LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 2 FOR SEMESTER 2
OF 2024
UNIQUE CODE:
, QUESTIONS:
1. With reference to the judgment in Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape
of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794, discuss the philosophical approaches the majority
and minority decisions followed. Your answer should not exceed 750 words. (15)
Basic Facts Of The Case:
In the Prince case 1 the question of freedom of religion was raised. The applicant applied to
the Law Society to have his contract for community service registered. In this application he
not only disclosed two previous convictions for possession of cannabis (marijuana or dagga),
but also indicated his intention to continue using it for religious purposes. The Law Society
took the view that his criminal record disqualified him on the grounds that he is not a "fit
and proper person" and refused to register the contract.
Therefore, on the one hand we have Radical Legal Realism with its emphasis on the Political
Context and the role of power. They wanted to do away with formalism and replace it with a
Contextual Approach.
On the other hand, the Progressive Legal Realists used a Pragmatic Approach to replace the
formalism with the idea of law as a social science based on indeterminacy.
Therefore, in the Majority Decision the court stated its position:
The question before us, therefore, is not whether we agree with the law prohibiting the
possession and use of cannabis. Our views in that regard are irrelevant. The only question is
whether the law is inconsistent with the Constitution. The appellant contends that it is
because it interferes with his right to freedom of religion and his right to practice his religion.
1
Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794.
1
OF 2024
UNIQUE CODE:
, QUESTIONS:
1. With reference to the judgment in Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape
of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794, discuss the philosophical approaches the majority
and minority decisions followed. Your answer should not exceed 750 words. (15)
Basic Facts Of The Case:
In the Prince case 1 the question of freedom of religion was raised. The applicant applied to
the Law Society to have his contract for community service registered. In this application he
not only disclosed two previous convictions for possession of cannabis (marijuana or dagga),
but also indicated his intention to continue using it for religious purposes. The Law Society
took the view that his criminal record disqualified him on the grounds that he is not a "fit
and proper person" and refused to register the contract.
Therefore, on the one hand we have Radical Legal Realism with its emphasis on the Political
Context and the role of power. They wanted to do away with formalism and replace it with a
Contextual Approach.
On the other hand, the Progressive Legal Realists used a Pragmatic Approach to replace the
formalism with the idea of law as a social science based on indeterminacy.
Therefore, in the Majority Decision the court stated its position:
The question before us, therefore, is not whether we agree with the law prohibiting the
possession and use of cannabis. Our views in that regard are irrelevant. The only question is
whether the law is inconsistent with the Constitution. The appellant contends that it is
because it interferes with his right to freedom of religion and his right to practice his religion.
1
Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 2002 (2) SA 794.
1
