About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPJHC 66
|
|
Ricardo v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (32623/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 66 (3 February 2016)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
number: 32623/2014
DATE:
3 FEBRUARY 2016
In
the matter between:
KELLY, ASHLEY
RICARDO
.......................................................................................................
Applicant
And
THE
MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
.............................................
First
Respondent
THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
CORRECTIONAL
.......................................
Second
Respondent
SERVICES
(NCCS)
THE
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER
CORRECTIONAL
....................................
Third
Respondent
SERVICES
THE
HEAD OF
PRISON
.........................................................................................
Fourth
Respondent
(JOHANNESBURG
MEDIUM B)
THE
CHAIRPERSON OF THE PAROLE
BOARD
................................................
Fifth
Respondent
(JOHANNESBURG
MEDIUM B)
SUMMARY:
Correctional
Services and consideration for parole of an offender sentenced to
life imprisonment - NCCS recommendation to Minister
that offender not
be recommended for placement on parole – three requirements
laid down by NCCS and a further requirement
laid down by Minister.
Application
for review – initial judge ordered NCCS to provide
clarification on what was taken into account in making
recommendations
– supplementary affidavit failed to provide
information or clarification or to substantiate that NCCS had given
consideration
to the issues underlying the further requirements.
Such further
requirements either not extant or unexplained in the intervening 16
months. Participation in a Gang Management Strategy
Programme is not
offered at the relevant prison and has never been availed to
applicant; Development of skills to compete in labour
market already
taken place on the part of applicant and NCCS cannot give any
indication of what further needs to be done; Participation
in
Restorative Justice programme not offered by and unknown to NCCS and
applicant has done what he could. In the face of ‘impossible’
and ‘unreasonable hurdles placed upon applicant when refusing
to recommend placement on parole, the recommendation of the
NCCS and
the decision of the Minister set aside.
Notwithstanding
that applicant has been prejudiced and the matter does concern
liberty of the individual - parole is not a right
but a privilege –
applicant is a convicted murderer whose early release must be subject
to implementation with prescribed
procedures – not appropriate
for the judge to substitute own decision for that of Minister –
time periods set for implementation
of prescribed process.
JUDGMENT
SATCHWELL J:
INTRODUCTION
1.
The applicant is a
prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder who seeks
to review and have set aside the recommendation
made by the National
Council for Correctional Services on 26
th
June 2014 and approved on 25
th
August 2014 by the Minister that the applicant be “not
recommended [for] placement on parole” and that the matter be
reconsidered again in 24 months’ time. I take this to be an
application to review and set aside the decision of the Minister
since the NCCS only made a recommendation and it was the Minister who
made the decision. It matters not since all are included
amongst the
Respondents and all are represented and have prepared papers.
2.
Applicant was sentenced
on 7
th
June 2000. It would seem to be common cause that the applicant is
subject to the regime regarding parole as set out in the erstwhile
legislation, Act 8 of 1959, and that the various complexities of
calculating so-called ‘credits’ in relation to parole
in
terms of that legislation led to a policy directive that persons
sentenced to serve sentences of life imprisonment were eligible
to be
considered for parole once they had served a period of 13 years and 4
months notwithstanding the provisions of the legislation
requiring
that a period of 20 years be served before the Minister could
consider applications for release on parole. It is agreed
that, by
the time applicant launched these proceedings on 20th November 2014,
he had already completed the required 13 years and
4 months period of
imprisonment.
3.
Applicant appeared
before the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board on 22
nd
October 2013. Thereafter his case was considered by the NCCS and the
aforesaid recommendation was made which was the basis upon
which the
Minister made his decision.
4.
When this matter came
before my brother Mothle J in August 2015 he handed down a written
judgment.
5.
With respect to my
learned brother, I am in agreement with the approach taken by him to
the respondents’ attitude that the
application, prepared by and
argued by the applicant without legal representation, does not comply
with the requirements of review
proceedings. Mothle J made no finding
thereon and commented, with empathy, on the difficulties experienced
by the applicant in
handling the matter by himself absent any
assistance.
6.
Regrettably, the
counsel who had been briefed in this matter, an Advocate N
Sikhakhane, failed to appear. I was informed by his
attorney, Mr
Reginald Pooe, that Advocate N Sikhakhane was not available until
Friday. The discourtesy to the court and disregard
for the procedure
approved by the Judge President of this division insofar as it
pertains to the opposed motion court has been
reported to the senior
counsel of the group in which this advocate practises. In the
meantime, Mr Pooe presented the case for the
respondents and, as
always, did an admirable job.
REQUIREMENTS TO BE
CARRIED OUT BEFORE 2016
7.
Three requirements or
conditions which were made by the NCCS and agreed to by the Minister
as to what was to be done within this
intervening period of 24 months
and before the issue of parole would or could be considered were:
a.
Firstly, the applicant
was “to participate further in the Gang Management Strategy”.
b.
Secondly, the applicant
was to be “encouraged and assisted to develop academic and/or
practical skills to enable him to compete
in the labour market once
released on parole”.
c.
Thirdly, when the
matter was again brought before the NCCS it should be accompanied by
the profiles of the applicant’s accomplices.
8.
It has not been
suggested that the third requirement will not be met and there was no
argument on this point. This is, after all,
a directive to the
authorities and not to the applicant.
9.
Insofar as the first
two requirements are concerned, these were raised in the hearing
before my brother Mothle J. He succinctly
stated the position that
the applicant takes the view that he has met the conditions stated by
the Minister and the NCCS but whilst
the learned judge felt that
clarification was required from the Minister and the NCCS.
Accordingly, the learned judge made an order
that within 30 days the
respondents were to answer certain questions directly put by the
learned judge.
10.
I note that the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
[1]
(PAJA) envisages a number of grounds for judicial review of
administrative action which include , in section 6, that the action
was procedurally unfair; the action was taken because irrelevant
considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations
were not considered; the exercise of the power or the performance of
the function authorised by the empowering provision, in pursuance
of
which the administrative action was purportedly taken, is so
unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised
the
power or performed the function.
11.
In
Bato
Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v The Minister Of Environmental Affairs And
Tourism; The Chief Director: Marine And Coastal Management,
Department Of Environmental Affairs And Tourism; and Certain Rights
Holders
[2004] ZACC 15
;
2004 (4) SA
490
(CC) was stated:
[44] The subsection must be construed consistently with the
Constitution and in particular section 33 which requires
administrative
action to be “reasonable”. Section
6(2)(h) should then be understood to require a simple test, namely,
that an
administrative decision will be reviewable if, in Lord
Cooke’s words, it is one that a reasonable decision-maker could
not
reach.
[45] What will constitute a reasonable decision
will depend on the circumstances of each case, much as what
will
constitute a fair procedure will depend on the circumstances of each
case. Factors relevant to determining whether a decision
is
reasonable or not will include the nature of the decision, the
identity and expertise of the decision-maker, the range of factors
relevant to the decision, the reasons given for the decision, the
nature of the competing interests involved and the impact of
the
decision on the lives and well-being of those affected.
[50] If we are satisfied that the Chief
Director did take into account all the factors, struck a reasonable
equilibrium between them and selected reasonable means to pursue the
identified legislative goal in the light of the facts before
him, the
applicant cannot succeed
Gang Management
Strategy
12.
The respondents were
required, as of August 2015, to provide clarification as to what the
NCCS meant by
the
Gang Management Strategy, where such Gang Management Strategy
programme is offered and how the applicant would be assisted to
access and participate in such a programme? (my underlining).
13.
In its supplementary
answering affidavit dated 20
th
November 2015 , a penologist employed by the NCCS advised that the
main objective of such a programme is to raise awareness amongst
offenders on gang related activities, specifically the negative
consequences thereof (I must ask – are there positive
consequences?).
The programme specifically empowers offenders with
practical skills to change behaviour and cope in a correctional
centre without
any affiliation to gangs in any form (I must ask
whether or not such a prison actually exists?).
14.
The deponent to this
affidavit advises that “Johannesburg Prison where the applicant
is incarcerated does not offer this programme
but Modderbee does
offer such programme” and “Applicant will be transferred
to Modderbee Prison for him to be able
to participate in this
programme”.
15.
The recommendation of
the NCCS was taken on 26
th
June 2014. The decision of the Minister was taken on 25
th
August 2014.
16.
It is common cause that
the applicant has never been transferred to Modderbee Prison to
participate in such a programme at
any time prior to the NCCS
making these recommendations or the Minister making his decision or
in the intervening 16
months between such recommendations and
decision and this hearing.
17.
This application was
launched in November 2014 and the only real response from respondents
was to quibble over procedure. Once Mothle
J was seized of the matter
and focussed the attention of respondents on the real issues,
respondents have been similarly dilatory
and taken their own process
no further.
18.
However,
notwithstanding the budgetary restraints and other difficulties to
which the respondents may be subject and which may have
prevented
their implementation of their own recommendations, the applicant is
not a man without enthusiasm and resources. He presented
to this
court a certificate of participation by himself in a course in “Moral
Regeneration and Gangsterism” offered
by an entity known as
“Fear Free Life”. This course covered “the Triune
Being: Our True Self; Definition of Crime;
Definition of a Gang,
Gangsterism and a Gangster; Description of Different Gangs; Factors
that Lead to One Joining the Gang; Effects
of Gangsterism on the
Individual, the Family, the Immediate community, Business and the
Country; Quitting Crime and Gangsterism;
Change of Attitude; Breaking
Free from the Past”. The certificate is signed by the President
of the Organisation and a pastor
who is the Spiritual Coordinator.
19.
Respondents had not had
the opportunity to deal with this course in their supplementary
affidavit. Mr Pooe informed me from the
bar that he understood that
this is a course organised by the Prison inmates. It may well be so.
It would however appear that whoever
created and devised this course
has some idea of what would need to be covered in a course on Gang
Management Strategy –
which suggests that such person or
persons have comprehension and understanding of the problem. I cannot
comment on the course
applicant claims to have attended. I do note
that, in line with many of the courses authorised by the Department
of Correctional
Services, there is the usual ‘spiritual’
or even religious component which is somewhat worrying in a society
where
adherence to no faith at all is protected in our Constitution.
It is to be commended that a prisoner receive solace and strength
and
direction on the way forward from religious faith but no prisoner
should be disadvantaged because he or she does not want to
participate in a programme which offers a religious or spiritual
component.
20.
Argument in this
application concerned the difficulty of the applicant obtaining a
fair hearing before the NCCS or anywhere else
where his parole
application is refused on grounds that he must undergo a course which
course is not offered by the respondents
and has never been made
available to him.
21.
The wording of the NCCS
requirement or condition is that applicant “must participate
further in
the
Gang Management Strategy” programme suggests that there is an
identified programme which is already extant and that there
has been
initial participation therein. Both these premises are incorrect. No
such programme was ever availed to the applicant
prior to the NCCS
recommendation; there had been no initial participation to be taken
further.
22.
Both prior to the
imposition of this condition and in the past 16 months it has proved
impossible for the applicant to comply with
the condition imposed by
or contained within the recommendation of the NCCS and the decision
of the Minister. The impossibility
is of the respondents’ own
making.
23.
It would appear that
the recommendation of 2014 that parole not be considered was based on
the absence of participation in the programme
before 2014. The future
consideration of parole was dependent upon further participation in
the non-existent programme. The requirement
or condition was laid
down by respondents who then failed to procure that such was capable
of fulfilment.
24.
I note that the
supplementary answering affidavit specifically states that
“the
negative factors that militated against the applicant was the fact
that the applicant has not attended a program called
‘Gang
Management Strategy’
which is relevant to the crimes that he permitted” (my
underlining). This is a clear indication that the NCCS took into
account and based its decision and recommendations (in part) on the
fact that the applicant had not attended a course which has
never
been and is not offered at the prison where he is incarcerated and
that he had never been offered the opportunity of attending
such a
course anywhere else prior to the NCCS making this decision as to its
recommendations.
25.
It is difficult to
comprehend how the recommendations of the NCCS and the decision taken
by the Minister can be regarded as fair
administrative action.
[2]
26.
I have had to ask
myself whether or not a recommendation made and a decision taken on
the basis that the prisoner has not yet undergone
and should still
undergo a prescribed or described course which had never been made
available to him at any time before (or after)
the recommendation and
decision (and which may not even exist) can be a fair and reasonable
decision.
27.
The answer is to be
found in posing a hypothetical question. If the prisoner had been
told that his parole depended on the condition
that he fly to the
moon by waving his arms there would be no doubt in finding that such
condition is an impossibility and therefore
the recommendation and
decision predicated upon such flight to the moon was unreasonable and
must be set aside
28.
In the present
circumstances, attendance of a course on ‘Gang Management
Strategy’ has proven equally impossible for
respondents to
procure and applicant to attend prior to making the recommendation
and decision (as well as thereafter). It cannot
be considered to have
been anything other than an inadmissible or incompetent
consideration.
Development of
Skills for the Labour Market
29.
The second condition or
requirement set out in the NCCS recommendations adopted by the
Minister, was that “the offender should
be encouraged and
assisted to develop academic and/or practical skills to enable him to
compete in the labour market one released
on parole”.
30.
In the judgment of
Mothle J dated August 2015 he referred to the numerous certificates
attached to applicants founding affidavit
to demonstrate that he will
be able to compete in the job market on his release on parole. Those
certificates are endless and indicate
that applicant clearly sought
out and joined in every conceivable course available to him. They
cover ‘basic computer skills’,
‘end-user
computing’, ‘information technology course’, ‘A+
advanced information technology’
as well as programmes on
health and safety, democracy and human rights, stress management,
project management, suicide prevention,
life skills and so on and on.
31.
The learned judge asked
of respondents that they indicate in their supplementary affidavit
whether or not the NCCS considered the
number of certificates
acquired by applicant in prison as part of his academic development
and practical skills and “what
more is expected of the
applicant in this regard?”.
32.
The deponent to the
supplementary answering affidavit failed to answer these questions
posed by the learned judge. The response
was that “the NCCS
considered all the positive factors in favour of the applicant and
the negative factors against the applicant.
The applicant is expected
to attend to the recommended programs by the NCCS and to address the
concerns as stipulated in the psychologist
report so that he does not
relapse to crime when he is released”.
33.
The supplementary
affidavit fails to indicate what programmes (if any) have been
recommended by the NCCS (other than the Gang Management
Strategy
programme). There is no indication as to whether or not the NCCS or
the Minister took into account any one or all or some
or none of the
many, many courses which he has attended and completed.
34.
The reference to the
report of the psychologist is equally unhelpful. No reference is made
in the NCCS recommendations to such report,
what concerns are
stipulated or how these concerns are to be addressed. The
supplementary affidavit refers to this anonymous and
concealed report
by reference to paragraphs in a number of respects. However, none of
the ‘concerns’ appear to deal
with vocational or
educational qualifications. The applicant is given no indication as
to what he should do in relation to training
so as to secure his
entry into the labour market.
35.
The supplementary
answering affidavit of respondents relies on this alleged report to
state that “the NCCS found that the
applicant was not
remorseful”, that he is “troublesome, always complaining”
etc.. etc, that his behaviour is
“threatening usually in
written format”, that his “release plan is relatively
naïve”, that the applicant
“has a sense of
entitlement”. All of these averments are based on or emerge
from a report which is not disclosed to
this court, attached to this
affidavit, authored or placed in context. The court can have no
regard to such an anonymous document
which respondents failed to
attach to their papers.
36.
Worryingly, this
unauthored and anonymous psychologist’s report purportedly
states that gangsterism is even more present within
the community in
which the applicant grew up than when he was originally incarcerated
This is indeed of concern. But the applicant
cannot be held to blame
for this nor can he not be considered for release on parole because
of the conditions in the community
from which he comes. I note that
the respondents’ supplementary answering affidavit does not
offer to relocate applicant
to Outer Mongolia or the suburb of
Houghton in Johannesburg or anywhere else where gangsterism may not
exist. Failing such assistance,
applicant cannot be refused
consideration for parole because of circumstances beyond his control.
37.
The crux of the matter
is that the NCCS has failed to have given any indication of any
regard to the courses undertaken and completed
by the applicant, has
failed to indicate what it believes will or will not conduce to his
successful entry into the labour market
and has given no indication
how or when or where or in what manner the applicant should develop
skills which will assist in the
labour market.
38.
I do have a general
concern with regard to this condition. A great percentage of the
South African population is unemployed for
a multiplicity of reasons
- all addressed in their annual reports by several of the South
African Directors-General dealing with
statistics, labour, trade and
industry etc. An even greater percentage of black or coloured South
Africans under the age of 30
are unemployed. I would be most
concerned if prisoners with an advantaged background and academic
qualifications and skills were
to find that they were released on
parole earlier than those of disadvantaged background who have
previously enjoyed no such educational
or vocational opportunities.
39.
I appreciate that
unemployment is a significant contributor towards crime and
particularly, gang related activities. But we must
be careful, in the
administration of justice, not to visit injustice or deprivation
twice upon the disadvantaged. If one takes
the approach which seems
to be that of the NCCS (perhaps - since the approach is most unclear)
too far then no medical practitioner
will ever be sentenced to
imprisonment because he or she, as a middle class person, can perform
in the labour market whilst an
orphan from an informal settlement
with no educational or vocational background will languish in prison
far longer than anyone
else.
40.
However, these are
general comments. What is clear in this instance is that the NCCS
gives no indication that it did consider the
courses undergone by the
applicant or his ability to enter the labour market. The NCCS has
given no direction in this regard. The
NCCS has simply ignored the
questions posed by the learned judge in the earlier hearing.
41.
In such circumstances,
it cannot be said that the NCCS did indeed “consider all the
positive factors in favour of the applicant’.
It appears to
have ignored one which it considers so important that it was stated
as condition or requirement two in its own recommendations
to the
Minister. I have already referred to the requirements of PAJA in this
regard.
[3]
Restorative Justice
42.
The decision of the
Minister stated an additional condition. “The offender should
participate in Restorative Justice Processes
involving the family of
the victims as well as the community”.
43.
The applicant claimed
in his founding affidavit that he has been forgiven by a relative of
a victim; respondents original answering
affidavit stated that “the
applicant should participate in restorative justice processes
involving the family of the victims
as well as the community”.
Mothle J asked respondents to advise whether or not the Minister had
considered the affidavit
of one of the victims attached to the papers
and what more was expected of the applicant in this regard.
44.
The respondents’
supplementary affidavit quibbles over the address of the author of
the affidavit purporting to be from a
victim and then goes on to say
“there is also no evidence that applicant also participated in
the restorative justice within
the community” and “the
applicant is expected to do restorative justice with the victim, the
victim’s family
and the community” and “the NCCS
did not have any information about the applicants interaction with
other victims”.
45.
In short, respondents
have taken no steps at all to implement any of the possibilities
which may be available in any restorative
justice programme. They
claim ignorance of any such steps and then seek to penalise the
applicant for their ignorance.
46.
If any restorative
justice is desired by victims or their families or the community it
is hardly possible for the applicant to go
and visit the victims or
hold a town hall meeting or devise a programme. Respondents are
absolutely silent on what could or should
be done and who should do
it and when or how. No direction is given to applicant and none is
taken by respondents from the learned
judge Mothle J.
47.
It may be, of course,
that none of the victims or their families wish to participate in any
restorative justice programme. That
is their right. They are not
obliged to interact with, meet with, communicate or engage with –
and certainly not to forgive
– the offender. And no burden
should ever be placed on such a victim that he or she is responsible
for the continuing incarceration
of the offender.
Other Considerations
48.
The decision of the
Minister was based upon the recommendations of the NCCS. His
attention was obviously alerted to the requirements
or conditions to
which they adverted.
49.
Those additional
matters raised in the supplementary answering affidavit are just that
– additional. They are also based on
a report which is not
before the court and therefore does not exist in this court.
Conclusion
50.
My brother Mothle J
went out of his way to identify the issues, focus the attention of
respondents’ thereon, and direct them
towards what information
need be placed before the court when they were confronted with this
application. Respondents failed to
embrace the opportunity offered
them by the learned judge and were unable or unwilling to deal with
the issues raised in this application.
51.
There is no indication
that, prior to making its recommendation in June 2014, the NCCS ever
made any enquiry into the existence
of
the
Gang Management
Strategy or its availability or the value and import of the courses
already undergone by the applicant.
52.
I am satisfied that the
applicant has, on more than a balance of probabilities, discharged
the onus of showing that the recommendations
of the NCCS took into
account factors which should not have been taking into account (i.e.
inadmissible or incompetent considerations)
and that, accordingly,
the decision of the Minister was equally vitiated at the time it was
made.
PROCEDURE ON THE WAY
FORWARD
53.
Mr Pooe correctly
argued that a court should not set aside a decision in circumstances
such as these unless the circumstances are’
exceptional’.
I agree.
54.
The circumstances to
which he adverted are the laid down procedures for processing
applications for release on parole. They involve
a carefully charted
chain of command or consideration and decision making - the Case
Management Committee, the Correctional Supervision
and Parole Board,
the NCCS and the Minister. Each brings different skills and different
responsibilities to the process. I am loathe
to simply bypass them
and make an order which interposes my opinion in the face of what
should have been a professional and considered
process.
55.
But the question arises
whether or not these are exceptional circumstances. This case
concerns, in a sense, the freedom of the individual.
A man seeks his
release on parole and indicates that he continues to be incarcerated
because the requirements to be fulfilled before
he can be considered
for release on parole are impossibilities set up by the authorities
as hurdles which he cannot overcome. On
this approach, there is a
need for intervention by the court.
56.
On the other hand, this
is not a case of unlawful detention. The applicant is a convicted
murderer who is serving a sentence of
life imprisonment imposed by
the High Court. He is not entitled as of right to be released on
parole. The only right which he has
is the right to a fair hearing
which involves a fair process resulting in decisions based upon
considerations which do not offend
the administration of justice and
which do not furnish grounds as provided for in PAJA.
57.
I also bear in mind
that the sentencing judge took the view that a sentence of ‘life’
imprisonment was the appropriate
sentence and that it was
administrative problems which led to development of the policy that
‘life’ means that only
a period of 13 years and 4 months
need elapse before a life prisoner may be released on parole and that
many are so released. Worryingly,
prisoner applicants are now
submitting in this court – life means 13 years and 4 months, 5
years means less than 1 year and
accordingly 15 years should not mean
more than 3 years!
58.
I am also mindful that,
to seek a psychologists report, preparation of a profile by the CMC,
a hearing by the parole board and preparation/consideration
of a new
profile, submission of same to the NCCS and consideration thereof and
a decision on recommendations, submission to the
Minister and
consideration and decision by him will take months and months. Mr
Pooe indicated at least three weeks for each process
and eight weeks
for the Minister. The upshot is that respondents will face no
consequences of their
laissez-faire
approach to this parole application or to this court application or
to the disregard which they have shown to the questions most
seriously and carefully posed by the learned Judge Mothle. If this
order will require one or more of respondents or their servants
to
work nights and weekends and public holidays – so be it, that
would be a desirable outcome.
59.
I have weighed up these
considerations with some care and have decided that I will set aside
the decision taken by the Minister
for the reasons set out above but
that I will not substitute my own decision and I will direct that the
prescribed processes are
carried out but in a manner which requires
expedition.
60.
In the result an order
is made as follows:
a.
The recommendations of
the 2
nd
Respondent of 26
th
June 2014 and the decision of the 1
st
Respondent dated
25
th
August 2014 are hereby reviewed and set aside.
b.
The 4
th
Respondent is directed to procure preparation of a new profile
(including psychologist or social worker reports) on or before 12h00
Friday 11
th
March 2016.
c.
The Case Management
Committee is directed to give consideration to and prepare such
recommendations as they should on or before
18
th
March 2016.
d.
The 5
th
Respondent is directed to prepare such report as is required of that
Board on or before Friday 1
st
April 2016.
e.
The 2
nd
Respondent is directed to give consideration to this application for
parole at the first meeting falling immediately after the
1
st
April 2016, i.e. the next meeting, and then to place its
recommendations before the Minister within ten days of such meeting.
f.
The 1
st
Respondent is directed to give his earliest possible consideration to
the recommendations of the NCCS, the 2
nd
respondent, but not later than four weeks after receipt of same.
g.
There is no order as to
costs.
DATED
AT JOHANNESBURG 03
RD
MARCH 2016
SATCHWELL J
For
Applicant: Appeared in person.
For
Respondent: Mr R Pooe of the Office of the State Attorney
Dates
of hearing: 29
th
February 2016.
Date
of judgment: 03
rd
February 2016.
[1]
3
of 2000.
[2]
See Lawrence Baxter
Administrative
Law
(1984) on reasonableness pages
489-497; 501 – 507; and 527-529.
[3]
See Baxter above.