Abstract

In 2007, the Constitutional Court ruled in S v M that the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration when sentencing primary caregivers. This judgment is in line with s 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, art 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and art 30(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The guidelines developed by the Constitutional Court are considered to be a ‘best practice’ relevant to countries introducing or debating upon a similar obligation within their domestic jurisdiction. Through a systematic content analysis of sentencing judgments concerning (potential) primary caregivers, the interpretation and application of the child’s best interests in this context are examined. The analysis shows that different interpretations and approaches concern different aspects of the guidelines, including their material scope, the elements to be taken into consideration, the alternative care for the child during the imprisonment of the primary caregiver, and how judges inform themselves on this matter in individual cases. The article concludes with recommendations to address these difficulties and inconsistencies.

摘要

2007年，宪法法院在S v M一案中做出裁决在判处初级看护人时应考虑到儿童的最大利益。该判决符合《 1996年南非共和国宪法》第28条，《联合国儿童权利公约》第3（1）条以及《非洲人权和宪章》第30（1）条的规定。儿童福利。宪法法院制定的准则被认为是与在其国内管辖范围内引入或辩论类似义务的国家有关的“最佳实践”。通过对（潜在的）主要照顾者的量刑判决进行系统的内容分析，研究了在这种情况下儿童最大利益的解释和运用。分析表明，不同的解释和方法涉及指南的不同方面，包括其物质范围，要考虑的要素，在主要照顾者被监禁期间对儿童的替代照料以及法官在个别案件中如何就此事告知自己。本文最后提出了解决这些困难和矛盾的建议。