| |
|
|
| |
Poorly informed opinion
28/08/2008 08:39
This article is the product of someone that obviously does not understand ANYTHING about the SA legal system. It's poorly drafted, illogical, misrepresents facts and reaches an untenable conclusion. - zzz |
|
 |
| |
Good questions Lindani
28/08/2008 08:44
Having been in this process for the past nearly four years myself, I know what you are talking about. My application for leave to appeal took 11 months to be heard. Although it was granted and all the rules complied to, now 9 months later I have not even been allocated a date. And the worst of it is you need a lot of time & money, which the average paerson does not have. Welcome to the judicially raped middle class. - SM |
|
|
| |
I here you LIndani but.....
28/08/2008 08:52
The quection here is,what would you do if oneday you find yaself tangled in the judicial web with enough resources at ya disposal?Would you just give up fighting or will you just surrender..?I guess ya choice in this regard is clear. - Les-Maada |
|
|
| |
View on judges' decisions.
28/08/2008 08:56
From personal experience it seems that bthe higher you go in the judicial system the better change is there for justice. It comes accross as judges makes decisions on what is the quicest way of getting the case out of the judicial system. Assuming this is true (and I believe it is) it will always go to the person who can afford to take the process further, hence the Con Court hopefully will make the correct decision. Unfortunately, following Con Court cases, it really seems to be fact. - SM |
|
|
| |
Almost agree
28/08/2008 08:57
I agree with most of what you say but Im not sure about the last point. Is it not be better to have courts dealing specifically with different matters? Expedience should not cause you to make changes to high courts. And I do not see how combining courts will make them more efficient since you have the same resources for the same hearings. Maybe a better idea is to look for bottlenecks in the administrative side. - mallencolly |
|
|
| |
Take your punishment
28/08/2008 08:58
It only occurs when some one has already been found guilty of a crime,then they want to run to the constitutional court and try and get their convictions overturned,they should take their punishments like men and stop wasting tax payers money - proud to be white |
|
|
| |
You would do the same
28/08/2008 09:03
If you were in the shoes of the people who appeal all the way to the ConCourt, believe me you would do the same. As long as there is a chance, however slim, that you may avoid a guilty verdict and accompanying sentence, and you have the means, you would certainly go for it. They structured the process that way and they seem happy with it, so they must bear it - however long it takes. - Chris-T |
|
|
| |
But it won't work
28/08/2008 09:04
Or should that be... it will actually work. But that's a bad thing! Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a streamlined system. But as half of those sitting in court are politicians they enjoy the fact that it takes years to actually get to court... it's so much easier to lose documents over a longer period of time. The constitutional court as long been seen as a get out of jail free card for various criminals. Why would anyone want that to change? - Robert |
|
|
| |
Agreed
28/08/2008 09:08
As an example, take the pending appeal of Christo Becker and the four Waterkloof murderers: because they have the funds to afford it, they waste the CC's valuable time in an attempt to water down a well-deserved and already very lenient sentence. But because the parents of these spoilt and arrogant thugs have unlimited finances to hire the best lawyers, they will probably walk free to kick more homeless Black men to death. Truly: Is this why we have a CC? - Heino Bester |
|
|
| |
Great argument
28/08/2008 09:08
Your point regarding how a full high court bench can reach a different conclusion to the constitutional court was excellently written and it really made me think about something I had not really thought about before. I was not aware that there was a suggestion to merge the SCA and the CC but I would tend to agree with you - this move would make a lot of sense. Great article, well done. - Richard |
|
|
| |
exactly
28/08/2008 09:17
Excellent assessment.The way cases now end up in the concourt..it makes a mockery of the court of appeals.The wealthy accused allways end up appealing to the concourt. That is just wrong. - kwk |
|
|
| |
as a matter of interest
28/08/2008 09:19
what cases are you talking about? you obviously have a few in mind so share with us??? - makondo |
|
|
| |
the reason
28/08/2008 09:20
The reason why the Con Court comes to different decisions sometimes is because the lower court in most cases are deciding on the merits of the case, and not constitutional issues. Once someone is found guilty on the merits they appeal on constitutional grounds to the con court. If the decision is overturned it is on completely different grounds than what the previous decision was on(ie constittutional grounds). Most times. - mo |
|
|
| |
@Heino Bester....I was thinking exactly the same when I read this article..
28/08/2008 09:28
To be brutally honest, to me these 4 criminals were convicted of a CRIMINAL offense, as you rightly say got a very lenient sentence, appealed against every single thing there is to appeal against...And now they're taking things to the ConCourt??? What on earth does the KILLING of a man have to do with the ConCourt - it's a criminal matter, not a constitional matter at all. The ConCourt is there to judge on matters relating to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, not criminals. - J.O |
|
|
| |
Thanks, Mo!
28/08/2008 09:29
Interesting response--useful for those of us who are not expert on the law. Thanks for your insight. - Heino Bester |
|
|
| |
Concourt
28/08/2008 09:38
You have a point and mostly I agree with you. The problem with all RSA courts and the system is that only access to huge amounts of money secures access to the courts. The legal system is of very little use to most people in RSA, except of course the laywers and attorneys who make big bucks in the drawn out process. The concourt should not get involved in criminal matters, but only matter pertaining to the constitution and people rights stemming from that. - Boerseun |
|
|
| |
@ zzz
28/08/2008 09:48
You name says it all. You seem to be asleep when reading the article. Let me guess, you are in the judicial system and any changed would actually make you have to work for your money. Like Les-Maada says why would you give up, but he alsom qualified it with unlimited resources. Bottom line money talks (read: Win). How can any system with money, clean or dirty, be the basis opf justice?? - SM |
|
|
| |
I agree with you to some extent
28/08/2008 09:50
The Application provision in section 8 of the Constitution has been found to have a far wider interpretation to an extent that 'almost' any matter may easily be considered to be 'constitutional'. What the court seems to be doing at the slow pace is the analysis of the impact its decisions have or might have on the society at large (which ought to be a factor in deciding to enroll). The court seem to have no sight of the floodgates they are in the process of opening. Great argument by the wayh - Arthur Maisela |
|
|
| |
Intellegent Argument there Lindani!
28/08/2008 09:52
Unfortunately the everything in our lives has a right attached to it, there are rights to do almost everything and the Con Court would always have their hands full, the removal of camps is a constitutional matter apparently because the ILLEGAL immigrants have rights in South Africa, the criminal courts ordered that the camps be removed because these are illegal but the Con court ruled otherwise, customary laws(recognised by law) ruled that women cannot be Chiefs and kings, the Con Court ruled otherwise, there are many similar cases of this nature and maybe the laws of the country should be amended to agree with the constitution, Lawyers never refer to the constitution in their arguments in court but they research on old cases as the bases for their arguments, and some of this laws might have changed and contrary to the constitution. - kolobe |
|
|
| |
@zzz
28/08/2008 09:58
So your comment is well drafted, logical, represents facts, and reaches a tenable conclusion? Fact is Linda HAS got an excellent point. How can 6 learned judges frequently make unconstitutional judgements? So what then is the point of a Court of Appeals? - kwk |
|
|
| |
Does it work this way?
28/08/2008 10:02
When a judge makes a judgement and finds someone guilty, does he indicate the number of the law against which he has made the judgement, i.e. Law 24 Paragraph 3? If so, surely this would be the only call that the ConCourt would have to make - that Law 24 Paragraph 3 is unconstitutional? Or is this too simplistic? Hey, I am in IT - we only deal with Yes and No! :) - Dave Robbins |
|
|
| |
@ZZZ
28/08/2008 10:03
This article is the product of someone that obviously does not understand ANYTHING about the SA legal system. It's poorly drafted, illogical, misrepresents facts and reaches an untenable conclusion. Is that all you can say about this well written article? Are you drunk or what? What a disgraceful responce. Shame on you. - Thabo |
|
|
| |
@ Kolobe
28/08/2008 10:14
You have explained it in an unquestionable way my brother. - Arthur Maisela |
|
|
| |
Judges
28/08/2008 10:17
Judges are appointed by a political appointee, what makes us to think that they will be fair and objective, never mind people like Judge Moseneke making unneccessary pronouncements at his birthday about matters that still have to come before him! - Paul Montele |
|
|
| |
i say...........
28/08/2008 10:23
all these damn institutions are corrupt and manipulated, so if you can push your case all the way to the con court then why the hell not even if its murder, chances are two of the clowns on those benches will see differently and you might just walk, if you cant afford the whole process then eeiisshh HARD LUCK hey - fedup |
|
|
| |
@kolobe
28/08/2008 10:38
the point you make about the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS is close to my head and heart mfana.
how the hell do we allow people who pay NO TAX and are ILLEGAL to HAVE RIGHTS? Their even making demands now.
Xenophobia or not, this is not RIGHT! - tshepo |
|
|
| |
Loopholes
28/08/2008 10:40
Reading articles and seeing how long it actually takes to send someone to prison, takes way too long. There are too many loopholes that criminals and convicts know about. Feeling "Sick" can extend the judgement date, not "understanding" the judge. etc. etc. etc.
There is no iron fist to enforce, 'n quick and painless senticing. Time is money, and it costs alot of money to hold a hearing etc.
Find a way to bury the loopholes!!! - The Middleman |
|
|
| |
|
|
| This comments facility is now closed. |
Get Published on MyNews24
