• Does your child have unlimited access to the Internet and apps on their phones? If you have not considered online dangers and health risks for your child, you have to read the article published in Servamus: June 2021.

  • Children as young as 12 years start to experiment with drugs. Make sure that you read the article published in Servamus: June 2021 to learn what parents can do if they expect that their child is using drugs.

  • During divorce battles one parent often alienates the other from having a relationship with their children. In Servamus: June 2021 we discuss this form of emotional abuse of parents and children.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
0
0
0
s2smodern
powered by social2s

In the matter between -

First applicant: Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF); and Second applicant: Mr Julius Sello Malema; and

First respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; and Second respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP); and

First Amicus Curiae (Friend of the court): Socio-economic Rights Institution of South Africa; and Second Amicus Curiae: Sakeliga NPC

Introduction
This matter is, inter alia, about the meaning and/or objective and/or interpretation of certain legal provisions in our law. They are -
(1) Section 18 of the Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956 which provides as follows:

“18. Attempt, conspiracy and inducing another person to commit offence

(1) Any person who attempts to commit any offence, against a statute or a statutory regulation shall be guilty of an offence and, if no punishment is expressly provided thereby for such an attempt, be liable on conviction to the punishment to which a person convicted of actually committing that offence would be liable.

(2) Any person who -

(a) conspires with any other person to aid or procure the commission of or to commit;
or
(b) incites, instigates; commands, or procures any other person to commit,

any offence, whether at common law or against a statute or statutory regulation, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the punishment to which a person convicted of actually committing that offence would be liable.”

Comment: Only section 18(2)(b) of this Riotous Assemblies Act is relevant to this matter. Section 18(1) and (2)(a) are, however, included supra for the sake of completeness. In the Afrikaans text, section 18(2)(b) reads as follows: “18(2)(b) Iemand wat -

(a) …

(b) ‘n ander persoon uitlok, aanstig, beveel of verkry om so ‘n misdryf te pleeg, is aan ‘n misdryf skuldig en by skuldigbevinding strafbaar met die straf waarmee ‘n persoon wat weens die werklike pleging van daardie misdryf skuldig bevind is, gestraf kan word.”

(2) Section 1(1) of the Trespass Act 6 of 1959 (in Afrikaans text: “Wet op Oortreding") provides as follows:

“1. Prohibition of entry or presence upon land and entry of or presence in buildings in certain circumstances

(1) Any person who without the permission -

(a) of the lawful occupier of any land [in Afrikaans text: ‘grond’] or any building or part of a building; or

(b) of the owner or person in charge of any land or any building or part of a building that is not lawfully occupied by any person, enters or is upon such land or enters or is in such building or part of a building, shall be guilty of an offence unless he or she has lawful reason to enter or be upon such land or enter or be in such building or part of a building.

(1A) A person who is entitled to be on land in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA), 1997, shall be deemed to have lawful reason to enter and be upon such land”.

(Words in square brackets inserted by Pollex.)

(3) The Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Land Act 19 of 1998 (“PIE Act”) where, in section 8, provision is made for certain offences and private prosecutions.

(4) Sections 16 and 167(5) and (6) of the Constitution of the RSA, 1996, provide as follows:

“16. Freedom of expression

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes -

(a) freedom of the press and other media;

(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;

(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and

(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

(2) The right in subsection (1) [supra] does not extend to -

(a) propaganda for war;

(b) incitement of imminent violence; or

(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

*****************************

[If you are interested in reading the rest this comprehensive discussion about this court case, contact Servamus’s office by sending an e-mail to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or fax: 0866 358 956 to find out how. Ed.]

 

0
0
0
s2smodern
powered by social2s

Servamus - June 2021

Not a day goes by that we do not see or interact with a private security officer - either when we visit a shopping centre, have a security crisis at home or at the office or when a private security officer passes us while patrolling the neighbourhoods in their vehicles.
By Annalise Kempen
Family murder is a heartbreaking topic and one will never understand how parents can commit such acts involving their own children.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
“I am John. My ‘new’ father enjoyed a couple of drinks at night and then started swearing at my mother.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
When the eight-year-old victim of Nicolas Ninow (the so-called Dros rapist) was asked to testify in court, social media users were up in arms about the reason why this young victim had to testify.
By Kotie Geldenhuys

Pollex - June 2021

Read More - S v Klaas, Case No: CC51/2020, dated 30 November 2020, High Court Grahamstown (ECG)
Mr Wandile Klaas, hereinafter referred to as the accused, was convicted by the High Court in Grahamstown (nowadays called Makhanda) of count 1: housebreaking with intent to commit theft; count 2: rape; and count 3: theft.
A discussion entitled “Before the accused has pleaded to the charge” and/or, “Two men have been taken in for questioning by the police”, was published in Ask Pollex in Servamus: November 2020.
Read More - S v Thabani Luthuli Case no: AR 106/2020 High Court in Pietermaritzburg, KZN (KZP)
Introduction Mr Thabani Luthuli, the accused, was convicted before the regional court in Ixopo in KZN (“the trial court”) of count 1, housebreaking with the intent to rape, and, count 2, rape.

Letters - June 2021

Securing a conviction in a murder case is always a reason to celebrate that justice has been served.
June Magazine Cover

Servamus' Mission

Servamus is a community-based safety and security magazine for both members of the community as well as safety and security practitioners with the aim of increasing knowledge and sharing information, dedicated to improving their expertise, professionalism and service delivery standards. It promotes sound crime management practices, freedom of speech, education, training, information sharing and a networking platform.