Summary
Summary LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 2 FOR SEMESTER 2 OF 2024
- Course
- Institution
- Book
LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 2 FOR SEMESTER 2 OF 2024 DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!!!
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
LJU4801 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024
-
LJU4801 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 -
-
LJU4801 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024
Seller
Follow
TheLawClinic
Reviews received
Content preview
LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 2 FOR SEMESTER 2OF 2024
UNIQUE CODE:
, QUESTIONS:
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. (15)
Basic Facts Of The Case:
In the Prince case 1 the question of freedom of religion was raised. The applicant applied to
the Law Society to have his contract for community service registered. In this application he
not only disclosed two previous convictions for possession of cannabis (marijuana or dagga),
but also indicated his intention to continue using it for religious purposes. The Law Society
took the view that his criminal record disqualified him on the grounds that he is not a "fit
and proper person" and refused to register the contract.
Therefore, on the one hand we have Radical Legal Realism with its emphasis on the Political
Context and the role of power. They wanted to do away with formalism and replace it with a
Contextual Approach.
On the other hand, the Progressive Legal Realists used a Pragmatic Approach to replace the
formalism with the idea of law as a social science based on indeterminacy.
Therefore, in the Majority Decision the court stated its position:
The question before us, therefore, is not whether we agree with the law prohibiting the
possession and use of cannabis. Our views in that regard are irrelevant. The only question is
whether the law is inconsistent with the Constitution. The appellant contends that it is
because it interferes with his right to freedom of religion and his right to practice his religion.
1
Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794.
1
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 TheLawClinic. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
48756 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now
Recently viewed by you
