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].
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper RONSAMTUTORS. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,63. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
