Ehrlich v The Minister of Correctional Services

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Chetty J
• Judgment Date: 23 June 2008
• Docket Number: 484/05
• Hearing Date: 12 June 2008
• Court: South Eastern Cape Local Division

Chetty J:

[1] The applicant is a sentenced prisoner incarcerated at the Mdantsane prison in the Province of the Eastern Cape. In this application, launched as one of urgency, he seeks relief, framed in his notice of motion as follows:

2008 JDR 0755 p2

Chetty J

"2.

Directing the second and third respondents to comply, and to cause officials under their command to comply, with the provisions of the order made in case number 2310/2005;

3.

Directing the second respondent to comply, and to cause officials under his command to comply, with the provisions of section 18 of Act 111 of 1998 and policy mandated by that section of the Act, in respect of the provisioning of library services to offenders at Mdantsane prison;

4.

Directing the second respondent to comply with the provisions of section 38 (2) of Act 111 of 1998 in respect of providing the applicant with a sentence plan;

5.

Directing the second respondent to comply, and to cause officials under his command to comply, with the provisions of section 41 of Act 111 of 1998 and policy mandated by that section of the Act, in respect of the provisioning of sport, recreation, arts and culture and training and development programmes to offenders at Mdantsane Prison;

6.

Granting the applicant alternative and/or other relief;

7.

That the costs of this application be paid by the first respondent."

2008 JDR 0755 p3

Chetty J

[2] In order to place the application in its proper context it is apposite to restate those principles which underlie the South African correctional system. Section 2 of the Correctional Services Act [1] ("the Act") describes the purpose as being:-

". . . to contribute to maintaining and protecting a just peaceful and safe society by –

(a)

enforcing sentences of the courts in the manner prescribed by this Act;

(b)

detaining all prisoners in safe custody whilst ensuring their human dignity;

(c)

promoting the social responsibility and human development of all prisoners and persons subject to community corrections."

Such purpose furthermore, proclaims Chapter IV of the Act, has "the objective of enabling the sentenced prisoner to lead a socially responsible and crime free life in the future" [2] . Thus in order to achieve those objectives, the Act contains a number of innovative provisions, of relevance to the present application, section 18 (reading material), section 38 (assessment) and section 41 (Treatment, development and support services). The gravamen of the applicant's complaint as evinced by the form of the relief sought relates to the non-compliance by the respondents with these statutory provisions.

2008 JDR 0755 p4

Chetty J

[3] However, before I turn to consider the merits of the application, it is appropriate to have regard to what I believe to be the proper approach to matters of this nature. It was eloquently articulated by Gubbay CJ. in the Zimbabwean Supreme Court in Conjwayo v The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs [3] as follows:

"Traditionally, Courts in many jurisdictions have adopted a broad 'hands off' attitude towards matters of prison administration. This stems from a healthy sense of realism that prison administrators are responsible for securing their institutions against escape or unauthorised entry, for the preservation of internal order and discipline, and for rehabilitating, as far as is humanly possible, the inmates placed in their custody. The proper discharge of these duties is often beset with obstacles. It requires expertise, comprehensive planning and a commitment of...