Prince v Law Society
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others is a 2002 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal law. It concerned the constitutionality of criminalising cannabis given Rastafaris' constitutional right to freedom of religion. A majority of the court held that the Constitution did not obligate the state to exempt bona fide religious uses from statutory prohibitions against cannabis use and possession.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2024) |
Prince v Law Society | |
---|---|
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | Garreth Prince v President of the Law Society, Cape of Good Hope and Others |
Decided | 25 January 2002 (2002-01-25) |
Docket nos. | CCT 36/00 |
Citation(s) | [2002] ZACC 1; 2002 (2) SA 794; 2002 (3) BCLR 231 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Supreme Court of Appeal – Prince v President of the Law Society, Cape of Good Hope and Others [2000] ZASCA 172 High Court of South Africa, Cape Provincial Division – Prince v President of the Law Society, Cape of Good Hope and Others 1998 (8) BCLR 976 (C) |
Related action(s) | Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others [2000] ZACC 28 (leave to deliver further evidence) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Chaskalson CJ, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs and Yacoob JJ, and Madlanga AJ |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Chaskalson CJ, Ackermann and Kriegler JJ (Goldstone and Yacoob concurring) |
Dissent | Ngcobo J (Mokgoro, Sachs and Madlanga concurring) |
Dissent | Sachs J (Mokgoro concurring) |
The court divided sharply on the issue, with the bench split five to four. Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, Justice Laurie Ackermann, and Justice Johann Kriegler wrote for the majority, while Justice Sandile Ngcobo, for the minority, argued that a religious exemption would protect Rastafaris' constitutional rights without any severe detriment to the government's policy objectives.