Constitutional application
| dc.contributor.author | Pillay, Anashri | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-10-25T13:25:05Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-10-25T13:25:05Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2003 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2016-01-14T10:10:05Z | |
| dc.description.abstract | National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohamed NO 2003 (1) SACR 561 (CC) was an appeal against a finding that s 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 1998 was unconstitutional. In essence, the section allowed the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to use an ex parte procedure to apply to the High Court for a preservation of property order (at para 1). The High Court had to make the order `if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property concerned ± is an instrumentality of an offence referred to in Schedule 1; or is the proceeds of unlawful activities' (at para 14). The High Court held that s 38 should be read as if the words `by way of an ex parte application' did not appear in the section. The court also found that s 38 did not allow for a rule nisi procedure and that this was unconstitutional (at paras 8 and 9). Other challenges against the Act were dismissed by the High Court and the respondent did not challenge these findings in the appeal (at paras 9 and 10). | |
| dc.identifier.apacitation | Pillay, A. (2003). Constitutional application. <i>South African Journal of Criminal Justice</i>, http://hdl.handle.net/11427/25816 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.chicagocitation | Pillay, Anashri "Constitutional application." <i>South African Journal of Criminal Justice</i> (2003) http://hdl.handle.net/11427/25816 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Pillay, A. (2003). Constitutional application : Recent case. South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 16(3), p.444-447. | |
| dc.identifier.ris | TY - Journal Article AU - Pillay, Anashri AB - National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohamed NO 2003 (1) SACR 561 (CC) was an appeal against a finding that s 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 1998 was unconstitutional. In essence, the section allowed the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to use an ex parte procedure to apply to the High Court for a preservation of property order (at para 1). The High Court had to make the order `if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property concerned ± is an instrumentality of an offence referred to in Schedule 1; or is the proceeds of unlawful activities' (at para 14). The High Court held that s 38 should be read as if the words `by way of an ex parte application' did not appear in the section. The court also found that s 38 did not allow for a rule nisi procedure and that this was unconstitutional (at paras 8 and 9). Other challenges against the Act were dismissed by the High Court and the respondent did not challenge these findings in the appeal (at paras 9 and 10). DA - 2003 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town J1 - South African Journal of Criminal Justice LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 2003 T1 - Constitutional application TI - Constitutional application UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/25816 ER - | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/25816 | |
| dc.identifier.vancouvercitation | Pillay A. Constitutional application. South African Journal of Criminal Justice. 2003; http://hdl.handle.net/11427/25816. | en_ZA |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.publisher.department | Department of Public Law | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher.faculty | Faculty of Law | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher.institution | University of Cape Town | |
| dc.source | South African Journal of Criminal Justice | |
| dc.source.uri | http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication/ju_sajcj | |
| dc.title | Constitutional application | |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| uct.type.filetype | ||
| uct.type.filetype | Text | |
| uct.type.filetype | Image |