ENFL6111 POE Pat 2 - ST10382075

Aarya Lutchman
ST10382075
ENFL6111
Part 2
2.1) The presiding office that delivers the majority judgement of the court is Zondo ACJ 1
2.2) The legal representative for the applicants – Minister of Justice and Constitutional development and
others – was Kathleen (Myrtle) Clarke 2
2.3) Amicus curiae refers to a non-party who offers valuable information to the court3, often through
written submissions called friend-of-the-court briefs4, assisting in understanding complex legal issues
and influencing decision-making5. In the Prince case, amicus curiae are presented twice in the court:
Doctors for Life International Inc applied to be an amicus curiae and was granted permission 6. They
provided arguments supporting the State's position in seeking to prevent the confirmation of the High
Court's order7. Fields of Green applied to be admitted as amicus curiae8, while the intervening applicants
of the plaintiff applied for leave to intervene as parties in the case9. These three individuals and Fields of
Green jointly submitted their application10.
2.4) The High Court's decision was upheld, with a partial cross-appeal upheld11, and the judgment
confirmed12. The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act13 and Medicines and Related Substances Control Act14
were declared constitutionally invalid due to their violation of privacy rights 15. The declarations were
suspended for 24 months to allow Parliament to rectify the defects16. The case involved three separate
legal proceedings that were consolidated by the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of specific
sections of the acts17.
During this time, specific Acts were amended to align with the judgment18. If Parliament fails to address
the defects within the specified timeframe, the amendments will become final 19. The Minister of Justice
1
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Prince and Others 2018 (6) SA 3 (CC)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Prince and Others 2018 (6) SA (CC)
11
12
13
Act 140 of 1992
14
Act 101 of 1965
15
16
17
18
19
and Constitutional Development must cover expenses incurred by certain parties in opposing the
appeal20 and confirmatory proceedings21.
2.5) The legal question before the court was to whether certain sections of the Drugs and Drug
Trafficking Act and the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, which made it illegal to use,
possess, or grow cannabis for personal use, violated peoples constitutionally protected right to privacy.
2.6) The court examined the complex relationship between constitutional rights and statutory
provisions22, particularly regarding the right to privacy23 and the legislative framework governing
cannabis use, possession, and cultivation 24. It emphasized the importance of individual autonomy and
self-determination in a democratic society25, particularly in matters of personal choice and lifestyle
preferences26. The court invalidated certain provisions of the relevant Acts that prohibited the private
use, possession, and cultivation of cannabis by adults for personal consumption 27, thereby confirming
the significance of protecting individual rights and freedoms from unwarranted intrusion by the state 28.
This decision marked a new era of jurisprudence where the state's regulatory authority is balanced
against the individual's right to privacy and personal autonomy29, especially in personal consumption
choices within one's home 30. The court also acknowledged the need for legislative reform to address the
constitutional deficiencies identified 31, paving the way for a more enlightened and equitable legal
framework that respects and upholds the dignity and autonomy of all individuals 32.
2.7) The court has ordered a modification of the definition of the phrase "deal in" in section 1 of the
Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. The phrase should be inserted after "cultivation" but before
20
21
22
Media summary 2
23
Media summary 2
24
Media summary 2
25
Media summary 2
26
Media summary 2
27
Media summary 2
28
Media summary 3
29
Media summary 3
30
Media summary 3
31
Media summary 3
32
Media summary 3
the comma, allowing for a nuanced interpretation of the term and excluding cannabis cultivation by
adults in private spaces for personal consumption from the prohibited activities under the Act 33.
33
Bibliography
Legislation
Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992
Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965
Case Law
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Prince (Clarke and Others Intervening);
National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Rubin; National Director of Public Prosecutions
and Others v Acton (CCT108/17) [2018] ZACC 30; 2018 (10) BCLR 1220 (CC); 2018 (6) SA 393 (CC); 2019
(1) SACR 14 (CC) (18 September 2018)

ENFL6111 POE Pat 2 - ST10382075

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENFL6111 POE Pat 2 - ST10382075

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aarya Lutchman

Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992

Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965

You might also like