Women and Justice: Keywords

Domestic Case Law

Minister of Safety and Security v. Katise Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (Hoogste Hof van Appèl van Suid Afrika) (2013)

Domestic and intimate partner violence, Gender violence in conflict, Gender-based violence in general

Mr. Katise was arrested when police were called to his home and found that he had attacked his wife. Charges for domestic violence under South Africa’s Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 were eventually repealed and after suing for unlawful arrest and detention on the grounds that there was no warrant for his arrest, Mr. Katise was awarded damages. In an appeal, the judge overturned this ruling, citing s 40(1)(q) of the Criminal Procedure Act which allows peace officers to arrest anyone reasonably suspected of violating the Domestic Violence Act of 1998. The judge in this case took an important stand against leniency on domestic violence cases, giving peace officers far more latitude to protect the rights of women and furthering the protection of women’s rights in South Africa, a country marred by sexual violence.

Mnr. Katise is gearresteer toe die polisie na sy huis geroep is en gevind het dat hy sy vrou aangeval het. Klagtes vir huishoudelike geweld onder Suid-Afrika se Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld 116 van 1998 is uiteindelik herroep nadat hy gedagvaar het vir onregmatige arrestasie en aanhouding op grond daarvan dat daar geen lasbrief vir sy inhegtenisneming was nie, is Mnr. Katiseer skadevergoeding toegeken. In 'n appèl het die regter hierdie beslissing omgekeer, met verwysing na 40(1)(q) van die Strafproseswet wat toelaat dat vredebeamptes enige iemand wat redelikerwys verdink word van die oortreding van die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 gearresteer mag word. Die regter het in hierdie geval 'n belangrike standpunt ingeneem teen die toegeeflikheid van sake rakende gesinsgeweld, wat vredebeamptes baie meer ruimte gee om die regte van vroue te beskerm en die beskerming van vroue se regte in Suid-Afrika te bevorder, in 'n land wat deur seksuele geweld gekenmerk word.

State v. Ferreira and Others Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2004)

Domestic and intimate partner violence, Gender violence in conflict, Gender-based violence in general

The appellant, convicted of hiring two workers to kill her abusive husband, argued for a reduced sentence. The court held that a lesser sentence is permitted only when there are "truly convincing" circumstances or where a life sentence is disproportionate or unjust. Expert testimony regarding battering and its effects showed how her behavior fit a well-known pattern for abused women. The court found this testimony convincing and held that the appellant's use of third parties to kill her husband did not invalidate her claim to be a victim of battering. Additionally, the court held that appellant's failure to testify should have no effect on her credibility. The court reduced her sentence but declined to acquit the appellant because of the premeditated nature of the act.

Die appellant, wat skuldig bevind is aan die huur van twee werkers om haar geweldadige man dood te maak, het aangevoer vir 'n verlaagde vonnis. Die hof het beslis dat 'n verlaagde vonnis slegs toegelaat word as daar 'werklik oortuigende' omstandighede is, of as 'n lewenslange vonnis buite verhouding of onregverdig is. 'n Getuienis van kundiges rakende die geweld en die gevolge daarvan het getoon hoe haar gedrag pas by 'n bekende patroon vir mishandelde vroue. Die hof het bevind dat hierdie getuienis oortuigend was en het bevind dat die applikant se gebruik van derde partye om haar man te vermoor nie die feit ongeldig gemaak dat sy ‘n slagoffer van geweld is nie. Verder het die hof beslis dat haar versuim om te getuig geen effek op haar geloofwaardigheid moes hê nie. Die hof het haar vonnis verminder, maar het geweier om die applikant vry te laat weens die voorbedagte aard van die handeling.