IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO. CCT/5/94 In the matter between:
THE STATE and
BONGANI HLABAYAKHE ZUMA MGCABENI BEKISINI JILI
AL COURT
PRIVATE BACVPRI
1995 -03- 0 1
BRAAMFONTEW 2017
KONSTlTUSiONELE HOF
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT
LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO BY COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED IN ORAL ARGUMENT
1.
DIRECT ACCESS - "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES"
Rhodesian Corporation Limited vs Globe & Phoenix G.M. Co.
Limited 1933 A.D. 357
R versus Milne & Erleigh (7) 1951 (1) S A 791 (A D)- at 882
; ., • 2.
INTERPRETATION OF. THE CONSTITUTION
r'
^Minister of Home Affairs (Bermuda) vs Fisher referred to in paragraph 24 (b) of the Heads applied in:-
Attorney General of Hong Kong vs Lee Kwong-kut [1993] 3
Page 2
ALL.E.R. 939 (PC) at 947 g - j
Similar test in Vasquez vs R [1994] 3 ALL.E.R. 674 (PC) at 682 f - g
3 . - . . • -
IS THE PRESUMPTION A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?
Approach of the Privy Council in the Attorney General of Hong Kong case:- . ,
(a) Balancing of interests at 950 c - e
(b) Reverse onus only justified in certain circumstances at 950 f - h
(c) Canadian 2 stage process in the Canadian cases of Oakes, Whyte & Chaulk considered at 950 j - 952 f (d) Suggested simpler approach at 952 g to 953 b based on
test of Lawton L J set out at 944 d - h
4.
SECTION 3 3 LIMITATION PROVISION
Generally Attorney General of Hong Kong at 954 d - 955 a, especially at 954 h - j and 954 in fin at 955 a (policy being a matter for the Legislature)
Waiver is not appropriate:
Miranda & Others vs Arizona 384 U S 436.
Escorbedo vs Illinois 378 U S 478
Page 3 Brewer vs Williams 430 U S 387
Administrative convenience is not a justification . Wengler vs Druggists Mutual Insurance Co et al. 446 U S 142.
DATED at DURBAN this 24th day of FEBRUARY .1995
ft FINDIiflY S.C.
COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
