A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when: Engaging in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or b. Making an unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addressing abusive language to any person present; or c. Disturbing any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority; or d.
Introduction This case concerns various search and seizure warrants issued purportedly in terms of section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 1 the Act by a judge.
It concerns the validity of the terms of those warrants and the lawfulness of the manner of their execution. Finally, it raises a question about the appropriate relief for an unlawful search and seizure operation in the context of the fight against serious, complex and organised crime.
The two applications before this Court were heard together by direction of the Chief Justice. They are applications for leave to appeal against two judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal on 8 November In the first application, the applicant is Thint Pty Ltd Thinta company incorporated in South Africa and carrying on business in Pretoria.
The third respondent in the second application is the Director of Public Prosecutions in Durban. The respondents are referred to interchangeably as the state or the prosecution.
Complaints to the Judicial Service Commission After judgment was reserved in these cases on 13 Marchcertain events occurred that resulted in a complaint being lodged with the Judicial Service Commission JSC by Judges of this Court.
The complaint was against the alleged conduct of a Judge from one of the High Courts, the basis of which was that he had allegedly tried improperly to influence two Judges of this Court to decide these cases in favour of one of the parties in these cases.
There is a dispute about the content of the discussions that took place during the visits. The High Court Judge has in turn lodged a counter-complaint against the Judges of the Constitutional Court alleging improper conduct on their part which amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights.
The basis of his complaint is the issuing by the Judges of this Court to the media of a statement about their complaint to the JSC, which is also common cause. The two complaints are the subject of an inquiry by the JSC and it is not necessary or desirable to go into detail for present purposes.
The parties have made their submissions, with none of them expressing a direct concern that the cases would not be decided fairly consequent upon the events leading up to the complaint to the JSC. Indeed the state indicated expressly that it had no concerns in relation to the fairness of the proceedings.
The response of the applicant Thint, however, contains a criticism of the procedure followed by the Court in laying the complaint against the High Court Judge. It is necessary therefore to address the question whether the alleged improper approaches have had any effect on the content of the judgments being delivered in these cases or on the way in which they have been decided.
All the members of the Court who sat in the two applications now before us as well as in two applications heard simultaneously, which concerned a letter of request to Mauritian authorities for documents relating to Thint and Mr Zumahave considered their position in the light of the events mentioned above and their responsibilities as Judges of this Court.
We are satisfied that the alleged acts that form the basis of the complaint to the JSC by Judges of this Court have had no effect or influence on the consideration by the Court of the issues in these cases and in the judgments given.
It is recorded in the statement of complaint that there is no suggestion that any of the parties in these cases have had anything to do with the alleged conduct that forms the basis of the complaint by the Judges of the Court.
The issues relating to the complaint have accordingly been kept strictly separate from the adjudication process in these cases. It is however important to emphasise that the cases have been considered and decided in the normal way, in accordance with the dictates of our Oath of Office and in terms of the Constitution and the law, without any fear, favour or prejudice.
Application for condonation The state filed its opposing affidavits to both applications for leave to appeal two days late.
It has applied for condonation, stating that it had proved impossible to answer the applications within the ten day period permitted by the Rules of this Court. This was because of the sheer volume of the work involved and the limited availability of counsel over the summer holiday period.
The applicants do not oppose this application.The USA Patriot Act created controversy between controversy between supporters of the individual-rights perspective and the public-order advocates. Individual-rights advocate is one who seek to protect personal freedoms within the process of criminal justice.
The difference between the individual rights perspective and the public order perspective is that the individual rights perspective focuses on the individual and will sacrifice public safety for the individual while the public order perspective focuses on public safety and is willing to sacrifice individual rights.
Public Order Public order is the domain of police or other policing agencies, courts, prosecution services, and prisons—all of which make up the criminal justice system. Juvenile Court System. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF , AS AMENDED.
Editor's Note: Following is the current text of the Americans with Disabilities Act of (ADA), including changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of (P.L. ), which became effective on January 1, Individual Rights vs Public Order. AbstractIn this report, the notion of individual rights and public order are examined and an argument advanced in favor of the primacy of public order over the rights of the individual.
Public Order Public order consists for the most part of that state of social harmony in&. Feb 10, · Public Order vs. Individual Rights. OPTION 1: The theme of the first part of this course is one of individual rights versus public order.
The personal freedoms guaranteed to law-abiding citizens as well as to criminal suspects by the Constitution must be closely guarded.