| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:00:50Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:00:50Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2003-11-27 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2002] ZACC 22 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2002 (6) SA 642 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2002 (11) BCLR 1117 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2131 | |
| dc.title | S v Jordan and Others (Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Task Force and Others as Amici Curiae) | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT31/01 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT31/01 | en |
| dc.date.hearing | 5-6 March 2002 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Ngcobo J Majority judgment | |
| dc.contributor.judge | O'Regan and Sachs JJ dissenting judgment | |
| dc.date.judgment | 9 October 2002 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2131/Full%20judgment%20%28585%20Kb%29-661.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Constitutionality of sections of the Sexual Offences Act which criminalise the sex worker for prostitution, but not the client and keeping or managing a brothel. The Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the brothel provisions, but split 6-5 with respect to the criminalising of the sex worker for prostitution with the majority finding the provisions constitutional. Ngcobo J writing for the majority found that the challenged provisions were not unconstitutional. (Chaskalson CJ, Kriegler J, Madala J, Du Plessis AJ, Skweyiya AJ concurred) O'Regan J and Sachs J writing for the minority found (Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Goldstone J concurred) found that section 20(1)(aA) brought about indirect unfair discrimination. Section 20(1)(aA) unjustifiably limited both sections 8 and 13 of the interim Constitution. | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Appeal to Constitutional Court against judgment of Transvaal Provincial Division and application for confirmation of the order of invalidity, reported as S v Jordan and Others 2002 (1) SA 797 (T) ; 2001 (10) BCLR 1055 (T) ; 2002 (1) SACR 17 (T). The TPD order invalidating s20(1)(aA) of Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 not confirmed; order refusing to invalidate s2 and 3(b) and (c) confirmed. |