The administration of justice

 

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Davis, Dennis M
dc.contributor.author Marcus, Gilbert J
dc.contributor.author Klaaren, Jonathan E
dc.date.accessioned 2018-01-17T07:18:02Z
dc.date.available 2018-01-17T07:18:02Z
dc.date.issued 2005
dc.identifier.citation Davis, D. M., Marcus, G. J., & Klaaren, J. E. (2005). The Administration of Justice. Ann. Surv. S. African L., 816.
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11427/26834
dc.description.abstract In the 2004 chapter on the Administration of Justice, we took the unusual step of criticising Juta, the publisher of the Annual Survey (at 823-6). We did so because we considered that Juta had behaved improperly in publishing a judgment critical of Jeremy Gauntlett SC but refusing his request to record that the Cape Bar Council had exonerated him of improper conduct. The details of the saga are fully recorded in last year's contribution and need not be repeated. As the publisher of the Annual Survey, Juta asserted a right to respond to the criticism levelled at it (2004 Annual Survey 845). Indeed, it appropriated an entire printed page to do so. Regrettably, we believe that Juta has compounded its error and that its comments cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. In essence, Juta makes three points. First, the judgment on leave to appeal was reported because it 'contradicted a previous assumption that a dissenting judgment in the court a quo meant that leave to appeal would be granted as a matter of course' (ibid). Second, the South African Law Reports contains only such editorial comment as may be necessary to elucidate the published judgments. Third, '[i]t is not incumbent upon the publishers of law reports to annotate the reports in order to vindicate any of the persons who from time to time draw adverse comment from presiding judges' (ibid). None of these arguments withstand scrutiny.
dc.language.iso eng
dc.source Annual Survey of South African Law
dc.source.uri https://home.heinonline.org/titles/Law-Journal-Library/Annual-Survey-of-South-African-Law/?letter=A
dc.title The administration of justice
dc.type Journal Article
dc.date.updated 2017-11-16T13:48:26Z
dc.publisher.institution University of Cape Town
dc.publisher.faculty Faculty of Law en_ZA
dc.publisher.department Department of Commercial Law en_ZA
uct.type.filetype Text
uct.type.filetype Image
dc.identifier.apacitation Davis, D. M., Marcus, G. J., & Klaaren, J. E. (2005). The administration of justice. <i>Annual Survey of South African Law</i>, http://hdl.handle.net/11427/26834 en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitation Davis, Dennis M, Gilbert J Marcus, and Jonathan E Klaaren "The administration of justice." <i>Annual Survey of South African Law</i> (2005) http://hdl.handle.net/11427/26834 en_ZA
dc.identifier.vancouvercitation Davis DM, Marcus GJ, Klaaren JE. The administration of justice. Annual Survey of South African Law. 2005; http://hdl.handle.net/11427/26834. en_ZA
dc.identifier.ris TY - AU - Davis, Dennis M AU - Marcus, Gilbert J AU - Klaaren, Jonathan E AB - In the 2004 chapter on the Administration of Justice, we took the unusual step of criticising Juta, the publisher of the Annual Survey (at 823-6). We did so because we considered that Juta had behaved improperly in publishing a judgment critical of Jeremy Gauntlett SC but refusing his request to record that the Cape Bar Council had exonerated him of improper conduct. The details of the saga are fully recorded in last year's contribution and need not be repeated. As the publisher of the Annual Survey, Juta asserted a right to respond to the criticism levelled at it (2004 Annual Survey 845). Indeed, it appropriated an entire printed page to do so. Regrettably, we believe that Juta has compounded its error and that its comments cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. In essence, Juta makes three points. First, the judgment on leave to appeal was reported because it 'contradicted a previous assumption that a dissenting judgment in the court a quo meant that leave to appeal would be granted as a matter of course' (ibid). Second, the South African Law Reports contains only such editorial comment as may be necessary to elucidate the published judgments. Third, '[i]t is not incumbent upon the publishers of law reports to annotate the reports in order to vindicate any of the persons who from time to time draw adverse comment from presiding judges' (ibid). None of these arguments withstand scrutiny. DA - 2005 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town J1 - Annual Survey of South African Law LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 2005 T1 - The administration of justice TI - The administration of justice UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/26834 ER - en_ZA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record