IRM1501 OCTOBER
NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 7
October 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, 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) is a landmark South
African Constitutional Court decision dealing with unfair discrimination in the allocation of
policing resources.
Relevant Aspects of the Case
The most relevant aspects of the case are:
1. Subject Matter: Unfair Discrimination in Policing
Core Allegation: The applicants (Social Justice Coalition and others) challenged the
system used by the South African Police Service (SAPS) to allocate police human
resources, specifically in the Western Cape, arguing that it resulted in an unfair,
systematic, and sustained pattern of discrimination against Black and poor
communities, such as those in Khayelitsha.
Discrimination Grounds: The initial Equality Court finding (which was a crucial
antecedent to the Constitutional Court matter) declared that the system unfairly
discriminated on the grounds of race and poverty. This marked the first time a South
African court had found unfair discrimination to exist specifically on the basis of
poverty—a significant jurisprudential development given the country's high levels of
inequality.
Inequality Context: The case highlighted the link between historical apartheid-era
inequalities and the present-day reality of unequal distribution of state resources, leading
to significantly lower levels of public safety for poor and Black residents.
2. The Policing Resource Allocation System
The System: The Constitutional Court referenced the system used by SAPS, known as
the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR), which the prior Commission of
Inquiry into Policing in Khayelitsha had described as "irrational" and largely based on
outdated data, and the Equality Court had found to have an "in-built bias against poor
areas."
3. The Procedural Issue: Constructive Refusal of a Remedy
Equality Court Delay: After the Equality Court delivered its judgment on the merits in
December 2018, finding unfair discrimination, it postponed the determination of a
practical remedy to a later date. Despite consistent attempts by the applicants, the remedy
hearing was indefinitely delayed, partly due to the unavailability of the presiding judge.
NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 7
October 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, 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) is a landmark South
African Constitutional Court decision dealing with unfair discrimination in the allocation of
policing resources.
Relevant Aspects of the Case
The most relevant aspects of the case are:
1. Subject Matter: Unfair Discrimination in Policing
Core Allegation: The applicants (Social Justice Coalition and others) challenged the
system used by the South African Police Service (SAPS) to allocate police human
resources, specifically in the Western Cape, arguing that it resulted in an unfair,
systematic, and sustained pattern of discrimination against Black and poor
communities, such as those in Khayelitsha.
Discrimination Grounds: The initial Equality Court finding (which was a crucial
antecedent to the Constitutional Court matter) declared that the system unfairly
discriminated on the grounds of race and poverty. This marked the first time a South
African court had found unfair discrimination to exist specifically on the basis of
poverty—a significant jurisprudential development given the country's high levels of
inequality.
Inequality Context: The case highlighted the link between historical apartheid-era
inequalities and the present-day reality of unequal distribution of state resources, leading
to significantly lower levels of public safety for poor and Black residents.
2. The Policing Resource Allocation System
The System: The Constitutional Court referenced the system used by SAPS, known as
the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR), which the prior Commission of
Inquiry into Policing in Khayelitsha had described as "irrational" and largely based on
outdated data, and the Equality Court had found to have an "in-built bias against poor
areas."
3. The Procedural Issue: Constructive Refusal of a Remedy
Equality Court Delay: After the Equality Court delivered its judgment on the merits in
December 2018, finding unfair discrimination, it postponed the determination of a
practical remedy to a later date. Despite consistent attempts by the applicants, the remedy
hearing was indefinitely delayed, partly due to the unavailability of the presiding judge.
