A customary right to promote snuff? The implications of Gongqose v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on tobacco regulations

A customary right to promote snuff? The implications of Gongqose v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on tobacco regulations

Author: Mendy Khumalo

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: LLB LLM (UKZN); Lecturer, IIE Varsity College
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 37 Issue 2, p. 191 – 208
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v37/i2a2

Abstract

The Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act 63 of 2008 introduced fundamental changes to the Tobacco Products Control Act 83 of 1993. This Amendment Act inserted ‘promotion’ in its definition section and prohibits such promotion in s 3(1)(a). The legislature defines ‘promotion’ as the practice of bringing awareness and inspiring a positive attitude towards a tobacco product for the purpose of encouraging tobacco use. The proposed Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill provides for an even broader definition by including any form of communication, recommendation or action with the aim or effect of increasing the awareness of a tobacco product. The legislature’s definition of ‘promotion’ in the Tobacco Products Control Act, and the even more encompassing definition in the Tobacco Bill, effectively results in the criminalisation of customary practices which fall within the ambit of the aforementioned definitions. It is argued in this paper that the Gongqose judgment gives rise to a possible defence for persons charged with promoting snuff through customary practices.‘(Neuroscience) is one of those things that holds both promise and terror for the legal system.’

Criminal law in the wake of science – Can neuroscience inform criminal law? Medico-legal perspectives from South Africa

Criminal law in the wake of science – Can neuroscience inform criminal law? Medico-legal perspectives from South Africa

Author: Philip Stevens

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: LLB LLM LLD (Pretoria); Professor in Criminal Law, Department of Public Law, University of Pretoria
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 37 Issue 2, p. 209 – 234
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v37/i2a3

Abstract

The role of science and, more specifically, medical science in explaining criminal behaviour has been acknowledged since time immemorial. With reference to the defence of pathological criminal incapacity within the context of substantive criminal law, the role of mental health sciences is well established. The defence of pathological criminal incapacity has historically been rooted within the fields of forensic psychiatry and psychology. Recently the role of neuroscience in assessing criminal responsibility has become an issue of academic and practical debate. A question that falls to be assessed is whether the time has arrived to open the door to other sciences, such as neuroscience, to supplement the traditional mental health science model to assess criminal responsibility properly. In this article, the defence of pathological criminal incapacity will be used as an example of an area within substantive criminal law where the role of science becomes crucial in assessing criminal responsibility. The historical context of this area of criminal law will be canvassed against the backdrop of advances made in neuroscience to provide an alternative perspective to the traditional model of mental health science. From a procedural perspective, issues relating to the admissibility of neuroscientific evidence will be addressed in order to illustrate both the substantive criminal law pertaining to the theme of discussion as well as the procedural aspects relating to the theme.
‘(Neuroscience) is one of those things that holds both promise and terror for the legal system.’

Note: Minimum sentences for rape involving more than one perpetrator – Recent case law [Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg v Ndlovu (888/2021) [2024] ZASCA 23 (14 March 2024)]

Note: Minimum sentences for rape involving more than one perpetrator – Recent case law [Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg v Ndlovu (888/2021) [2024] ZASCA 23 (14 March 2024)]

Author: Jolandi le Roux-Bouwer

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: Professor, Department of Criminal and Procedural Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 37 Issue 2, p. 235 – 247
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v37/i2a4

Abstract

None