You are required to draft an applicant's practice note for constitutional court South Africa using the following information below:

Practice Note for Applicant: The case of John Doe v. Minister of Safety and Security (Constitutional Court Case No: CCT45/2022) will be heard on July 30, 2024, by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and others. The Applicant says that a surveillance law is unconstitutional because it violates Section 14 of the Constitution's right to privacy by allowing mass surveillance that isn't necessary and isn't proportional. The appeal asks for a declaration of invalidity and costs because the High Court (12345/2018) and the Supreme Court of Appeal (67890/2019) made decisions that were not favorable. The Applicant, represented by Adv. Sarah Mokoena SC and Adv. Thabo Nkosi, contends that the complete record and heads of argument, duly filed and served, are requisite for the three-hour non-urgent oral hearing, devoid of disputed procedural matters. Bernstein v. Bester and Section 14 of the Constitution are two important legal cases. Adv. Sarah Mokoena SC signed this on July 20, 2024.

Explanation:

PRACTICE NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Court Heading

The name of the court is the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

Constitutional Court Case Number: CCT45/2022 Case Number 67890/2019 in the Supreme Court of Appeal Case Number 12345/2018 in the High Court Before: Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, Deputy Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, Justice Leona Theron, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, and Justice Narandra Jody Kollapen Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 People:

Applicant: John Doe Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security

Information about the case

The case is called John Doe v. Minister of Safety and Security. CCT45/2022 is the number for the Constitutional Court case. Date on the Roll: 30 July 2024 Number on the Roll: To be given Adv. Sarah Mokoena SC and Adv. Thabo Nkosi are the lawyers for the applicant. Adv. Michael Botha SC and Adv. Lerato Mthembu are the lawyers for the Respondent. What the Proceedings Are About: Constitutional challenge contesting the validity of a monitoring statute. Nature of the Appeal: An appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision to affirm the High Court's conclusion that the surveillance law does not violate constitutional rights. Issues on Appeal: if the monitoring law infringes upon the right to privacy as stipulated in Section 14 of the Constitution; if the law is proportionate in reconciling national security with individual rights. Estimated Duration of Argument: 3 hours Not urgent right now Need to Read Papers: You need to read the whole record and the heads of argument to make a decision. Parts of the record that are not in English: None Part of Record Needed: The full record, especially the applicant's founding affidavit, the respondent's responding affidavit, and the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. Need for an Oral Hearing: An oral hearing is needed to deal with constitutional issues.

Summary of Applicant's Argument

The Applicant contends that the surveillance statute violates the right to privacy as delineated in Section 14 of the Constitution by enabling unjustified and extensive surveillance without sufficient control or protections. The law is not fair because it doesn't balance the need for national security with the need to preserve individual rights. The Applicant wants a ruling that the law is unconstitutional and the right to privacy is protected.

Notes

Practice Directive: This practice note follows the rules and practice directives of the Constitutional Court. The heads of argument were filed on June 15, 2024, and the record was filed on May 30, 2024. Service: The Respondent's lawyers received all of the documents on June 15, 2024. No previous delays Actions/Applications Before: On March 20, 2023, the application for leave to appeal was granted. Information Requested: None still needed. All of the procedural criteria of Rule 19 of the Constitutional Court Rules have been met, which is what the law says. Papers in Order: Everything is in order. Anything Controversial: There are no procedural problems that are up for debate; the main question is how to interpret the Constitution.

Relief Sought

The Applicant seeks:

A statement that the monitoring law is unlawful and not valid because it goes against Section 14 of the Constitution.

An order to strike down the offending sections or, if that is not possible, to read in the necessary protections.

Costs of the application.

Grounds for Proper Case

The appeal brings up important constitutional questions about the right to privacy and the fairness of governmental monitoring measures. This Court needs to decide on these concerns.

Submissions

The Applicant will contend that the extensive reach of the monitoring law and its absence of control measures render it unlawful. The lower courts made a mistake by putting national security ahead of private rights without doing more to protect them.

Authorities Bernstein v. Bester 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC) Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v. Hyundai Motor Distributors 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC)

Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC)

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, Section 14

Heads of Argument

Filed on June 15, 2024, it gives a complete account of the Applicant's case.

Signature

Signed and Dated: July 20, 2024 Adv. Sarah Mokoena SC is the legal representative. Mokoena Chambers is located at 123 Justice Road in Pretoria. You can reach them by phone at 012 345 6789 or by email at s..a@chambers.co.za. Other lawyers: Adv. Thabo Nkosi, Nkosi & Partners, Pretoria; phone: 012 987 6543; email: t..i@nkosilegal.co.za

Key references:

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. (1996). https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996 Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others, 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC). Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another, 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC). Bernstein and Others v Bester NO and Others, 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC).