The administration of justice

In the 2004 chapter on the Administration of Justice, we took the unusual step of criticising Juta, the publisher of the Annual Survey (at 823-6). We did so because we considered that Juta had behaved improperly in publishing a judgment critical of Jeremy Gauntlett SC but refusing his request to rec...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Davis, Dennis M (Autor)
Otros Autores: Marcus, Gilbert J ; Klaaren, Jonathan E
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2017
En:Año: 2017
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1865838551
003 DE-627
005 20250115054857.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231017s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1865838551 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1865838551 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Davis, Dennis M  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The administration of justice 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In the 2004 chapter on the Administration of Justice, we took the unusual step of criticising Juta, the publisher of the Annual Survey (at 823-6). We did so because we considered that Juta had behaved improperly in publishing a judgment critical of Jeremy Gauntlett SC but refusing his request to record that the Cape Bar Council had exonerated him of improper conduct. The details of the saga are fully recorded in last year's contribution and need not be repeated. As the publisher of the Annual Survey, Juta asserted a right to respond to the criticism levelled at it (2004 Annual Survey 845). Indeed, it appropriated an entire printed page to do so. Regrettably, we believe that Juta has compounded its error and that its comments cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. In essence, Juta makes three points. First, the judgment on leave to appeal was reported because it 'contradicted a previous assumption that a dissenting judgment in the court a quo meant that leave to appeal would be granted as a matter of course' (ibid). Second, the South African Law Reports contains only such editorial comment as may be necessary to elucidate the published judgments. Third, '[i]t is not incumbent upon the publishers of law reports to annotate the reports in order to vindicate any of the persons who from time to time draw adverse comment from presiding judges' (ibid). None of these arguments withstand scrutiny 
700 1 |a Marcus, Gilbert J  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Klaaren, Jonathan E  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/185389579.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4390876953 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1865838551 
LOK |0 005 20231017043713 
LOK |0 008 231017||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE16179013 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw