The Rights of victims of crime in South Africa
- Nkukwana , Zingisile Wiseman
- Authors: Nkukwana , Zingisile Wiseman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Victims of crimes -- South Africa Victims of crimes -- Civil rights -- South Africa Crime -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/12627 , vital:27100
- Description: There is a perception among victims of crime, and people in general, in South Africa that the country’s laws favour and protect offenders. These people believe that offenders have more rights than victims which are derived from the Constitution of the country, and other legislative Acts of parliament. This view may sometimes lead to vigilantism and a total disregard of the law. The study will show that victims do have rights in the country’s legislations. The study briefly explains the sources of such laws, like the Constitution, the Victims Charter and selected provisions of some Acts of parliament. It is a fact that the section 35 of the Constitution provides in detail, the rights of the arrested, detained and accused. It is also submitted persons that there is no specific provision that talks about the rights of the victims of crime. However, that does not mean that such victims do not have rights in terms of the constitution. The rights of victims of crime are seen during the courts’ interpretation and application of rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The use of words like “everyone” and “any person” in the Bill of Rights also refers to victims of crime. Therefore, the Constitution is not victim-biased and offender-friendly. The Constitution protects everybody because it seeks to uphold the values of human dignity, equality, freedom and the African concept of ubuntu. The study discusses briefly the rights of victims as adopted by the Victims’ Charter. The Charter lists these rights, but does not explain how such rights are to be achieved. South Africa also developed a document called the Minimum Standards for Services for Victims of Crime which indicates how each right is to be achieved. The study also shows that South Africa had developed some Acts of parliament even before the adoption of the Victims Charter. South Africa claims that the Victims’ Charter is compliant with the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice Abuse of Power of 1985. It is submitted that this statement is not entirely correct, especially with regards to the provision that deals with compensation. South Africa did not define compensation as defined by the United Nations Declaration. This can be seen as a dismal failure by South Africa to abide by the United Nations Declaration and this has resulted in more harm suffered by victims of crime. The study also discusses how rape victims benefit through the use of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act of 2007. This begins with the changing of the definition of rape. The Act also deals with how rape victims can access antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV/Aids infection. It explains limitations on the right to privacy of the accused, especially to compel him or her to undergo an HIV test. The HIV positive status of the accused can be used as an aggravating factor during sentencing in terms of UNAIDS policies. S v Nyalungu 2005 (JOL) 13254 (T) is a leading case in South Africa showing compliance with UNAIDS policies. Restorative justice mechanisms have been discussed to show positive movement by South Africa from a retributive justice system to a restorative justice system. The advantages of such mechanisms for victims have been discussed. The study also describes briefly some selected provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 and how these provisions benefit victims of crime. These include sections 153, 170A, 297, 299A, 300 and 301. The study highlights some challenges that still exist and what innovations can be made. This includes recommendations which can be made to benefit victims of crime further. For example, an apology can be used as one of the important principles in the restorative justice system. It is submitted and recommended that truth and apology go hand in glove and the basic elements of forgiveness. South Africa can pride itself with regards to this approach especially during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was established in post-apartheid South Africa. The study concludes by saying that South Africa should set up a victim-compensation scheme. It is submitted that South Africa can afford such a scheme despite the problems identified.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Nkukwana , Zingisile Wiseman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Victims of crimes -- South Africa Victims of crimes -- Civil rights -- South Africa Crime -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/12627 , vital:27100
- Description: There is a perception among victims of crime, and people in general, in South Africa that the country’s laws favour and protect offenders. These people believe that offenders have more rights than victims which are derived from the Constitution of the country, and other legislative Acts of parliament. This view may sometimes lead to vigilantism and a total disregard of the law. The study will show that victims do have rights in the country’s legislations. The study briefly explains the sources of such laws, like the Constitution, the Victims Charter and selected provisions of some Acts of parliament. It is a fact that the section 35 of the Constitution provides in detail, the rights of the arrested, detained and accused. It is also submitted persons that there is no specific provision that talks about the rights of the victims of crime. However, that does not mean that such victims do not have rights in terms of the constitution. The rights of victims of crime are seen during the courts’ interpretation and application of rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The use of words like “everyone” and “any person” in the Bill of Rights also refers to victims of crime. Therefore, the Constitution is not victim-biased and offender-friendly. The Constitution protects everybody because it seeks to uphold the values of human dignity, equality, freedom and the African concept of ubuntu. The study discusses briefly the rights of victims as adopted by the Victims’ Charter. The Charter lists these rights, but does not explain how such rights are to be achieved. South Africa also developed a document called the Minimum Standards for Services for Victims of Crime which indicates how each right is to be achieved. The study also shows that South Africa had developed some Acts of parliament even before the adoption of the Victims Charter. South Africa claims that the Victims’ Charter is compliant with the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice Abuse of Power of 1985. It is submitted that this statement is not entirely correct, especially with regards to the provision that deals with compensation. South Africa did not define compensation as defined by the United Nations Declaration. This can be seen as a dismal failure by South Africa to abide by the United Nations Declaration and this has resulted in more harm suffered by victims of crime. The study also discusses how rape victims benefit through the use of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act of 2007. This begins with the changing of the definition of rape. The Act also deals with how rape victims can access antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV/Aids infection. It explains limitations on the right to privacy of the accused, especially to compel him or her to undergo an HIV test. The HIV positive status of the accused can be used as an aggravating factor during sentencing in terms of UNAIDS policies. S v Nyalungu 2005 (JOL) 13254 (T) is a leading case in South Africa showing compliance with UNAIDS policies. Restorative justice mechanisms have been discussed to show positive movement by South Africa from a retributive justice system to a restorative justice system. The advantages of such mechanisms for victims have been discussed. The study also describes briefly some selected provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 and how these provisions benefit victims of crime. These include sections 153, 170A, 297, 299A, 300 and 301. The study highlights some challenges that still exist and what innovations can be made. This includes recommendations which can be made to benefit victims of crime further. For example, an apology can be used as one of the important principles in the restorative justice system. It is submitted and recommended that truth and apology go hand in glove and the basic elements of forgiveness. South Africa can pride itself with regards to this approach especially during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was established in post-apartheid South Africa. The study concludes by saying that South Africa should set up a victim-compensation scheme. It is submitted that South Africa can afford such a scheme despite the problems identified.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
The determination of compensation in unfair dismissal cases
- Authors: Dayimani, Vuyisile
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Workers' compensation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10275 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020775
- Description: The LRA 66 of 1995 was established to give effect to section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which guarantees that everyone has a right to fair labour practices. Amongst others, the purpose of the LRA is to advance economic development, labour peace and the effective resolution of labour disputes. At common law termination of employment was occasioned by the conduct of the employer or employee, in terms of which either party may terminate an employment contract by giving agreed notice or reasonable notice. The LRA broadened the common law concept of “repudiation” of a contract of employment in terms of which section 186 of the LRA now defines the term “dismissal” to mean various possible instances that can be caused by the employer or employee. Furthermore, section 185 of the same Act clearly states that a dismissal can be found to be unfair and makes provision for redress to an employee who would be aggrieved by a dismissal. Compensation is one of the remedies that can be awarded to an employee who is found to have been unfairly dismissed. Unlike the LRA of 1956 which gave the courts an unfettered discretion regarding the compensation that could be awarded, section 194 of the current LRA places a limit on the compensation amount that can be awarded. A decision hereon is determined with reference to whether the dismissal is found to have been procedurally, substantively unfair or both. The Act further requires that the compensation must be just and equitable. A challenge in applying section 194 of the Act in this regard is that there would be vast inconsistencies in terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded and that certain presiding officers could consider different approaches in considering factors to be determined when deciding on compensation. In many other instances compensation for unfair dismissal would be decided around the idea of solely punishing the employer. This research document is mainly concerned with identifying the said challenges through case law by considering the decisions of the commissioners and judges in interpreting the old and current provisions of section 194 of the Act. The old section 194 of the Act created a formula to be followed by presiding officers when making a determination on the compensation awarded. The interpretation of the section and its formula brought with it its own complications. The amended section 194 on the other hand, conferred a discretion on presiding officers to award compensation within the caps of 12 months and 24 months for procedurally and substantively unfair dismissal respectively, for as long as the compensation would be just and equitable in all circumstances. Relevant case law and the opinions of labour law experts have been of great assistance in interpreting the current section 194. The factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. They are a mere guideline to presiding officers so as to eliminate or minimize inconsistencies in awarding compensation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Dayimani, Vuyisile
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Workers' compensation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10275 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020775
- Description: The LRA 66 of 1995 was established to give effect to section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which guarantees that everyone has a right to fair labour practices. Amongst others, the purpose of the LRA is to advance economic development, labour peace and the effective resolution of labour disputes. At common law termination of employment was occasioned by the conduct of the employer or employee, in terms of which either party may terminate an employment contract by giving agreed notice or reasonable notice. The LRA broadened the common law concept of “repudiation” of a contract of employment in terms of which section 186 of the LRA now defines the term “dismissal” to mean various possible instances that can be caused by the employer or employee. Furthermore, section 185 of the same Act clearly states that a dismissal can be found to be unfair and makes provision for redress to an employee who would be aggrieved by a dismissal. Compensation is one of the remedies that can be awarded to an employee who is found to have been unfairly dismissed. Unlike the LRA of 1956 which gave the courts an unfettered discretion regarding the compensation that could be awarded, section 194 of the current LRA places a limit on the compensation amount that can be awarded. A decision hereon is determined with reference to whether the dismissal is found to have been procedurally, substantively unfair or both. The Act further requires that the compensation must be just and equitable. A challenge in applying section 194 of the Act in this regard is that there would be vast inconsistencies in terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded and that certain presiding officers could consider different approaches in considering factors to be determined when deciding on compensation. In many other instances compensation for unfair dismissal would be decided around the idea of solely punishing the employer. This research document is mainly concerned with identifying the said challenges through case law by considering the decisions of the commissioners and judges in interpreting the old and current provisions of section 194 of the Act. The old section 194 of the Act created a formula to be followed by presiding officers when making a determination on the compensation awarded. The interpretation of the section and its formula brought with it its own complications. The amended section 194 on the other hand, conferred a discretion on presiding officers to award compensation within the caps of 12 months and 24 months for procedurally and substantively unfair dismissal respectively, for as long as the compensation would be just and equitable in all circumstances. Relevant case law and the opinions of labour law experts have been of great assistance in interpreting the current section 194. The factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. They are a mere guideline to presiding officers so as to eliminate or minimize inconsistencies in awarding compensation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »