Ms Barnard argued, and the Supreme Court of Appeal held, that the decision constituted unfair discrimination on the grounds of race in contravention of section 9 of the Constitution (equality) and section 6 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. The appeal by SAPS was upheld.Ī separate concurring judgment emphasised the importance of implementing restitutionary measures without infringing on dignity.Ī second concurring judgment noted that while Ms Appeal concerning a decision of the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service not to promote Ms Barnard on the grounds that this would not enhance racial representivity at that salary level. The Court held that the decision not to promote Ms Barnard was a restitutionary measure contemplated in section 9(2) of the Constitution and section 6(2) of the Employment Equity Act and was thus constitutionally compliant. South African Police Service National Instruction 1 of 2004 - National Commissioner vested with discretion to fill vacancy to advance representivity and enhance service delivery.Īppeal concerning a decision of the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service not to promote Ms Barnard on the grounds that this would not enhance racial representivity at that salary level. South African Police Service Employment Equity Plan - numerical targets - designated groups I did not leave London and all of these stories about me being elsewhere and me going off or whatever, those stories are all categorically false, but it is true that I’ve moved my family again.Section 9 of the Constitution - equality - unfair discriminationĮmployment Equity Act 55 of 1998 - section 6 - unfairĭiscrimination - affirmative action measuresĮmployment Equity Act 55 of 1998 - section 15 - affirmative It is true that I moved my wife and child back out of London despite the Covid rules but that was in discussion with the police. He said: “I stress that the further stories about me going back are false. On Wednesday, Cummings made no mention of that evidence, and while he suggested claims of a second trip by him were false, he conceded he had moved his family back up to Durham a second time. In the rose garden he claimed that he had evidence to prove this was untrue. In his rose garden statement Cummings denied a claim, since backed up by three more people, that he travelled to Durham a second time on 19 April. He also claimed he had been talked out of resigning “by the cabinet secretary and by other senior people”. At the time, Durham police said: “Officers explained to the family the guidelines around self-isolation and reiterated the appropriate advice around essential travel.”Ĭummings admitted his actions were “a case study of how not to handle something like this”. “Almost nobody in No 10 knew about it for obvious reasons because I didn’t want the same problems to pop up at my parents’ house up in Durham,” he said.Ĭummings claimed it was “completely false” to suggest police had talked to him for breaking lockdown rules. Cummings said he had spoken to Johnson about the threats and it had been agreed his family should be moved to government accommodation or to stay with relatives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |