Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:10:44Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:10:44Z
dc.date.created 2008-07-22 en
dc.identifier.citation [2009] ZACC 8
dc.identifier.citation 2009 (4) SA 222 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2009 (2) SACR 130 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2009 (7) BCLR 637 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3549
dc.title Director of Public Prosecutions Transvaal v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Transvaal (Centre for Child Law; Childline South Africa; Resources aimed at the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect; Operation Bobbi Bear; Children First; People Opposing Women Abuse; Cape Mental Health Society as Amici Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CT36/08 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT36/08 en
dc.date.hearing 6 November 2008
dc.contributor.judge Ngcobo J
dc.date.judgment 1 April 2009
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3549/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28438%20Kb%29-13439.pdf?sequence=30&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for confirmation of the invalidity of sections 153(3) and (5), 158(5), 164(1) 170A(1) and (7) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 regarding the testimony of child witnesses in open court. The constitutional validity of these provisions was raised by the High Court on its own initiative. This Court held that a High Court is entitled to raise a constitutional issue of its own accord if the issue stemmed from the facts of the case, and a decision on the constitutional issue was necessary to decide the case. Court took notice that a child complainant of abusive sexual acts will in many cases experience undue stress or suffering by testifying in open court. Yet, the Court held that there is nothing to prevent all of the impugned provisions from being applied in a manner that properly protects the interests of the child. Therefore the High Court?s order of invalidity was not confirmed and High Court order set aside. Court ordered the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to provide the Court with a report with various finding regarding a list of regional courts, how many intermediaries they have, the services available to the intermediaries and the like. Skweyiya J wrote a separate concurring judgment. Majority: Ngcobo J (Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Mokgoro J, O?Regan J, Sachs J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J concurring) Minority: Skweyiya J
dc.concourt.casehistory Application to the CC for confirmation of orders of constitutional invalidity made by the High Court. Earlier judgments are: S v Mokoena 2008 (5) SA 578 (T); S v Albert Phaswane and Aaron Mokoena Case No CC192/2007, North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, 14 August 2007, unreported and S v A Mokoena and A Phaswane Case No CC7/07, North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, 24 October 2008, unreported.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account