|
''Fraser v ABSA'', an important case in South African criminal procedure and constitutional litigation, concerned the interpretation of chapter 5 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA),〔Act 121 of 1998.〕 dealing with the restraint and confiscation of property that constitutes the proceeds of crime. In the area of constitutional litigation, the court dealt with the question of its jurisdiction in constitutional matters. The interpretation by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) of section 26 of POCA had been challenged on the grounds that it had failed to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights, particularly the right to a fair trial. This was a constitutional matter, so the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to hear it. On the issue of leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, the court found that, since POCA was an Act of considerable importance and complexity, and since there were prospects of success in challenging the SCA's interpretation of the Act, leave to appeal should be granted. == Facts == Section 26 of POCA authorised the High Court to issue a restraint order prohibiting a person who has or will be charged with an offence under POCA from dealing in any manner with any property subject to the restraint order. The High Court also had a discretion in terms of section 26(6) to make provision in the restraint order for the reasonable living and legal expenses of the defendant. This case is concerned with the exercise of that discretion. Fraser argued that the failure to make such provision violated his right to a fair trial, including the right to legal representation. Fraser was arrested in 2003 and charged with racketeering, money laundering and drug-related offences. In November 2004, the High Court ordered a provisional restraint order against his property, placing it in the hands of a curator. He subsequently applied, in terms of section 26(6), to the Durban High Court for an order directing the curator to sell the property and use its proceeds for payment of the legal expenses in his criminal trial. ABSA, a creditor of Mr Fraser with a four-year-old default judgment against him in its favour, applied to intervene in the proceedings. It opposed the application for the provision of legal expenses on the basis that, if Mr Fraser were successful, it would be unable to recover its judgment debt. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Fraser v ABSA」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|