Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The applicants, three women, were arrested in 1996 at their workplace, a brothel in Pretoria.Charged in the Magistrate's Court, they were convicted of contraventions of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957 – the brothel's owner and receptionist were convicted of keeping a brothel, an offence under section 2, and a sex worker was convicted of conducting indecent sexual acts for reward, an offence ...
Act to give effect to section 9 read with item 23 (1) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, so as to prevent and prohibit unfair discrimination and harassment; to promote equality and eliminate unfair discrimination; to prevent and prohibit hate speech; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
That case did not address the unequal age of consent, although in his judgment Justice Ackermann took note of it without commenting on its constitutionality. In 2007 Parliament enacted the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act , which codified and reformed the law on sexual offences.
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 (Act No. 32 of 2007; also referred to as the Sexual Offences Act) is an act of the Parliament of South Africa that reformed and codified the law relating to sex offences.
Another issue with sexual violence against minors in South Africa is the sexual abuse and harassment that is reported to occur in schools by teachers and other students. According to the Human Rights Watch , [ 49 ] girls from all levels of society and ethnic groups have been subjected to sexual violence at school in bathrooms, empty classrooms ...
Pages in category "South African case law" ... Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa; P. Peri-Urban Areas Health Board v Munarin;
Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal denied her leave to appeal this sentence, but the Constitutional Court of South Africa agreed to enrol the application for leave to appeal. In its directions, the courts asked the parties to focus on one narrow element of M's case, the fact that she was the sole caregiver to three minor children.
In an early trilogy of cases – Fedsure Life Assurance v Johannesburg, President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union, and Nel v Le Roux – the Constitutional Court incrementally defined the scope of "administrative action", holding that it excludes legislative action, executive action, and judicial action. [38]