Correctional Services Act, 1998

Act 111 of 1998

Please note that the research on this work is ongoing. Amendment, commencement and repeal information may be missing.

There are outstanding amendments that have not yet been applied. See the History tab for more information.

Correctional Services Act, 1998

Citation: Act 111 of 1998
Date: 27 November 1998
Language: English
Publication: Download PDF (26.9 MB)

Collections

Subject areas

Error loading PDF

Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.

Reload page Download PDF

Error:

History of this document

01 February 2025 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Services Amendment Act, 2021

01 December 2024 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Services Amendment Act, 2023

01 December 2021 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Cybercrimes Act, 2020

05 January 2015 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Matters Amendment Act, 2011

01 July 2013 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Matters Amendment Act, 2011

01 December 2012 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Matters Amendment Act, 2011

01 March 2012 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Matters Amendment Act, 2011

01 April 2010 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Child Justice Act, 2008

01 October 2009 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Services Amendment Act, 2008

01 October 2004

Commenced by Correctional Services Act, 1998: Commencement

Note: Date of commencement of sections 50–82 and 137 (with respect to the amendment of Act 51 of 1977 and the repeal of certain sections of Act 8 of 1959)

31 July 2004

Commenced by Correctional Services Act, 1998: Commencement

Note: Date of commencement of sections 2, 4, 6–49, 96, 98–102, 131–133 and 137 (with respect to the repeal of certain sections of Act 8 of 1959)

17 January 2003 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Judicial Matters Amendment Act, 2002

28 November 2002 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act, 2002

14 December 2001 amendment not yet applied

Amended by Correctional Services Amendment Act, 2001

25 February 2000

Commenced by Correctional Services Act, 1998: Commencement

Note: Date of commencement of section 3

01 July 1999

Commenced by Correctional Services Act, 1998: Commencement

Note: Date of commencement of section 5

19 February 1999

Commenced by Correctional Services Act, 1998: Commencement

Note: Date of commencement of sections 1, 83–95, 97, 103–130, 134–136, 137 (only with respect to the repeal of certain sections of Act 8 of 1959) and 138

27 November 1998 this version

Published in Government Gazette 19522

19 November 1998

Assented to

Cited documents 0

Documents citing this one 224

Judgment

138

M v S (CCT 53/06) [2007] ZACC 18 (26 September 2007)

Reported

Sentencing courts must independently consider children’s best interests under section 28(2) when primary caregivers face imprisonment.

Constitutional law — Children’s rights — Section 28(2) paramountcy principle — Sentencing — Duties of court where offender is primary caregiver — Need to ascertain caregiver status, consider child’s best interests independently, weigh and secure alternative care — Correctional supervision as community-based alternative — Section 28 limited by section 36 balancing.

Bogaards v S (120/11) [2012] ZACC 23 (28 September 2012)

Reported

Appellate courts must notify the applicant before increasing sentence; court orders, not warrants, determine "prisoner" status.

• Criminal law – Correctional Services Act s 115(e) – definition of "prisoner" and "prison" includes court holding cells and persons in transit; lawful detention derives from court order, not merely administrative warrant. • Constitutional law – Right to fair trial s 35(3) – appellate procedure: appellate courts must notify appellant when contemplating an increase in sentence; failure to notify may amount to an irregularity and failure of justice. • Common law development – long-standing notice practice elevated to mandatory requirement; procedures for giving notice and corollary limits on withdrawal of appeal explained.

Zealand v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Another [2008] ZACC 3 (11 March 2008)

Reported

Detaining an accused as a sentenced prisoner after his conviction is set aside unlawfully violates section 12(1)(a).

* Constitutional law – right to freedom and security – section 12(1)(a) – deprivation of freedom arbitrary or without just cause where accused is detained as sentenced prisoner after conviction set aside. * Criminal procedure – remand orders – magistrates’ warrants do not justify substantive deprivation inconsistent with an accused’s legal status. * Correctional law – segregation and treatment of awaiting‑trial and sentenced prisoners – wrongful classification may amount to punishment and unlawful detention. * Delict – unlawful detention – constitutional breach can ground private law damages claim.

Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) [2005] ZACC 22 (5 December 2005)

Reported

Retrospective mid‑trial extension of a court’s sentencing jurisdiction can violate the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Constitutional law – fair trial (section 35(3)) – retrospective application of increased court penal jurisdiction – section 92(1)(a) Magistrates’ Courts Act – distinction from prescribed punishments under section 35(3)(n); rule of law and legal certainty; remedy by substitution of sentence.

Ndlovu v S [2017] ZACC 19 (15 June 2017)

Reported

Regional court lacked jurisdiction to impose life imprisonment where the applicant was convicted of rape charged under section 51(2).

Criminal law – Minimum Sentencing Act s51(1) v s51(2) – jurisdiction of regional courts to impose life imprisonment – effect of conviction "as charged" – evidence cannot convert a complete charge into a different statutory category – courts’ power to amend charges (s86 Criminal Procedure Act) – prosecutorial responsibility to prefer correct charges; fair-trial prejudice enquiry unnecessary where jurisdiction lacking.

Director of Public Prosecutions North Gauteng: Pretoria v Gcwala and Others (295/2013) [2014] ZASCA 44 (31 March 2014)

Reported

Pre-trial custody is a relevant, non-mechanical factor when assessing deviation from prescribed minimum sentences.

Criminal law – Sentencing – Minimum sentences – Pre-trial detention as factor in assessing substantial and compelling circumstances; no mechanical rule of thumb for crediting awaiting-trial custody; sentencing courts must assess proportionality in all the circumstances. Criminal law – Non-parole orders – exceptional and to be made with caution. Aggravating factors (planned, for financial gain, politically motivated killing) justify substantial custodial sentence.

Mpofu v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others [2013] ZACC 15 (6 June 2013)

Reported

Majority refused leave: age disputed, missing record and delay meant no prospects of success; minority would have set aside life sentence for child offender.

Constitutional law – children’s rights – sentencing – section 28(1)(g) (child detained as last resort) – whether sentencing court misdirected by failing to treat minority as constitutionally significant; procedural law – leave to appeal and condonation – interests of justice, prospects of success, delay and missing record; evidentiary issues – proving age post-conviction.

Van Vuren v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (CCT 07/10) [2010] ZACC 17 (30 September 2010)

Reported

Antedated life-sentence offender entitled to parole consideration under the 1992 parole policy; s136(3)(a) upheld but not applicable to him.

Correctional Services Act s136 — transitional parole provisions — interpretation of subsections (1) and (3)(a); effect of antedated sentences; non-retrospectivity and rule of law; parole eligibility — preservation of pre-2004 policy/guidelines for some offenders; direct access to Constitutional Court; remedial order directing CMC, Parole Board and Minister to consider release under 1959 Act policy (13 Nov 1992).

Tuta v S (CCT 308/20) [2022] ZACC 19 (31 May 2022)

Reported

Ambiguous ex tempore judgment misformulating putative private defence test rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal upheld and accused acquitted.

• Criminal law – putative private defence – test is subjective (accused’s genuine belief); reasonableness relates to culpability/negligence, not intent • Evidence and procedure – trial judge’s interruption of prosecution: improper but not necessarily prejudicial • Judgments – ex tempore vs signed judgment; ambiguity in ex tempore judgment must be resolved in favour of accused where material • Sentencing – distinction between appellate review of ordinary sentencing discretion and value judgment on substantial and compelling circumstances

Mhlongo v S (140 of 2016) [2016] ZASCA 152 (3 October 2016)

Reported