BREAKING | Jacob Zuma medical parole unlawful, he should go back to jail

[wingnut771]

Man has no money, Zuma bled him dry and replaced him with the Guptas.

How does he afford the golf course fees? I'm sure he gets a cut from the drivers license cards.

 

[Fulcrum29]

The loophole was closed. Sort of.
The medical advisory board was meant to be the plug, but it is written in so that it doesn't look binding on the parole board. Not sure if that was deliberate. In the end, the minister/commissioner have final say.

That is not how it is implied in the Act by my reading. To quote the text,

http://www.dcs.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DCS-Act-111-of-2008.pdf (PDF)

79. Medical parole.—(1) Any sentenced offender may be considered for placement on medical parole, by the National Commissioner, the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or the Minister, as the case may be, if—

That consideration must be made by the,

1) National Commissioner
2) Correctional Supervision
3) Parole Board

OR

1) Minister

(3) (a) The Minister must establish a medical advisory board to provide an independent medical report to the National Commissioner, Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or the Minister, as the case may be, in addition to the medical report referred to in subsection (2) (c).

Again, the minister must establish a medical advisory board, and its reports must be provided to the same structure. The decision to grant Jacob Zuma with medical parole rested with the National Commissioner, Correctional Supervision and Parole Board. Nowhere does section 79 imply that the National Commissioner has the discretion to approve medical parole.

When you take section 75 under consideration, the Parole Board has the ultimate decision, but it can be taken under review.

(8) A decision of the Board is final except that the Minister, the National Commissioner or the Inspecting Judge may refer the matter to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board for reconsideration, in which case—

(a) the decision of the Board is suspended pending the outcome of the decision of the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board; and

(b) the record of the proceedings before the Board must be submitted to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board.

[Sub-s. (8) substituted by s. 51 (g) of Act No. 25 of 2008 and by s. 13 (c) of Act No. 5 of 2011.]

From what I am reading, as I have also pointed out in previous threads on topic, is that Fraser, as the National Commissioner, could only instruct to have the matter reconsidered.

Acts need to be read like rules.

 

[Geoff.D]

Just put the man back in jail.

That medical parole is used endlessly as a get of jail free card is ridiculous.

Worse that after Schabby pulled this all those years ago the loophole STILL hasn't been closed.

BTW, Has "Schabby" dieded yet of his terminal illness? Or, did the daily golf work to cure him?

 

[tcofran]

En daar k@k KZN weer as hy tronk toe gaan

 

[yebocan]

what is the collective noun for grouping of victim cards? yesterday Dali were playing them, directly, indirectly or insinuating -- waiting for a judge... to go...

 

[surface]

How does he afford the golf course fees? I'm sure he gets a cut from the drivers license cards.

Terminally ill get a special discount at golf course. FFS, he is nearly dead for over 15 years so cut him some slack.

 

[daveza]

Clive Derby-Lewis was repeatedly denied medical parole, even though the medical parole board recommended medical parole.

This was due to the family of Hani ' not allowing it'.

Nowhere is it a requirement to require the victim's family permission.

Derby-Lewis had end stage lung cancer.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Let's see how the Foundation argued,

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559152758640578562

Adv Mpofu SC, explaining that Fraser took the Parole decision in terms of s75(7) read with s79(1)(a) of the Correctional Services Act.
s75(7) Gave him authority.
s79(1)(a)Gave him specialist medical report to justify his decision.

Why is this complicated?

To quote the subsections,

(7) Despite subsections (1) to (6), the National Commissioner may—

(a) place under correctional supervision or day parole, or grant parole or medical parole to a sentenced offender serving a sentence of incarceration for 24 months or less and prescribe conditions in terms of section 52; or
(b) cancel correctional supervision or day parole or parole or medical parole and alter the conditions for community corrections applicable to such person.

How can subsection 7 be read without subsection 8?

(8) A decision of the Board is final except that the Minister, the National Commissioner or the Inspecting Judge may refer the matter to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board for reconsideration, in which case—

(a) the decision of the Board is suspended pending the outcome of the decision of the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board; and
(b) the record of the proceedings before the Board must be submitted to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board.

Subsection 7 is explicit, but it can't ignore subsection 8 - The Act does not read up to subsection 7. Subsection 8 has to be taken under consideration. The question is then why is subsection 8 in section 75? Because it was stipulated in Acts No. 25/2008 and No. 5/2011. Clearly there is an incompatibility here, going by the arguments, and should be open to interpretation. You can't have a subsection 7 which states that despite subsections 1-6 that the National Commissioner may have the discretion to do (a) or (b) and then have a subsection 8 which explicitly states that the board's decision is FINAL. Just by how subsection 8 is worded it is in despite OF subsection 7 which is in despite OF subsection 1-6. As I said, Acts need to be read like rules.

I have pointed this out one time too many, but a correction is needed here, and the SCA is in the position to do so.

Then section 79(a),

79. Medical parole.—(1) Any sentenced offender may be considered for placement on medical parole, by the National Commissioner, the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or the Minister, as the case may be, if—

(a) such offender is suffering from a terminal disease or condition or if such offender is rendered physically incapacitated as a result of injury, disease or illness so as to severely limit daily activity or inmate self-care;

however nobody is privy to this medical report. The position which is stood by is that Zuma is terminally ill, and it is not allowed to be disputed.

I am still in the view that Zuma's medical report must be scrutinised and made public, it will spell an end to many shenanigans. Remember his terminal illness and his imprisonment were used to stall the arms deal trial which is a separate matter, and so will it be used in any and all state capture proceedings.

 

[TheChamp]

Clive Derby-Lewis was repeatedly denied medical parole, even though the medical parole board recommended medical parole.

This was due to the family of Hani ' not allowing it'.

Nowhere is it a requirement to require the victim's family permission.

Derby-Lewis had end stage lung cancer.

Can you post a source about him being denied medical parole because Hani family doesn't allow it?

 

[Hemi300c]

Clive Derby-Lewis was repeatedly denied medical parole, even though the medical parole board recommended medical parole.

This was due to the family of Hani ' not allowing it'.

Nowhere is it a requirement to require the victim's family permission.

Derby-Lewis had end stage lung cancer.

He only killed one POS zuma has killed 100's if not 1000's

 

[ToxicBunny]

Can you post a source about him being denied medical parole because Hani family doesn't allow it?

It was largely dealt with in the case where he was granted Medical Parole

Derby-Lewis v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (17889/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 661; 2015 (2) SACR 412 (GP) (29 May 2015)

www.saflii.org

The first respondent took into consideration the responses of the fourth respondent (Mrs Hani) without giving Derby-Lewis sight of or right of response or anything like that... Granted its a bit more subtle than Mrs Hani said no.

 

[surface]

Clive Derby-Lewis was repeatedly denied medical parole, even though the medical parole board recommended medical parole.

This was due to the family of Hani ' not allowing it'.

Nowhere is it a requirement to require the victim's family permission.

Derby-Lewis had end stage lung cancer.

There are some disadvantages to being superior race after all. Also, killing of Hani was too close to 1994. He should have played part in it way before to avoid any consequences, no?

 

[OCP]

Can you post a source about him being denied medical parole because Hani family doesn't allow it?

Even though medical parole had been denied, he was released on parole

Here is the judgment: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2015/661.html

Note the reasons for denial are all medical:

---
[28] The reasoning for the refusal to place the applicant on medical parole by the first respondent is briefly as follows:

28.1. In its recommendation, the Board states that Mr Derby-Lewis is suffering from stage lllB lung cancer and this serves largely as a basis upon which it recommends his placement on medical parole. This finding and recommendation appears to be oblivious of the fact that in terms of the Act, read with relevant Regulations, it is an inmate with malignant cancer stage IV with metastasis being inoperable or with both radiotherapy and chemotherapy failure that qualifies for placement on medical parole. It is therefore inconceivable how the Board came to its conclusion.

28.2. The applicant was found by the first respondent not to have been rendered physically incapacitated so as to severely limit his daily activity or self-care.

28.3. There were no indications to whether the offender had "showed any remorse for the crimes committed."

28.4. The first respondent has since disavowed reference to the use of pseudonyms used at the hospital by applicant and I therefore make no reference to that issue.
---

Very interesting that a dying cancer patient does not qualify for medical parole but Zuma suffering from mystery bullshit disease does qualify.

Everyone is equal hey...

 

[TheChamp]

It was largely dealt with in the case where he was granted Medical Parole

Derby-Lewis v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (17889/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 661; 2015 (2) SACR 412 (GP) (29 May 2015)

www.saflii.org

The first respondent took into consideration the responses of the fourth respondent (Mrs Hani) without giving Derby-Lewis sight of or right of response or anything like that... Granted its a bit more subtle than Mrs Hani said no.

I was hoping for much more than that because I don't ever remember anything about his medical parole being denied because Mrs Hani said no.

 

[TheChamp]

Even though medical parole had been denied, he was released on parole

Here is the judgment: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2015/661.html

Note the reasons for denial are all medical:

---
[28] The reasoning for the refusal to place the applicant on medical parole by the first respondent is briefly as follows:

28.1. In its recommendation, the Board states that Mr Derby-Lewis is suffering from stage lllB lung cancer and this serves largely as a basis upon which it recommends his placement on medical parole. This finding and recommendation appears to be oblivious of the fact that in terms of the Act, read with relevant Regulations, it is an inmate with malignant cancer stage IV with metastasis being inoperable or with both radiotherapy and chemotherapy failure that qualifies for placement on medical parole. It is therefore inconceivable how the Board came to its conclusion.

28.2. The applicant was found by the first respondent not to have been rendered physically incapacitated so as to severely limit his daily activity or self-care.

28.3. There were no indications to whether the offender had "showed any remorse for the crimes committed."

28.4. The first respondent has since disavowed reference to the use of pseudonyms used at the hospital by applicant and I therefore make no reference to that issue.
---

Very interesting that a dying cancer patient does not qualify for medical parole but Zuma suffering from mystery bullshit disease does qualify.

Everyone is equal hey...

That's the problem with you guys, nowhere did I ever say Zuma's medical parole was justified so I have no idea what point you are trying to make, I asked for one simple thing, show me the part which says Derby-Lewis medical parole was denied because Mrs Hani did not allow it?

 

[ToxicBunny]

I was hoping for much more than that because I don't ever remember anything about his medical parole being denied because Mrs Hani said no.

I do vaguely remember an article hinting at the fact that his initial parole application was denied because the family was consulted and weren't happy... but that would have just been an opinion piece.

I think the court judgement is somewhat more damning than an opinion piece though in so much as her "input" in the process was given way more weight than it should have been given, given the fact that Derby-Lewis met the criteria for medical parole.

 

[surface]

Even though medical parole had been denied, he was released on parole

Here is the judgment: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2015/661.html

Note the reasons for denial are all medical:

---
[28] The reasoning for the refusal to place the applicant on medical parole by the first respondent is briefly as follows:

28.1. In its recommendation, the Board states that Mr Derby-Lewis is suffering from stage lllB lung cancer and this serves largely as a basis upon which it recommends his placement on medical parole. This finding and recommendation appears to be oblivious of the fact that in terms of the Act, read with relevant Regulations, it is an inmate with malignant cancer stage IV with metastasis being inoperable or with both radiotherapy and chemotherapy failure that qualifies for placement on medical parole. It is therefore inconceivable how the Board came to its conclusion.

28.2. The applicant was found by the first respondent not to have been rendered physically incapacitated so as to severely limit his daily activity or self-care.

28.3. There were no indications to whether the offender had "showed any remorse for the crimes committed."

28.4. The first respondent has since disavowed reference to the use of pseudonyms used at the hospital by applicant and I therefore make no reference to that issue.
---

Very interesting that a dying cancer patient does not qualify for medical parole but Zuma suffering from mystery bullshit disease does qualify.

Everyone is equal hey...

In Perth, you shall find justice man.

 

[surface]

That's the problem with you guys, nowhere did I ever say Zuma's medical parole was justified so I have no idea what point you are trying to make, I asked for one simple thing, shoe me the part which says Derby-Lewis medical parole was denied because Mrs Hani did not allow it?

Looks like samaritan hearts are bleeding due to blood cancer affected Clive. I wonder if same will happen if Zuma has blood cancer.

 

[TheChamp]

I do vaguely remember an article hinting at the fact that his initial parole application was denied because the family was consulted and weren't happy... but that would have just been an opinion piece.

I think the court judgement is somewhat more damning than an opinion piece though in so much as her "input" in the process was given way more weight than it should have been given, given the fact that Derby-Lewis met the criteria for medical parole.

I am not in any way suggesting that he wasn't qualifying for medical parole, I was just interested in that particular point I raised.

I think there could be some confusion between Derby Lewis and Walusz.

 

[OCP]

That's the problem with you guys, nowhere did I ever say Zuma's medical parole was justified so I have no idea what point you are trying to make, I asked for one simple thing, show me the part which says Derby-Lewis medical parole was denied because Mrs Hani did not allow it?

I was proving your point dumbass!

Which part of "Note the reasons for denial are all medical:" did you not read?