Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorL Wolf
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-25T18:59:59Z
dc.date.available2019-10-25T18:59:59Z
dc.date.created2017-09-28 23:08
dc.date.issued2011-08-01
dc.identifieroai:doaj.org/article:575aaeea0b2d4c96bd092002293d6f82
dc.identifier1727-3781
dc.identifierhttps://doaj.org/article/575aaeea0b2d4c96bd092002293d6f82
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/1467006
dc.description.abstractThe previous Westminster criminal justice system entailed a different kind of separation of powers insofar as it concerns the role of state prosecutors. In the Westminster system prosecutors are part of the executive branch, whereas they were a split-off from the judiciary in constitutional states and function like a de facto second organ of the third branch of state power. Currently executive interference in state prosecutions often leads to pre-trial inequality. A further difficulty arises from the unconsidered manner in which the former royal prerogative of pardoning was retained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. It used to be a royal veto of judicial sentences in the constitutional monarchy of the former Westminster model. Although the corresponding veto of parliamentary legislation by the head of state did not survive into modern times, the pardoning power has not been discontinued. Section 84(2)(j) thus causes an irreconcilable conflict with section 165(5) of the Constitution which guarantees the legally binding force of judicial decisions. It undermines the rule of law and leads to post-trial inequality in the execution of sentences. The parole system, which dates back to 1959, likewise allows the executive to overrule judicial sentences and is in conflict with section 165(5). The perpetuation of the status quo in criminal justice is in effect leading to a re-Westminstering of the constitutional state.
dc.languageAF
dc.languageDE
dc.languageEN
dc.languageNL
dc.publisherNorth-West University
dc.relation.ispartofhttp://v-drpl-lnx1.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/26570
dc.relation.ispartofhttps://doaj.org/toc/1727-3781
dc.sourcePotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 14, Iss 5, Pp 57-203 (2011)
dc.subjectprosecutors
dc.subjectnolle prosequi
dc.subjectpre-trial equality
dc.subjectpost-trial equality
dc.subjectpardon
dc.subjectparole
dc.subjectadministrative act
dc.subjectadministration of justice
dc.subjectcriminal justice
dc.subjectjudicial power
dc.subjectprerogative power
dc.subjectLaw in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence
dc.subjectK1-7720
dc.subjectLaw
dc.subjectK
dc.subjectDOAJ:Law
dc.subjectDOAJ:Law and Political Science
dc.titlePre- and Post-Trial Equality in Criminal Justice in the Context of the Separation of Powers
dc.typeArticle
ge.collectioncodeOAIDATA
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:11525550
ge.identifier.permalinkhttps://www.globethics.net/gel/11525550
ge.lastmodificationdate2017-09-28 23:08
ge.lastmodificationuseradmin@pointsoftware.ch (import)
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid148947
ge.oai.repositoryid52
ge.oai.setnameLCC:Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence
ge.oai.setnameLCC:Law
ge.oai.setnameDOAJ:Law
ge.oai.setnameDOAJ:Law and Political Science
ge.oai.setspecTENDOkxhdyBpbiBnZW5lcmFsLiBDb21wYXJhdGl2ZSBhbmQgdW5pZm9ybSBsYXcuIEp1cmlzcHJ1ZGVuY2U~
ge.oai.setspecTENDOkxhdw~~
ge.oai.setspecRE9BSjpMYXc~
ge.oai.setspecRE9BSjpMYXcgYW5kIFBvbGl0aWNhbCBTY2llbmNl
ge.oai.streamid2
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttps://doaj.org/article/575aaeea0b2d4c96bd092002293d6f82


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record