Conlaw Assignment Notes
DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
ILLEGAL
Case Summaries
S v Lawrence
Facts:
- Store workers contravened the terms of the grocer’s wine licence authorising the
sale of wine at the stores
- In terms of the Liquor Act, alcohol was also not allowed to be sold on Sundays,
Good Friday and Christmas
- The applicants argued that the prohibition on the sale of alcohol on the closed
days infringed the religious beliefs of non-Christians by forcing them to observe
Christian holidays
Legal Questions:
- Did the prohibition of the sale of alcohol on the aforementioned days infringe
religious beliefs of non-Christians?
- Whether the state is required to treat all religions in a fair and equitable manner?
Outcome:
- Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal
- Prohibitions against selling liquor on closed days were too tenuous to be
characterised as a violation of freedom of religion (para 105)
- held that equitable treatment does not require equal treatment of all religious
affiliations and beliefs in a public institution
- Freedom implies an absence of coercion or constraint and that freedom of
religion may be impaired by measures that force people to act or refrain
from acting in a manner contrary to their religious beliefs (para 92)
- Chaskalson (Majority decision)
- found that the right to freedom of religion was not infringed (para 173)
DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
ILLEGAL
Case Summaries
S v Lawrence
Facts:
- Store workers contravened the terms of the grocer’s wine licence authorising the
sale of wine at the stores
- In terms of the Liquor Act, alcohol was also not allowed to be sold on Sundays,
Good Friday and Christmas
- The applicants argued that the prohibition on the sale of alcohol on the closed
days infringed the religious beliefs of non-Christians by forcing them to observe
Christian holidays
Legal Questions:
- Did the prohibition of the sale of alcohol on the aforementioned days infringe
religious beliefs of non-Christians?
- Whether the state is required to treat all religions in a fair and equitable manner?
Outcome:
- Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal
- Prohibitions against selling liquor on closed days were too tenuous to be
characterised as a violation of freedom of religion (para 105)
- held that equitable treatment does not require equal treatment of all religious
affiliations and beliefs in a public institution
- Freedom implies an absence of coercion or constraint and that freedom of
religion may be impaired by measures that force people to act or refrain
from acting in a manner contrary to their religious beliefs (para 92)
- Chaskalson (Majority decision)
- found that the right to freedom of religion was not infringed (para 173)
