First, it was not possible for the State to disprove the existence of a lawful reason as required by s 1(1)(a) of the Act. However, it found that these infringements were justified on two bases. With regard to s 1(2) of the Act, the court a quo accepted that this provision infringed the right to be presumed innocent, the right to remain silent and the right against self incrimination. The court a quo found that s 1(1)(b) of the Act does not infringe the right to freedom of expression, and that the provision only criminalises expressive acts which are reasonably construed to be threats of violence. The appeals are against the judgment of Khumalo J, sitting in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the court a quo) who simultaneously heard, and thereafter dismissed, the appellants’ applications for declaratory orders of invalidity and unconstitutionality of ss 1(1)(b) and 1(2) respectively. These two appeals, which were heard together in accordance with a practice directive of the President of this court, concern the constitutional validity of ss 1(1)(b) and 1(2) of the Intimidation Act 72 of 1982 (the Act). Mbha, JA (dissenting in part) (Van der Merwe, JA concurring) GST, PAN, IP Ownership, Social Media, and much more.LegaTrace - Tracing Legal Info Across India.Auto summary and keywording for contracts.PCTMS - Post Contract Tracking Management System **.Workflow, Renewals, Action Items, Alerts, etc.Alerts on related GRs, Notifications, Circulars, Gazettes, etc.Time based / Event based / ect - Configure. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |