We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
1 [1994] 2 L.R.C. 335.Google Scholar
2 Unreported, 1995.
3 At 23 of cyclostyled judgment.
4 Unreported, 1995.
5 The other ten judges concurred but wrote separate judgments emphasizing different reasons for declaring the death penalty unconstitutional. These are noted below where appropriate.
6 Relying on Kindler v. Canada (1992) 6 C.R.R. (2d) 193 (Supreme Court of Canada) and Ng v. Canada United Nations Committee on Human Rights, Communication No. 469/1991, 5 November, 1993.
7 This was a view shared by Didcott, J.
8 Ackermann, J., also emphasized the issue of arbitrariness in the implementation and application of the death penalty which meant it was inconsistent with section 9, the right to life.
9 Didcott, Ackermann, Kreigler, Langa, Mahomed and O'Regan, JJ., all found the death sentence violated the right to life.
10 Mahomed, J., also emphasized that successful deterrence of serious crime also involved the need for substantial redress in socio-economic conditions in South Africa: see paras. 286–295.Google Scholar
