IRM1501
MAY/JUNE EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 27 MAY 2025
, IRM1501 May/June Exam 2025 - DUE 27 May 2025
QUESTION 1
Discuss the relevant aspects of the case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v
Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27; 2022 (10) BCLR 1267
(CC) (19 July 2022).
(15 Marks)
Key Points to Include:
1. Background and Context:
The case involved allegations of systemic discrimination in the allocation of
police resources across precincts in the Western Cape, particularly between well-
resourced and under-resourced (predominantly Black and poor) areas.
2. Applicants:
Social Justice Coalition and other civic organisations.
3. Respondents:
Minister of Police and others.
4. Legal Issue:
Whether the allocation of police resources was discriminatory and inconsistent
with constitutional rights, particularly the right to equality (section 9 of the
Constitution) and dignity (section 10).
5. Constitutional Court’s Decision:
o Found that the allocation of police resources, particularly human
resources, was unjustifiably unequal.
o Held that this constituted indirect racial discrimination and was
unconstitutional.
o Ordered that the allocation methodology be revised.
6. Significance:
o Reinforced state obligation to actively promote equality.
MAY/JUNE EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 27 MAY 2025
, IRM1501 May/June Exam 2025 - DUE 27 May 2025
QUESTION 1
Discuss the relevant aspects of the case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v
Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27; 2022 (10) BCLR 1267
(CC) (19 July 2022).
(15 Marks)
Key Points to Include:
1. Background and Context:
The case involved allegations of systemic discrimination in the allocation of
police resources across precincts in the Western Cape, particularly between well-
resourced and under-resourced (predominantly Black and poor) areas.
2. Applicants:
Social Justice Coalition and other civic organisations.
3. Respondents:
Minister of Police and others.
4. Legal Issue:
Whether the allocation of police resources was discriminatory and inconsistent
with constitutional rights, particularly the right to equality (section 9 of the
Constitution) and dignity (section 10).
5. Constitutional Court’s Decision:
o Found that the allocation of police resources, particularly human
resources, was unjustifiably unequal.
o Held that this constituted indirect racial discrimination and was
unconstitutional.
o Ordered that the allocation methodology be revised.
6. Significance:
o Reinforced state obligation to actively promote equality.
