The child had sought to prevent the officers from arresting her mother and was detained despite officers being aware of her age. The Constitutional Court observed that if the police officers believed the child acted as an impediment in the execution of their duties they could have left the child with her father, and such steps should have been considered before taking the more intrusive step of coming to a decision as to whether to initiate proceedings against the child. The ruling followed the case of a 15 year old girl who was held in a police station for 19 hours following her mother’s arrest for the contravention of an order against her husband (the child’s father). Where a child is arrested and/or detained and alternative and less intrusive measures were available, a damages claim can now be instituted on behalf of the child against the relevant police officers. In Raduvha v Minister of Safety and Security and Another ZACC 24, the eleven judges of the Constitutional Court confirmed that any police officer in a position where they are considering arresting and/or detaining a child (under 18 year olds) must comply with the Bill of Rights and in doing so should give serious thought as to whether such measures are appropriate and only consider such action as a measure of last resort. The Constitutional Court of South Africa has confirmed that the ‘best interests’ principle, enshrined in Article 3 of the UNCRC and incorporated into South African domestic legislation, is to be paramount when police are considering arresting and detaining a child. Raduvha v Minister of Safety and Security and Another ZACC 24
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |