LJU4801 Assignment 02 ANSWERS Semester 2 2024 DUE 03 SEPTEMBER 2024
Assessment 2 LJU4801
Instructions
1. Proper footnote referencing must be used. This entails that every argument or idea taken from another source, or any piece of information utilised from another source, needs to be provided ...
RONSAM
TUTORS
LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 02 SEMESTER 02 DUE
03 SEPTEMBER 2024
FOR EXAMS, PORTFOLIO, AND ASSIGNMENT ASSISTANCE
WHATSAPP 0671189059 EMAIL:
RONSAMTUTORS@GMAIL.COM
, 1. With reference to the judgment in Prince v President of the Law Society
of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794, discuss the philosophical
approaches the majority and minority decisions followed. Your answer
should not exceed 750 words.
In the case of Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002
(2) SA 794,1 the Constitutional Court of South Africa addressed whether the
prohibition on the use of cannabis was a violation of the right of a Rastafarian to
exercise his or her religion. The Court's decision featured distinct philosophical
approaches by the majority and minority opinions.
Majority Decision
The majority decision given by Chaskalson CJ reflected a legal positivist approach,
which entailed strict interpretation and application of law. Chaskalson CJ accepted
the freedom of religious rights; nevertheless, he maintained the prohibition basing his
arguments on the health and safety of the public. The majority contended that in
terms of section 36 of the constitution, there is a legitimate limitation of rights and the
restriction on religious practice is reasonable. The Court stated that “the limitation
was reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human
dignity, equality, and freedom.2
The majority relied heavily on precedent and statutory interpretation, emphasizing
the need for a consistent application of the law. They stressed the principle of
proportionality, which means that the benefits obtained from a certain law must be
greater than the rights violated by such law. 3 Chaskalson CJ stressed that the
recognition of the religious use of cannabis might undermine the legislative goal of
the prohibition, leading to challenges in enforcement, and posing various health-
related hazards4The majority reasoning can be considered as applying Dworkin’s
theory of law as integrity which prioritises coherence and consistency rather than
1
Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794.
2
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [31].
3
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [35].
4
Prince v President of the Law Society [2002] (2) SA 794, [39].
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller RONSAMTUTORS. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.94. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
