Throwing the Unlawful Detention Jurisprudence into Turmoil: A Critique of De Klerk V Minister of Police 2020 1 SACR 1 (CC)

Authors

  • Phindile Raymond Msaule

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a9519

Keywords:

Constitutional and statutory roles, delictual liability, causation, unlawful arrest and detention;

Abstract

Before the judgement in De Klerk v Minister of Police 2020 1 SACR 1 (CC), (de Klerk), a plaintiff could claim damages for unlawful arrest and detention after the first appearance in court if the arresting (or the investigating) officer had conducted himself unlawfully in addition to the unlawful arrest. The conduct of the arresting (or investigating) officer had to be such that it influenced the prosecution and/or the court to deny the plaintiff bail. In De Klerk the majority of the Constitutional Court (CC), after assuming that factual causation had been proven, held the Minister of Police (Minister) liable for the unlawful arrest and detention of the plaintiff (including detention after the plaintiff had appeared in court). This was despite the CC’s having found that the conduct of the arresting officer after the appearance of the plaintiff in court had been lawful. The CC held that the arresting officer foresaw that by not releasing the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be remanded in detention – the unlawful conduct. The arresting officer was aware that the practice in the court where the plaintiff appeared was to remand all first appearance cases without considering the accused for release on bail. This note contends that the CC's decision does not bear scrutiny. The flaw in the CC's decision arose from its assumption that factual causation had been proven in this case. This faulty approach flowed from the CC's unconventional application of the "but-for" test. Instead of substituting the defendant's actual conduct for the hypothetical reasonable conduct, the CC held that it was the defendant's conduct per se that had caused the plaintiff harm. On this application of the "but-for" test, an arresting officer is unlikely to escape liability for an unlawful arrest and detention even if his or her conduct ceases to be unlawful at one stage or another. The Minister was held liable for the blameworthy conduct of the arresting officer up to the time of the plaintiff's appearance in court. The arresting officer played no role whatsoever after the appearance of the plaintiff in court. It is therefore absurd to hold that her conduct was the factual cause of the damage the plaintiff suffered. Ordinarily the Minister would not be held liable for detention after the court appearance. There was nothing extraordinary in the De Klerk case warranting the Minister’s being held delictually liable for the post-court-appearance detention. The plaintiff failed to prove that it was the conduct of the arresting officer that caused the plaintiff damage post the court appearance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Literature

Fagan A "Causation in the Constitutional Court: Lee v Minister of Correctional Services" 2015 CCR 104-134

Msaule PR "The Lethargy of the Constitutional Court Justices to Engage One Another: Reflections on Jacobs and Others v S 2019 (5) BCLR 562 (CC)" 2020 De Rebus 38-39

Neethling J and Potgieter JM Visser Law of Delict 7 ed (LexisNexis Durban 2014)

Paizes A "Factual Causation: Which Conditio Must Be a Sine Qua Non- A Critical Discussion of the Decision in Lee v Minister of Correctional Services" 2014 SALJ 500-509

Paizes A "Unreasonable Conduct and Fault in the Criminal Law" 1996 SALJ 237-266

Price A "Factual Causation After Lee" 2014 SALJ 491-500

Scott TJ "Revisiting the Elements of Delict – The Moshongwa Judgement" 2016 THRHR 551-579

Snyman CR Criminal Law 6 ed (LexisNexis Durban 2014)

Case law

Claasen v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2010 6 SA 399 (WCC)

De Klerk v Minister of Police (GP) unreported case number 77688/2014 09 September 2016

De Klerk v Minister of Police 2018 2 SACR 28 (SCA)

De Klerk v Minister of Police 2020 1 SACR 1 (CC)

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency 2009 2 SA 150 (SCA)

Isaacs v Minister van Wet en Order 1996 1 SACR 314 (A)

Lee v Minister of Correctional Services 2013 2 SA 144 (CC)

Mahlangu v Minister of Police [2020] 2 All SA 656 (SCA)

mCubed International (Pty) Ltd v Singer No 2009 4 SA 471 (SCA)

Minister of Law and Order v Ebrahim (SCA) unreported case number 97/1993 22 November 1994

Minister of Law and Order v Kader 1991 (1) SA 41 (A)

Minister of Law and Order v Thandani 1991 4 SA 862 (A)

Minister of Safety and Security v Janse van der Walt 2015 2 SACR 1 (SCA)

Minister of Safety and Security v Magagula (SCA) unreported case number 991/2016 06 September 2017

Minister of Safety and Security v Ndlovu 2013 1 SACR 339 (SCA)

Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto 2011 5 SA 367 (SCA)

Minister of Safety and Security v Tyokwana 2015 1 SACR 597 (SCA)

Molusi v Voges NO 2016 3 SA 370 (CC)

Mthimkhulu v Minister of Law and Order 1993 3 SA 432 (E)

National Director of Public Prosecution v Swarts (ECGHC) unreported case number CA 164/19 17 June 2020

Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 1 SA 461 (SCA)

Woji v Minister of Police 2015 1 SACR 409 (SCA)

Zealand v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2008 4 SA 458 (CC)

Legislation

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Uniform Rules of Court (Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Division of the High Court of South Africa), 1965

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2021-11-19

How to Cite

Msaule, P. R. (2021). Throwing the Unlawful Detention Jurisprudence into Turmoil: A Critique of De Klerk V Minister of Police 2020 1 SACR 1 (CC). Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 24, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a9519

Issue

Section

Case Notes