LCR4803
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique number:
Due Date: April 2025
This document includes:
Helpful answers and guidelines
Detailed explanations and/ or calculations
References
Connect with the tutor on
+27 68 812 0934
,© Study Shack 2025. All rights Reserved +27 68 812 0934
, QUESTION 1
a.
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides a statutory mechanism by
which the State can compel individuals with knowledge of an offence or a
suspected offence to provide information in criminal proceedings. The process
involves the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or the State Prosecutor
requesting a judicial officer to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to
testify or disclose information. If the subpoenaed individual fails to comply
without a “just excuse,” they may be held in contempt of court and sentenced
to imprisonment.
For journalists, this provision creates a tension between legal obligations and
ethical duties to protect their sources. While journalists argue that
confidentiality is fundamental to press freedom, courts have generally ruled
that journalistic ethics do not constitute a just excuse under Section 205
unless protected by law.
The Absence of Journalistic Privilege Under Section 205
Unlike legal professionals or medical practitioners, journalists do not enjoy
absolute privilege in South African law when it comes to protecting sources.
The only legally recognized justification for refusing to disclose information
under Section 205 is the privilege against self-incrimination, as provided in
Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
This means that if a journalist is subpoenaed under Section 205, they cannot
legally refuse to disclose their source solely on the basis of journalistic ethics.
Courts have consistently ruled that freedom of the press does not override the
administration of justice when it comes to criminal investigations.
The South African courts have addressed the question of whether journalists
can rely on ethical obligations to justify their refusal to testify in multiple cases.
S v Pogrund (1961 (3) SA 868 (T))
One of the leading cases on the issue is S v Pogrund, where a journalist was
subpoenaed to disclose the identity of an informer. The journalist refused,
© Study Shack 2025. All rights Reserved +27 68 812 0934
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique number:
Due Date: April 2025
This document includes:
Helpful answers and guidelines
Detailed explanations and/ or calculations
References
Connect with the tutor on
+27 68 812 0934
,© Study Shack 2025. All rights Reserved +27 68 812 0934
, QUESTION 1
a.
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides a statutory mechanism by
which the State can compel individuals with knowledge of an offence or a
suspected offence to provide information in criminal proceedings. The process
involves the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or the State Prosecutor
requesting a judicial officer to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to
testify or disclose information. If the subpoenaed individual fails to comply
without a “just excuse,” they may be held in contempt of court and sentenced
to imprisonment.
For journalists, this provision creates a tension between legal obligations and
ethical duties to protect their sources. While journalists argue that
confidentiality is fundamental to press freedom, courts have generally ruled
that journalistic ethics do not constitute a just excuse under Section 205
unless protected by law.
The Absence of Journalistic Privilege Under Section 205
Unlike legal professionals or medical practitioners, journalists do not enjoy
absolute privilege in South African law when it comes to protecting sources.
The only legally recognized justification for refusing to disclose information
under Section 205 is the privilege against self-incrimination, as provided in
Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
This means that if a journalist is subpoenaed under Section 205, they cannot
legally refuse to disclose their source solely on the basis of journalistic ethics.
Courts have consistently ruled that freedom of the press does not override the
administration of justice when it comes to criminal investigations.
The South African courts have addressed the question of whether journalists
can rely on ethical obligations to justify their refusal to testify in multiple cases.
S v Pogrund (1961 (3) SA 868 (T))
One of the leading cases on the issue is S v Pogrund, where a journalist was
subpoenaed to disclose the identity of an informer. The journalist refused,
© Study Shack 2025. All rights Reserved +27 68 812 0934
