IRM1501 OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
7 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the company name]
,Exam (elaborations)
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 -
DUE 7 October 2025
Course
Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and C (IRM1501)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Introduction to Research Methods
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester
2 2025 - DUE 7 October 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us.
5 receive . If we cannot open the document, you will receive zero. 21. Do not
take pictures of your hand-written or printed pages with your smart phone
and then use an app to convert these photos into a pdf document. The
quality of these photos may interfere with the marking of the document. If
the marker cannot read the information contained on the page, it cannot be
marked. All queries regarding problems with online submissions of portfolios
MUST BE DIRECTED TO: ; or . Unfortunately, your lecturers CANNOT assist
you with technical or administrative challenges. PORTFPOLIO EXAM
QUESTIONS
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), which is available under
‘Additional resources’. (15 marks)
The case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27 is a landmark South African Constitutional Court case that addresses
the issue of unfair discrimination in the allocation of police resources. The core of the case
revolves around a finding by the Equality Court in 2018 that the system used by the South
African Police Service (SAPS) to allocate police human resources in the Western Cape unfairly
discriminated against poor and Black people on the basis of race and poverty.
Key Aspects of the Case
,Background and Equality Court Findings
The applicants, led by the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), argued that the system used by SAPS to
allocate police officers, known as the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR) model,
was flawed. They provided evidence showing that this formula resulted in fewer police resources
being allocated to poor, Black communities like Khayelitsha, even though these areas had higher
rates of violent crime. This was a significant issue because the case was the first in South Africa
to recognize poverty as a discrete ground of discrimination under the Promotion of Equality
and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA).
The Constitutional Court's Role and the Issue of Remedy
After the Equality Court's initial finding of discrimination in 2018, it did not issue a remedy. The
parties were meant to return to court to argue for a remedy, but due to a prolonged and
unreasonable delay, the SJC approached the Constitutional Court. They sought a declaratory
order that the Equality Court had "constructively refused" to grant them a remedy, which would
allow the Constitutional Court to intervene.
The Constitutional Court's decision on this point was pivotal. The majority judgment ultimately
held that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court concluded that it could
not grant the declaratory order or enforce the duties of the Equality Court. This meant that
despite the finding of unfair discrimination, the Constitutional Court's majority decision did not
provide a remedy, and the applicants' appeal was denied. A dissenting judgment, however,
argued that the court did have jurisdiction and that the delay was a clear violation of the right to
access courts, warranting a remedy.
Implications and Jurisprudential Significance
The case is significant for several reasons:
Poverty as a Ground of Discrimination: It established a precedent in South African law
by recognizing poverty as a standalone ground for unfair discrimination.
Access to Justice: The case raised critical questions about the right to access courts and
the need for an effective remedy when that right is infringed by an unreasonable judicial
delay.
Systemic Inequality: It highlighted the persistent and systemic inequality in South
Africa, particularly the disparate impact of resource allocation on historically
disadvantaged communities.
While the Constitutional Court's majority decision was seen by some as a procedural setback, the
Equality Court's initial finding remains a crucial legal victory. The case underscores the ongoing
struggle for social justice and the need for substantive, transformative change in post-apartheid
South Africa.
, A video of a court hearing for this case is relevant because it provides a direct, unedited record of
the legal arguments presented before the Constitutional Court, offering insight into the
procedural and substantive issues at the heart of the case.
Legal and Factual Background
Factual issues
There is a formula/system called the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)
used by SAPS to decide how many police officers/staff should be allocated to different
stations, based on factors like population size, crime reports over past years,
environmental and demographic factors. SciELO+2SAFLII+2
The applicants (Social Justice Coalition, Equal Education, Nyanga Community Policing
Forum, etc.) put forward evidence that poor, black informal areas (such as Khayelitsha,
Nyanga) suffer from underreporting of crime, have high levels of serious violence, but
receive far fewer police resources under the THRR than more affluent, predominantly
white areas. For example, some stations in high-murder areas get less resource than those
in low-crime, wealthy suburbs. SciELO+2SAFLII+2
Legal issues / Arguments
Whether the allocation system (both theoretically via the THRR and in its practical
implementation in the Western Cape) is unfairly discriminatory under Section 9(3)
of the Constitution (which prohibits unfair discrimination) on the grounds of race and
implicitly on the ground of poverty / socio-economic status. SAFLII+1
Whether the Equality Act (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act, PEPUDA) supports recognising poverty as a prohibited ground (or
analogous ground) of unfair discrimination. SciELO+1
The procedural question of delay / “constructive refusal” by the Equality Court: the
applicants had sought remedies in the Equality Court, including supervisory orders or
orders directing change, but the Equality Court was slow or did not grant those; so the
question was whether that delay amounted to a constructive refusal, thereby giving direct
access to the Constitutional Court. Polity.org.za+1
Constitutional / Legal Principles
NOVEMBER
PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
7 October 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the company name]
,Exam (elaborations)
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 -
DUE 7 October 2025
Course
Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and C (IRM1501)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Introduction to Research Methods
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester
2 2025 - DUE 7 October 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us.
5 receive . If we cannot open the document, you will receive zero. 21. Do not
take pictures of your hand-written or printed pages with your smart phone
and then use an app to convert these photos into a pdf document. The
quality of these photos may interfere with the marking of the document. If
the marker cannot read the information contained on the page, it cannot be
marked. All queries regarding problems with online submissions of portfolios
MUST BE DIRECTED TO: ; or . Unfortunately, your lecturers CANNOT assist
you with technical or administrative challenges. PORTFPOLIO EXAM
QUESTIONS
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), which is available under
‘Additional resources’. (15 marks)
The case of Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27 is a landmark South African Constitutional Court case that addresses
the issue of unfair discrimination in the allocation of police resources. The core of the case
revolves around a finding by the Equality Court in 2018 that the system used by the South
African Police Service (SAPS) to allocate police human resources in the Western Cape unfairly
discriminated against poor and Black people on the basis of race and poverty.
Key Aspects of the Case
,Background and Equality Court Findings
The applicants, led by the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), argued that the system used by SAPS to
allocate police officers, known as the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR) model,
was flawed. They provided evidence showing that this formula resulted in fewer police resources
being allocated to poor, Black communities like Khayelitsha, even though these areas had higher
rates of violent crime. This was a significant issue because the case was the first in South Africa
to recognize poverty as a discrete ground of discrimination under the Promotion of Equality
and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA).
The Constitutional Court's Role and the Issue of Remedy
After the Equality Court's initial finding of discrimination in 2018, it did not issue a remedy. The
parties were meant to return to court to argue for a remedy, but due to a prolonged and
unreasonable delay, the SJC approached the Constitutional Court. They sought a declaratory
order that the Equality Court had "constructively refused" to grant them a remedy, which would
allow the Constitutional Court to intervene.
The Constitutional Court's decision on this point was pivotal. The majority judgment ultimately
held that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court concluded that it could
not grant the declaratory order or enforce the duties of the Equality Court. This meant that
despite the finding of unfair discrimination, the Constitutional Court's majority decision did not
provide a remedy, and the applicants' appeal was denied. A dissenting judgment, however,
argued that the court did have jurisdiction and that the delay was a clear violation of the right to
access courts, warranting a remedy.
Implications and Jurisprudential Significance
The case is significant for several reasons:
Poverty as a Ground of Discrimination: It established a precedent in South African law
by recognizing poverty as a standalone ground for unfair discrimination.
Access to Justice: The case raised critical questions about the right to access courts and
the need for an effective remedy when that right is infringed by an unreasonable judicial
delay.
Systemic Inequality: It highlighted the persistent and systemic inequality in South
Africa, particularly the disparate impact of resource allocation on historically
disadvantaged communities.
While the Constitutional Court's majority decision was seen by some as a procedural setback, the
Equality Court's initial finding remains a crucial legal victory. The case underscores the ongoing
struggle for social justice and the need for substantive, transformative change in post-apartheid
South Africa.
, A video of a court hearing for this case is relevant because it provides a direct, unedited record of
the legal arguments presented before the Constitutional Court, offering insight into the
procedural and substantive issues at the heart of the case.
Legal and Factual Background
Factual issues
There is a formula/system called the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)
used by SAPS to decide how many police officers/staff should be allocated to different
stations, based on factors like population size, crime reports over past years,
environmental and demographic factors. SciELO+2SAFLII+2
The applicants (Social Justice Coalition, Equal Education, Nyanga Community Policing
Forum, etc.) put forward evidence that poor, black informal areas (such as Khayelitsha,
Nyanga) suffer from underreporting of crime, have high levels of serious violence, but
receive far fewer police resources under the THRR than more affluent, predominantly
white areas. For example, some stations in high-murder areas get less resource than those
in low-crime, wealthy suburbs. SciELO+2SAFLII+2
Legal issues / Arguments
Whether the allocation system (both theoretically via the THRR and in its practical
implementation in the Western Cape) is unfairly discriminatory under Section 9(3)
of the Constitution (which prohibits unfair discrimination) on the grounds of race and
implicitly on the ground of poverty / socio-economic status. SAFLII+1
Whether the Equality Act (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act, PEPUDA) supports recognising poverty as a prohibited ground (or
analogous ground) of unfair discrimination. SciELO+1
The procedural question of delay / “constructive refusal” by the Equality Court: the
applicants had sought remedies in the Equality Court, including supervisory orders or
orders directing change, but the Equality Court was slow or did not grant those; so the
question was whether that delay amounted to a constructive refusal, thereby giving direct
access to the Constitutional Court. Polity.org.za+1
Constitutional / Legal Principles
