Previous 26 / 88 Next

O’REGAN J and SACHS J legality which requires certainty as to the definition of crimes,12 and secondly, it would intrude on the legitimate sphere of the Legislature in an area of considerable public controversy. [47] The second question relating to the interpretation of the clause raises the question of what range of conduct falls within the scope of section 20(1)(aA). One of the grounds given by the High Court for invalidating section 20(1)(aA) was that its terms were too wide: 12 See the comments by Schreiner ACJ in R v Sibiya 1955 (4) SA 247 (AD) at 256 G-H. See also R v Oberholzer 1941 OPD 48 at 60; and S v Von Molendorff and Another 1987 (1) SA 135 (T) at 169C. 26

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ellen Jordan et al v Ellen Jordan ors, 2002

Cases

Country

Latitude: -31.005484474142992

Longitude: 23.460146846172638

Country (linked Cases): South Africa

Court: South Africa: Constitutional Court, South Africa

Date of judgement: Oct 9, 2002

Keywords

Arrest
Right to dignity
Sexual offences

Gender of victim

Female: Woman (18+)

Gender of accused/perpetrator

Gender not specified

Language: English

Summary: This case concerns a brothel-owner, brothel employee and prostitute/sex worker who were all convicted in the Magistrates Court of contravening the Sexual Offences Act of 1957. They appealed to the High Court, arguing that the relevant provisions were unconstitutional. The High Court found that the section of the Act which criminalizes carnal intercourse for reward was unconstitutional bus dismissed the appeal in respect of the sections of the Act which criminalize keeping or managing a brothel (the brothel provisions). The appellants then appealed to this Court, arguing that the brothel provisions should be found to be unconstitutional. They also argued that the High Court order invalidating the prostitution provision should be confirmed. The state opposed the appeal on the brothel provisions and also opposed confirmation of the order invalidating the prostitution provision.

The Court accordingly unanimously upholds the constitutionality of the brothel provisions and by a majority refuse to confirm the High Court order invalidating the prostitution provision. The convictions and sentences imposed upon the three appellants in the Magistrates’ Court are accordingly reinstated.

Primary Documents

S v Jordan and Others (Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Task Force and Others as Amici Curiae.pdf
English
Download View

IHRDA SGBV Database

Select target paragraph3

Ellen Jordan et al v Ellen Jordan ors, 2002

Primary Documents

Notifications