The secondary role of the spirit purport and objects of the Bill of Rights in the common law's development
Journal Article
2010
Permanent link to this Item
Authors
Journal Title
South African Law Journal
Link to Journal
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Publisher
University of Cape Town
Department
Faculty
License
Series
Abstract
The South African Constitutional Court endorses the following proposition: According to the Constitution, the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights may be reasons for developing the common law. The court has not expressly endorsed this proposition. But it is entailed by a claim that the court has made repeatedly, namely that the Constitution obliges every court to develop the common law whenever it does not accord with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. As the court put it in the Carmichele case: ‘[W]here the common law deviates from the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights the courts have an obligation to develop it by removing that deviation.’1 Notwithstanding its endorsement by the Constitutional Court, the proposition is false. It is not so that the Constitution regards the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights as possible reasons for developing the common law. As possible reasons for developing the common law, the Constitution recognises only the following: (1) the rights in the Bill of Rights; (2) justice; and (3) the rules of the common law itself.
Description
Reference:
Fagan, A. (2010). The secondary role of the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights in the common law's development. South African Law Journal, 127(4), 611-627.