23586206

SEMINAR 1
QUESTION 1
This is a reflective question : use the example of No vehicles in the park to describe the
complexities surrounding the interpretation of laws. Specifically, describe the conflict
between the purpose, the text of law and the context and constitutional values that may
occur in the interpretation of the law
A) False. “in the present case the regulation, properly construed, cannot be said to be
ultra vries.” iThe regulation which authorized the administration to reserve railway
coaches for the use of certain races was not ruled invalid by the Apellate Division in
R v Abdurahman. This is Due to the fact that this regulation could be interpreted in
such a way that it doesn’t discriminate based on a particular race group. Since this
regulation could be applied in such way which makes a provision for separate
coaches for all population groups, it cannot be ruled to be ultra vires and
unreasonable based on discrimination.
 The court held that the regulation could be applied fairly and equally and were
therefore not ultra vires
 However, the decision by the state administration to reserve coaches for
Europeans only was unfair and discriminatory and therefore invalid

B) FALSE. According to the judgement in Kruse v Johnson, it is stated that “if for
instance regulations were found to be partial and unequal in their operation as
between different classes; if they were manifestly unjust; the court might well say:
‘Parliament never intended to give authority to make such rules; they are
unreasonable and unjust.’”ii In this judgement- the decision of the state
administration to reserve coaches only for European people is clearly discriminatory
based on race: it is partial and unequal and thus unreasonable. Therefore, it could
not have been consistent with Parliament’s intention to reserve coaches for
European people, without reserving coaches for members of other races.
 Following Kruse v Johnson , the court held that it could not have been
parliamnets intention t give authority to rules that were partial and unequal in
their operation

C) FALSE. This case was during a period of time where parliament sovereignty was
prominent which meant that there was no judicial review and courts had limited
powers with regards to acts of parliament. Due to the constitution and Bill of rights
and the principle of constitutional supremacy, it is likely that the court’s reasoning
would not be the same if a case similar to R v Abdurahman had to be decided today.
 The outcome would be the same
 However, the reasoning would differ. Instead of relying on common law rules
relating to exercises of public power, a could would refer to constitutional
provisions like s9, and legislation enacted to give effect to it
23586206

 It is unlikely that the act or the regulations would be constitutional – a court

would likely hold that the legislation authorizing the reservation of coaches for
different races would constitute unfair discrimination , even if it were done
“equally.”

D) TRUE. In S17 of the legislation, provisions were not made for any conditions for
holding the detainees. It further did not authorize the state administration to make
any regulations. “The intention of the legislature to be determined by the court from
relatively brief, though manifestly stringent, terms of the section itself.” iii
 The court held that it was the intention of the legislature (or the purpose of the
provision) to induce detainees to answer all questions satisfactorily
 It could therefore not have been the intention of the legislature to alleviate the
lot of the detainee, or to give him access to comforts like reading materials. It
therefore seems fair to characterize the judgement as “purposive”
 However, not a “good” example, as the court used a purposive approach to take
away prisoners rights, despite the common law presumption that prisoners
retain their rights and the fact that the act did not expressly authorize taking the
right away

E) FALSE. “A person detained under section 17 of Act 37 of 1963 cannot rightly be

equated with an unconvicted prisoner.”iv Mr Sachs is a detainee and thus must be
distinguished from an awaiting trial prisoner. Therefore, the principle that an
awaiting trial prisoner should be entitled to personal rights is not applicable in this
case.
 The court stated that the instructions from the commissioners derive no express
authority from the act, but nevertheless held that they were authorized implicity.
It inferred this from other sections, which take away the right against self-
incrimination and the right of access to a legal advisor
 The court recognized that parliament could not have intended gross violations of
detainees rights, like ausault or inadequate food

F) False. The common law supports the conclusion that detainees should not have their
rights taken away from them and thus if this case was decided in a period where
parliamentary sovereignty did not prevail, the could have come to another
conclusion.
 Court could have decided in favour of S based on:
o The fact that the act did not expressly provide for deprivation of reading
and writing materials
o The fact that prisoners’ rights and freedoms are protected under the
common law
23586206

o Previous judgements like Whittaker v ROos (entitled to all personalrights

and dignity not temp tajen away by law)
o The presumption that legislation does not intend to take away existing
rights
i
Rex v Abdurahman pg6

ii
Rex v Abdurahman pg3
iii
Rossouw v Sachs pg557-558

iv
Rossouw v Sachs pg1