Janusz Walus (plotting with Clive Derby-Lewis) came close to sabotaging South Africa’s transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic state. Walus murdered SACP and ANC struggle hero Chris Hani in an attempt to derail negotiations and stop the advent of democracy.
It was a monstrous crime. On a political and a personal level, it must surely be close to impossible to forgive his actions.
When weighing the interests the court must consider the reasons why parole is granted and make a value judgment taking account of all relevant circumstances.
In this case the minister was called on to weigh the interests of the killer to be let out on parole against other interests, including: the need not to bring the criminal justice system into disrepute; the attitude and feelings of the victim’s family; the views of the community, and the seriousness of the crime and its real or potential impact.
People may differ on whether the minister’s decision was correct. In fact, the parole board seemed to have recommended to the minister that Walus merited release on parole and may have supported granting it.
But that does not mean the High Court was permitted to review and set aside the minister’s decision on the grounds that it was either irrational or unreasonable.
By doing so, it went beyond an inquiry of whether the decision was reasonable and in effect found that the decision was mistaken. For this reason I believe there are credible legal grounds to appeal the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court of Appeal or Constitutional Court may well decide the High Court erred.
Pierre de Vos teaches constitutional law at UCT where he is deputy dean of law and the Claude Leon Foundation chair. His blog is Constitutionally Speaking
Granting Walus parole – a case of poor judgment
It was a monstrous crime. On a political and a personal level, it must surely be close to impossible to forgive his actions.
When weighing the interests the court must consider the reasons why parole is granted and make a value judgment taking account of all relevant circumstances.
In this case the minister was called on to weigh the interests of the killer to be let out on parole against other interests, including: the need not to bring the criminal justice system into disrepute; the attitude and feelings of the victim’s family; the views of the community, and the seriousness of the crime and its real or potential impact.
People may differ on whether the minister’s decision was correct. In fact, the parole board seemed to have recommended to the minister that Walus merited release on parole and may have supported granting it.
But that does not mean the High Court was permitted to review and set aside the minister’s decision on the grounds that it was either irrational or unreasonable.
By doing so, it went beyond an inquiry of whether the decision was reasonable and in effect found that the decision was mistaken. For this reason I believe there are credible legal grounds to appeal the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court of Appeal or Constitutional Court may well decide the High Court erred.
Pierre de Vos teaches constitutional law at UCT where he is deputy dean of law and the Claude Leon Foundation chair. His blog is Constitutionally Speaking
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos