Court’s power to order the minister to place a prisoner on parole in South Africa: Walus v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others 2023 (2) BCLR 224 (CC)

J. D. Mujuzi
{"title":"Court’s power to order the minister to place a prisoner on parole in South Africa: Walus v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others 2023 (2) BCLR 224 (CC)","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.47348/sacj/v36/i1a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":256796,"journal":{"name":"South African journal of criminal justice","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African journal of criminal justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/sacj/v36/i1a3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南非法院命令部长假释囚犯的权力:Walus诉司法和惩教服务部长及其他人2023 (2)BCLR 224 (CC)
《惩教服务法》(该法)第78条授权司法和惩教服务部长(部长)向正在服无期徒刑的罪犯(无期徒刑犯)授予假释。在2004年至2008年期间,法院有权对终身监禁的罪犯进行假释。然而,这项权力在2008年从法院移交给了部长。在Walus诉司法和惩教部长一案中,宪法法院依据2008年以前版本的该法第78条裁定,法院有权假释终身监禁者。法院在发现拒绝罪犯假释申请的决定是不合理的之后,命令部长将罪犯假释。有人认为,虽然法院正确地援引了理性原则,命令部长将罪犯假释,但它错误地认为,《惩教服务法》第78条赋予了法院命令部长将罪犯假释的权力。也有人认为,法院错误地将非假释期等同于量刑。还认为,由于改造是决定是否给予罪犯假释的最重要因素,因此可能必须修订《教改服务法》,以规定罪犯有权参加有效的改造方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comment: Telephonic entrapment Recent Case: General Principles and Specific Offences Defining the contours of a ‘criminal gang’ and a ‘pattern of criminal gang activity’ under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act Victimisation and challenges to integration: Transitional justice response to children born of war in northern Uganda Covid-19-related criminalisation in South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1