ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: University of the Free State
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 2, p. 329 – 340
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i2a8
None
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: University of Limpopo
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 2, p. 341 – 360
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i2a9
None
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: B Juris LLB (UPE) LLM (Rhodes) DJuris (Leiden); Adjunct Professor of Law and Leader of the Law, Science and Justice Research Niche Area, University of Fort Hare; LLB (Nigeria) LLM (Stellenbosch) LLD (UFH); Time on Task Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Fort Hare
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 1, p. 1 – 23
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i1a1
This article examines DNA phenotyping in general and highlights international perspectives regarding the use of this technique. The article interrogates the genetic basis of predicting externally visible characteristics, the potential value of the technique, and the pitfalls regarding its use. Despite the ethical and legal concerns and debates concerning DNA phenotyping, the potential value of this technique should not be underestimated. In the context of the high number of serious crimes such as rape and murder that remain unsolved in South Africa, the responsible and scientific application of DNA phenotyping might prove to be an effective additional tool in criminal investigation.
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: BA LLB (Stellenbosch) LLM LLD (University of the Free State), Research Associate, Department of Public Law, University of the Free State
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 1, p. 24 – 41
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i1a2
South Africans have become accustomed to almost daily news reports of litigation in our courts that involve politically powerful and well-connected individuals. The perception by the public is that in many instances litigants approach the courts for other reasons than achieving justice and are therefore misusing our courts and its processes.1 This becomes a matter of concern when such perceptions affect the trust and confidence that the public holds in respect of the judicial system and the rule of law. The recent Free State asbestos pre-trial motion proceedings illustrate some of these concerns. This article first comments on the judgment of the Free State high court in this matter, and focusses on the unmeritorious aspects of the applications made. These aspects included a claim that the applicants’ right to a fair trial were infringed, and the applicants’ disregard for the established principle against preliminary civil motions emanating from criminal proceedings. Legal practitioners advise their clients and must do so responsibly. For that reason, the second part of the article comments on the professional rules of conduct against the abuse of the court process in relation to legal practitioners’ obligations to both their clients and the court. This duty includes not to litigate causes or raise defences that have little chance of success or where they are initiated by litigants for purposes other than achieving justice. Improper purposes include delaying the proceedings to escape criminal liability and ultimately, accountability. In order to curb pre-trial litigation in any court other than the criminal trial court, the article proposes an extension of the Criminal Procedure Act to clarify when such other court may be approached for relief. It also proposes that a certificate of probable cause accompanies all pre-trial motions that emanate from criminal proceedings in a court other than the trial court.
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: LLB (Makerere) LLM (UP) LLM (UFS) LLD (UWC). Professor, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 1, p. 42 – 57
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i1a3
Section 78 of the Correctional Services Act (the Act) empowers the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (the minister) to grant parole to an offender serving a life sentence (lifer). Between 2004 and 2008, a court had the power to place a lifer on parole. However, this power was transferred from the court to the minister in 2008. In Walus v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, the Constitutional Court relied on the pre-2008 version of s 78 of the Act to hold that a court has the power to release a lifer on parole. The court ordered the minister to place the offender on parole after finding that the decision to decline his parole application was irrational. It is argued that although the court correctly invoked the principle of rationality to order the minister to place the offender on parole, it erred when it held that s 78 of the Correctional Services Act empowered it to order the minister to place the offender on parole. It is also argued that the court erred when it equated the non-parole period with a sentencing remark. It is argued further that since rehabilitation is the most important factor in deciding whether an offender should be granted parole, the Correctional Services Act may have to be amended to provide for the offender’s right to access effective rehabilitation programmes.
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: BA BA(Hons) MA PhD BA(Hons) (Unisa), Senior Lecturer, School of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Limpopo; BA MA DPhil (Pretoria), Professor, Department of Criminology and Security Sciences, School of Criminal Justice, College of Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 1, p. 58 – 82
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i1a4
The significant prevalence of psychiatric disorders in child offenders requires the justice system to provide direction in the treatment of these children. This submission considers whether the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, the Child Justice Act 78 of 2008, the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and the child justice procedures uphold the best interests of child offenders with a mental illness or defects by juxtaposing South African legislation and child justice procedures with the best interests standard principle. The authors conclude that current legislation and legal procedures are not in the best interests of children with psychiatric disorders. Children with mental illness or defects are not adequately protected and they cannot participate equally in justice delivery processes. Furthermore, adequate consideration is not given to the affect of mental disorders or defects in decisions during child justice proceedings. It is recommended that the Child Justice Act be amended to include a section in which the rights of children with psychiatric disorders are protected and measures be put in place to address their psychosocial and developmental needs. Children with psychiatric disorders who are in conflict with the law should be classified as children in need of care and protection to break the causal nexus between psychiatric disorders and delinquency.