IRM1501
PORTFOLIO MAY JUNE 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: 27 May 2025
QUESTION 1 (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21)
[2022] ZACC 27
Facts of the Case
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), approached the Equality Court
after years of advocacy against the unequal allocation of police resources in poor and
predominantly Black communities, particularly in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Their activism
began in response to violent crime and the perceived inadequacy of police response. This
led to the establishment of the Khayelitsha Commission of Inquiry, which found systemic
under-resourcing of police in poorer areas. The applicants argued that the system used to
allocate police personnel—called the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)—
discriminated unfairly on the basis of race and poverty.1
Legal Question
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1 (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
Facts of the Case
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), approached the Equality
Court after years of advocacy against the unequal allocation of police resources in
poor and predominantly Black communities, particularly in Khayelitsha, Cape Town.
Their activism began in response to violent crime and the perceived inadequacy of
police response. This led to the establishment of the Khayelitsha Commission of
Inquiry, which found systemic under-resourcing of police in poorer areas. The
applicants argued that the system used to allocate police personnel—called the
Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)—discriminated unfairly on the
basis of race and poverty.1
Legal Question
The main legal question was whether the Equality Court‟s failure to determine a
remedy for its earlier finding of unfair discrimination amounted to a constructive
refusal of a remedy, thereby violating the applicants‟ constitutional right of access to
courts under section 34 of the Constitution.2 A secondary question was whether this
justified the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in the
absence of a final order from the Equality Court.3
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court recognised that unreasonable delays by a court in
delivering a decision may constitute a violation of the right of access to courts.4 The
Court held that the Equality Court's delay in determining the remedy—despite
repeated efforts by the applicants—was unreasonable and thus constituted a
1
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27, para 24.
2
SJC v Minister of Police, para 40.
3
SJC v Minister of Police, para 42.
4
SJC v Minister of Police, para 44–48.
PORTFOLIO MAY JUNE 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: 27 May 2025
QUESTION 1 (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21)
[2022] ZACC 27
Facts of the Case
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), approached the Equality Court
after years of advocacy against the unequal allocation of police resources in poor and
predominantly Black communities, particularly in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Their activism
began in response to violent crime and the perceived inadequacy of police response. This
led to the establishment of the Khayelitsha Commission of Inquiry, which found systemic
under-resourcing of police in poorer areas. The applicants argued that the system used to
allocate police personnel—called the Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)—
discriminated unfairly on the basis of race and poverty.1
Legal Question
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1 (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
Facts of the Case
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), approached the Equality
Court after years of advocacy against the unequal allocation of police resources in
poor and predominantly Black communities, particularly in Khayelitsha, Cape Town.
Their activism began in response to violent crime and the perceived inadequacy of
police response. This led to the establishment of the Khayelitsha Commission of
Inquiry, which found systemic under-resourcing of police in poorer areas. The
applicants argued that the system used to allocate police personnel—called the
Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)—discriminated unfairly on the
basis of race and poverty.1
Legal Question
The main legal question was whether the Equality Court‟s failure to determine a
remedy for its earlier finding of unfair discrimination amounted to a constructive
refusal of a remedy, thereby violating the applicants‟ constitutional right of access to
courts under section 34 of the Constitution.2 A secondary question was whether this
justified the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in the
absence of a final order from the Equality Court.3
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court recognised that unreasonable delays by a court in
delivering a decision may constitute a violation of the right of access to courts.4 The
Court held that the Equality Court's delay in determining the remedy—despite
repeated efforts by the applicants—was unreasonable and thus constituted a
1
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27, para 24.
2
SJC v Minister of Police, para 40.
3
SJC v Minister of Police, para 42.
4
SJC v Minister of Police, para 44–48.
