In the high court of south africa (gauteng division, pretoria) republic of south africa


v. misdirecting itself in holding that the second respondent recommended the applicant's application for parole



Download 218.03 Kb.
Page3/4
Date15.02.2021
Size218.03 Kb.
1   2   3   4
v. misdirecting itself in holding that the second respondent recommended the applicant's application for parole
[25] It appears that, due to several amendments to the applicable legislation, the parole board and not the second respondent decided to recommend the applicant's application for parole to the first respondent. The fact, however, remains that the applicant's application was recommended by the body clothed with the necessary expertise to consider parole applications.
CONFLICTING JUDGMENT
[26] According to the first respondent, the judgment in casu is incompatible with the judgment of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria of the High Court in the matter of Barnard v Minister of Justice, Constitutional Development and Correctional Services delivered on 14 September 2015.
[27] Mr Moerane SC, when invited to indicate in which respects the judgment in casu is incompatible with the Barnard judgment, could not give a satisfactory answer and did not persist with this ground of appeal.




Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page