judge Fabricius refused to permit the Finance and Health Ministers to join the proceedings in support of the respondents, but allowed their affidavits to serve as evidence.

The LSSA welcomed the ruling, as well as the fact that the Health Minister indicated in court the method of assessment used in the RAF Amendment Act - the American Medical Association Guides - for the measurement of serious injury in road accident victims, was not an appropriate long-term method of assessment.

The Minister also indicated that the State health tariff was inappropriate for the reimbursement of road accident victims' medical costs.

The LSSA contended that the Act and regulations seriously prejudiced thousands of road accident victims.

Gauntlett, in strongly-worded heads of argument, described the scheme - which government insisted was merely temporary - as incoherent, discriminatory and irrational.

"Not only is it by clear design not comprehensive, but also fails to introduce new benefits to compensate appropriately for abolishing pre-existing rights. The scheme is thus inherently flawed."

Gauntlett argued that the scheme's avowed rationale was "to protect the wrongdoer, in preference to the victim".

Parliament's protection of perpetrators of often devastating harm was "astonishing".

The scheme's affordability could not be used to justify abolishing the right of recourse against others.

"It can never constitute a valid defence that the cost of giving effect to constitutionally entrenched right is 'beyond the public purse', as the Minister of Finance seeks to contend on behalf of the true respondents."

He severely criticised the Transport Minister's argument that would-be victims could insure themselves against losses beyond the present R160 000 per annum limit to claims for loss of income or support.

The application continues.