Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with the 2005 matter of Phillips and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions.
Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division and Others is a 2003 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the right to freedom of expression. The case concerned a statutory prohibition against obscene or nude performances, such as striptease, on premises where liquor was sold. In Justice Albie Sachs's summation, the question was "whether it is constitutionally permissible to prohibit the combination of tipples and nipples".[1]
Quick Facts Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court ...
Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions | |
---|---|
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | Andrew Lionel Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division and Others |
Decided | 11 March 2003 |
Docket nos. | CCT 20/02 |
Citation(s) | [2003] ZACC 1; 2003 (3) SA 345; 2003 (4) BCLR 357 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | High Court of South Africa, Witwatersrand Local Division – Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others 2002 (5) SA 556 (W) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs J and Yacoob JJ |
Case opinions | |
Section 160(d) of the Liquor Act, 1989 violates the right to freedom of expression and is unconstitutional. (9:1.) | |
Decision by | Yacoob J (Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Kriegler, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan and Sachs concurring) |
Concurrence | Ngcobo J |
Concurrence | Sachs J |
Dissent | Madala J |
Close
Finding that this prohibition was unconstitutional, the court struck down section 160(d) of the Liquor Act, 1989. Justice Zak Yacoob wrote for the court's majority and Justice Tholie Madala wrote the lone dissent.