IRM1501
MAY JUNE PORTFOLIO Semester 1 2025
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
Unique Number: 728853
Due date: 27 May 2025, 23:00
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
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
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. Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
MAY JUNE PORTFOLIO Semester 1 2025
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
Unique Number: 728853
Due date: 27 May 2025, 23:00
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
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
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. Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
