S v Mamabolo (E TV and Others Intervening)

dc.date.accessioned	2017-04-08T16:59:45Z
dc.date.available	2017-04-08T16:59:45Z
dc.date.created	2003-12-02	en
dc.identifier.citation	[2001] ZACC 17
dc.identifier.citation	2001 (3) SA 409 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation	2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2112
dc.title	S v Mamabolo (E TV and Others Intervening)	en
dc.title.alternative	CCT44/00	en
dc.identifier.casenumber	CCT44/00	en
dc.date.hearing	27 February 2001
dc.contributor.judge	Kriegler J
dc.date.judgment	11 April 2001
dc.link.judgment	http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2112/Full%20judgment%20%28490%20Kb%29-803.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis	The majority, per Kriegler J, held that, while the common law crime of scandalising the court limits freedom of expression, the limitation is justifiable provided that the crime is appropriately narrowly defined with the aim of preserving confidence in the administration of justice. Sachs J, in a separate judgment, held that greater protection of expression was required - in order to constitute a crime, the conduct must pose a real and direct threat to the administration of justice. The employment of a summary procedure in such matters unanimously held to be an unjustifiable limitation of the Constitutional fair trial right.
dc.concourt.casehistory	Appellant obtained leave to appeal directly to Constitutional Court against his conviction in the Transvaal High Court.

Files in this item

Full judgment (490 Kb)-803.pdf ( 489.2Kb )

Summary of judgment-804.pdf ( 78.98Kb )

Respondent's Heads of Argument-805.pdf ( 695.5Kb )

Amicus Curiae Heads of Argument-806.pdf ( 497.4Kb )

Respondent's Supplementary Heads of Argument-807.pdf ( 295.5Kb )