What was left unsaid: the unconstitutionality of the performing animals protect act in NSPCA v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Full text not archived in this repository.

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Bilchitz, D. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6195-675X (2017) What was left unsaid: the unconstitutionality of the performing animals protect act in NSPCA v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. South African journal on human rights, 30 (1). pp. 183-195. ISSN 0258-7203 doi: 10.1080/19962126.2014.11865103

Abstract/Summary

It is rare for cases concerning animal welfare legislation to reach the Constitutional Court. The case of NSPCA v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is therefore notable in that the constitutionality of sections of the Performing Animals Protection Act 24 of 1935 (PAPA) was placed under scrutiny. Even more importantly, two sections of the Act, which could be regarded as its heart and soul were declared unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court has effectively now placed the government on terms to require a revision of, at least, this piece of legislation.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/103049
Identification Number/DOI 10.1080/19962126.2014.11865103
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
Publisher Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd (Juta's Law Journals)
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar