ADL2601 Exam Notes and Study Guide: Administrative Law for Criminal Justice Students (UNISA)

This study guide presents a complete, exam-focused explanation of Administrative Law in the criminal justice context, with particular reference to UNISA ADL2601. It concentrates on the legal principles, institutional structures, procedures, and leading case law most often tested in South African administrative law examinations. The emphasis is on understanding how public power must be exercised lawfully, fairly, and reasonably in criminal justice institutions such as the police, correctional services, prosecuting authority, and parole structures.

1. The Nature, Purpose, and Scope of Administrative Law

Administrative law is the body of law that regulates the exercise of public power by organs of state and public functionaries. In the criminal justice context, it becomes especially important because many decisions affecting liberty, dignity, safety, and reputation are taken by officials who are not courts but still wield state authority. A police officer deciding whether to arrest, a prison official deciding on classification, a parole board deciding on release, or a disciplinary authority deciding on sanctions all act within a legal framework that must comply with administrative law.

1.1 Why administrative law matters in criminal justice

The criminal justice system is deeply dependent on administrative decisions. These are not abstract bureaucratic choices; they determine whether a suspect is detained, whether an inmate receives privileges, whether a witness is protected, and whether a former offender is reintegrated into society. Because these decisions often affect constitutional rights, administrative law exists to ensure that power is not exercised arbitrarily.

The most important values in this context are:

Legality: public power must come from lawful authority.
Accountability: officials must be answerable for their decisions.
Transparency: reasons and procedures should be open and understandable.
Fairness: affected persons must be treated justly.
Reasonableness: decisions should be rational and defensible.
Participation: affected persons should, where appropriate, be heard.

In South Africa, these values are reinforced by the Constitution, especially section 33, which guarantees the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair, and by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), which gives effect to that right.

1.2 The constitutional foundation of administrative law

The Constitution is the highest law in South Africa. All public administration must conform to it. The key constitutional provisions include:

Section 1: foundational values such as human dignity, equality, and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Section 33: the right to just administrative action.
Section 195: basic values and principles governing public administration.
Section 237: constitutional obligations must be performed diligently and without delay.
Section 205: the police service must prevent, combat, and investigate crime, maintain public order, and protect inhabitants.
Section 36: rights may be limited only through a law of general application and only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable.

These provisions collectively ensure that the state cannot act in an unfettered manner. Even where officials pursue legitimate goals such as crime prevention or prison security, they must do so within constitutional limits.

1.3 Administrative law versus other branches of law

Administrative law must be distinguished from several related fields:

Criminal law concerns offences and punishment.
Criminal procedure governs investigation, arrest, trial, and sentencing.
Public law includes constitutional law and administrative law.
Civil law regulates disputes between private parties.

Administrative law differs because it focuses on the decision-making process of public bodies, not on whether a person is guilty of an offence. For example, if a person is lawfully arrested, that question may involve criminal procedure. If a police station refuses to provide access to a public service or fails to follow a prescribed disciplinary process, administrative law may apply.

1.4 What counts as administrative action

Not every act by a state official is administrative action. Under PAJA, administrative action is generally:

A decision of an administrative nature,
Taken by an organ of state or a person exercising public power or performing a public function,
Which adversely affects rights,
Which has a direct, external legal effect,
And which is not excluded by PAJA.

This definition matters in examinations because students are often required to identify whether PAJA applies before discussing fairness or review.

A practical criminal justice example is helpful. Suppose a parole board refuses release after considering a prisoner’s conduct, risk profile, and rehabilitation record. That decision is administrative because it is taken by a public body, affects rights, and has direct legal consequences. By contrast, a judge sentencing an accused person is exercising judicial power, not administrative power.

1.5 The importance of legality in the criminal justice environment

Legality means that the state may only exercise power if it has lawful authority to do so. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Constitutional Court. In criminal justice, legality protects against abuse such as unlawful arrests, detention without statutory authority, and punishment imposed without legal basis.

The legality principle requires:

A lawful source of power;
A proper purpose;
No ultra vires conduct, meaning no action beyond the scope of authority;
Compliance with any procedural requirements attached to the power.

The significance of legality is that even where PAJA does not apply, public power is still constrained. This means legality is often the “minimum standard” of public administration.

1.6 Human rights and administrative justice

Administrative law is not merely technical. It is one of the main mechanisms by which constitutional rights are protected in everyday governance. In the criminal justice context, administrative decisions often affect:

Freedom and security of the person
Dignity
Equality
Privacy
Property
Access to courts
Access to information
Administrative justice itself

A detainee denied access to prescribed medical treatment may challenge the decision if it is irrational, procedurally unfair, or inconsistent with policy. A suspect whose permit is cancelled without notice may rely on fairness and reasons. A correctional official who imposes restrictions inconsistently may violate equality and legality.

1.7 The administrative state in South Africa

South Africa has a large and complex administrative state. Public institutions make countless decisions every day. In the criminal justice system this includes:

The South African Police Service (SAPS)
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)
Correctional Services
Parole and review boards
Forensic and investigative units
Law-enforcement regulators
Provincial and municipal safety officials

The greater the administrative machinery, the greater the risk of error, delay, unequal treatment, and abuse. That is why administrative law focuses so heavily on review, procedural fairness, and rationality.

2. Sources of Administrative Law and the Legal Framework

Administrative law in South Africa is built from several interlocking sources. An exam answer should always show awareness that the law comes from the Constitution, legislation, the common law, and judicial interpretation. In a criminal justice setting, these sources work together to ensure that state power is both effective and controlled.

2.1 The Constitution as the supreme source

The Constitution is the starting point for every administrative law problem. Because it is supreme, any law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid. Administrative decisions are therefore measured against constitutional standards of legality, rationality, fairness, and reasonableness.

Important constitutional provisions include:

Constitutional provision	Relevance
Section 1	Founding values: supremacy, rule of law, accountability
Section 33	Right to lawful, reasonable, procedurally fair administrative action
Section 195	Basic values of public administration
Section 237	Constitutional obligations must be performed diligently
Section 205	Functions of the police
Section 36	Limitation of rights

Section 33 is the central administrative justice clause. It is the foundation of PAJA and is especially significant where criminal justice decisions affect an individual’s rights.

2.2 PAJA: the main statute

PAJA is the principal legislation that gives effect to section 33 of the Constitution. It regulates administrative action, procedures, and remedies. For exam purposes, PAJA is crucial because students must know when it applies, what fairness it requires, and how a person may seek review.

PAJA’s major themes include:

The right to lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action;
The right to written reasons;
The requirement of notice and a hearing in certain cases;
Specific grounds of judicial review;
Internal remedies and exhaustion requirements in many cases.

In criminal justice, PAJA can apply to decisions such as:

Granting or refusing a licence or permit related to public safety;
Decisions by correctional authorities affecting privileges or classification;
Administrative disciplinary proceedings in public institutions;
Decisions of parole or release structures where they are administrative rather than judicial.

2.3 The common law and its continuing importance

Before the Constitution, administrative law was largely developed through common-law principles such as natural justice, procedural fairness, reasonableness, and ultra vires review. Although the Constitution has transformed the field, the common law still matters because many administrative doctrines were developed through case law and continue to inform interpretation.

The major common-law principles include:

Audi alteram partem: the other side must be heard;
Nemo iudex in causa sua: no one may be a judge in their own cause;
Reasonableness;
Proper purpose;
Relevant considerations and exclusion of irrelevant ones.

Even where PAJA applies, courts often use these common-law ideas to interpret constitutional and statutory obligations.

2.4 The principle of legality

The principle of legality is part of the rule of law. It applies to all public power, whether or not the conduct qualifies as administrative action under PAJA. This is especially important because some criminal justice decisions may be excluded from PAJA, yet still be reviewable under legality.

The legality principle requires that:

The decision-maker must have authority to act;
The power must be exercised for the purpose for which it was conferred;
The decision must not be arbitrary;
The decision must be rationally related to the purpose of the power.

In a criminal justice context, legality may be used to challenge unlawful delegation of power, arbitrary use of force, and detention without authority.

2.5 The interplay between Constitution, PAJA, and legality

A strong exam answer should show the relationship between these sources rather than treating them separately.

A useful way to think about the relationship is:

Start with the Constitution: Is a right implicated?
Ask whether the action is administrative action under PAJA.
If PAJA applies, use PAJA’s requirements and review grounds.
If PAJA does not apply, consider legality and constitutional review.
Always check whether common-law principles help explain the issue.

This framework is particularly useful in criminal justice cases because official conduct often sits near the boundary between administrative, executive, and operational decision-making.

2.6 Subsidiary legislation, policy, and practice directives

Administrative law is not governed only by statutes. Officials also act under regulations, directives, standing orders, and internal policies. In the criminal justice context these may include:

Police standing orders;
Prison regulations;
Correctional service directives;
Parole guidelines;
Prosecutorial policy frameworks.

These instruments are important because they structure discretion. A decision-maker who ignores binding policy without good reason may act unlawfully or irrationally. However, policy itself cannot override the Constitution or statute. A policy that is inconsistent with the law is invalid.

2.7 International and comparative influence

South African administrative law has also been influenced by comparative and international developments, especially ideas of fairness, accountability, and constitutionalism. Although exams on ADL2601 usually focus on South African law, a strong answer may note that principles of procedural fairness and legality are common in democratic legal systems. This broader context helps explain why administrative law is viewed as a safeguard against arbitrary government.

3. Administrative Action, Decision-Making, and Fair Procedure

Understanding administrative action is essential because PAJA only applies if the conduct in question qualifies as administrative action. Once that threshold is crossed, the focus shifts to the quality of the decision-making process and whether it satisfies constitutional and statutory requirements.

3.1 The elements of administrative action

A decision is typically administrative action if it involves:

A decision of an administrative nature;
By an organ of state or person exercising public power;
That adversely affects rights;
With direct, external legal effect;
And which is not excluded.

Each element must be analysed carefully.

Decision of an administrative nature

This refers to decisions involving implementation, management, or execution of law and policy rather than law-making or adjudication. In criminal justice, many operational decisions are administrative because they implement legislation and policy.

Organ of state or public functionary

This includes departments, agencies, and officials exercising public powers. A prison superintendent, for example, acts as an official in the exercise of public power.

Adversely affects rights

The action must have a negative effect on rights or legitimate interests. Not every inconvenience qualifies. The impact must be legally meaningful.

Direct, external legal effect

The decision must have consequences outside the internal functioning of the administration. Internal memoranda or preliminary recommendations may not qualify unless they change legal position externally.

3.2 Exclusions from PAJA

Some decisions are excluded from PAJA, including certain executive decisions, legislative acts, and judicial functions. In criminal justice, this distinction is important because not every state act can be reviewed under PAJA.

Common examples of excluded conduct include:

Cabinet policy decisions of a broad executive nature;
Parliament’s legislative acts;
Judicial decisions by courts;
Certain prosecutorial decisions depending on their nature and context.

However, exclusion from PAJA does not mean immunity from review. The principle of legality may still apply.

3.3 Procedural fairness and audi alteram partem

Procedural fairness is a core requirement of administrative justice. The most famous rule is audi alteram partem, meaning “hear the other side.” This principle requires that a person affected by a decision should normally be informed of the case against them and given a chance to respond.

In criminal justice settings, procedural fairness is vital because decisions may affect liberty and reputation. Examples include:

A prisoner facing disciplinary segregation;
A parole candidate whose release may be refused;
A police officer facing internal disciplinary action;
A citizen whose permit is being cancelled for alleged non-compliance.

Procedural fairness does not always mean a formal hearing. The procedure depends on the context, the seriousness of the decision, the statutory scheme, urgency, and practicality. But the more serious the impact, the stronger the demand for fairness.

3.4 Factors influencing the content of fairness

Courts assess fairness contextually. Relevant factors include:

The nature of the decision;
The degree to which rights are affected;
The importance and urgency of the purpose pursued;
The extent of prejudice to the affected person;
The administrative burden of more elaborate procedures;
Whether the affected person already knows the case against them.

This balancing exercise is especially important in correctional and policing contexts because immediate security concerns may justify rapid action, but urgency does not erase fairness entirely.

3.5 Reasons for decisions

The right to reasons is a key feature of administrative law. Reasons allow the affected person to understand why the decision was made and whether it was lawful. They also facilitate review and promote accountability.

In the criminal justice context, reasons are especially valuable because they may explain:

Why bail-related administrative conditions were imposed;
Why a prisoner was classified in a particular security category;
Why parole was denied;
Why a disciplinary penalty was selected;
Why a benefit or permit was refused.

A reasonless decision creates suspicion of arbitrariness. Even where reasons are brief, they should identify the legal and factual basis of the decision.

3.6 Lawfulness, rationality, and reasonableness

These are separate but connected standards.

Lawfulness

The decision must be authorised by law and made within the boundaries of the power.

Rationality

There must be a rational connection between the decision, the purpose of the power, and the information before the decision-maker.

Reasonableness

Under PAJA and constitutional standards, a decision must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.

These standards are not identical. A decision may be lawful but irrational, or procedurally fair but substantively unreasonable. Good exam answers should distinguish them carefully.

3.7 Discretion and the abuse of discretion

Many criminal justice officials have discretion. Police may decide how to prioritise operations; prison officials may choose security measures; parole authorities may assess risk. Discretion is necessary because rigid rules cannot anticipate every case. But discretion must not become arbitrariness.

An abuse of discretion occurs when an official:

Uses the power for an improper purpose;
Considers irrelevant factors;
Ignores relevant factors;
Acts in bad faith;
Applies a blanket rule without considering the individual case;
Delegates discretion unlawfully.

For example, if a parole board refuses all applicants from a certain prison category without individualized assessment, it may be acting unlawfully and irrationally.

3.8 Internal processes and administrative justice

Before a matter reaches a court, administrative systems often provide internal review or appeal procedures. In criminal justice institutions these can include grievance channels, internal disciplinary appeals, and review mechanisms. These procedures matter because they often shape both practical justice and later judicial review.

A person challenging a decision should normally:

Identify the decision-maker;
Determine the relevant statute or policy;
Use any available internal remedy;
Gather the record and reasons;
Assess whether the decision was lawful, fair, and rational.

4. Judicial Review, Remedies, and Leading Cases

Judicial review is the mechanism by which courts supervise administrative action. In South African administrative law, review is not an appeal on the merits. The court does not simply ask whether it would have made the same decision. Instead, it asks whether the decision was taken lawfully, fairly, rationally, and reasonably within the powers granted.

4.1 Review versus appeal

This distinction is one of the most important exam points.

Appeal: the court or appeal body can reconsider the merits and may substitute its own view.
Review: the court examines the legality and fairness of the decision-making process.

A review court is concerned with whether the administrator acted within power, followed a fair process, and reached a rational outcome. It does not usually substitute its own administrative judgment unless exceptional circumstances justify that step.

4.2 Grounds of review under PAJA

PAJA provides a structured list of review grounds. The most important are:

Lack of authority or jurisdiction
Bias or conflict of interest
Procedural unfairness
Failure to consider relevant information
Taking irrelevant considerations into account
Improper purpose
Bad faith
Error of law
Arbitrariness or irrationality
Unreasonableness
Unlawful delegation
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures

A strong answer should not merely list these grounds but explain them in context.

4.3 The importance of the record

In review proceedings, the administrative record is crucial. The record includes the documents, reports, minutes, reasons, and materials before the decision-maker at the time. Courts review the actual record to determine whether the decision was lawful and rational. This is especially important in criminal justice matters where facts may be disputed and liberty interests are involved.

If a parole board claims to have considered risk factors, but the record shows no assessment, the decision may be vulnerable on review. Likewise, if prison discipline is imposed based on undisclosed allegations, the absence of a proper record can reveal unfairness.

4.4 Remedies under PAJA and the Constitution

When review succeeds, the court has several possible remedies:

Setting aside the decision;
Remitting the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration;
Substituting the court’s decision in exceptional cases;
Directing the administrator to act in a particular way;
Granting declaratory relief;
Awarding costs.

The usual remedy is remittal, because the court generally respects the administrative role of the decision-maker. Substitution is reserved for cases where remittal would serve no purpose or where fairness and justice demand a final judicial outcome.

4.5 Leading cases and their significance

A good exam answer should connect doctrine to leading cases. The following cases are especially useful in administrative law:

Case	Principle
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa	All public power is subject to the Constitution; rationality is a minimum requirement
Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council	Principle of legality and lawful exercise of public power
President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU)	Bias and reasonable apprehension of bias
Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism	Reasonableness and deference to administrative expertise
Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town	Validity of administrative acts until set aside
Minister of Health v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd	Scope of administrative action and regulations
Grey’s Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works	Meaning of “adversely affects rights” and direct external legal effect
Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa	Constitutional obligations and institutional independence
State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd	Legality review by organs of state
AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v CEO of the South African Social Security Agency	Procedural fairness and material compliance with tender requirements

Although not all of these are criminal justice cases, they establish principles that can be applied to police, correctional, prosecutorial, and parole decisions.

4.6 Application in the criminal justice context

Several scenarios illustrate how review works in practice.

Police administration

If police refuse to issue a clearance certificate or fail to follow the proper procedure in a licensing process, the affected person may challenge the decision on review grounds such as procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Correctional services

If a prisoner is placed in solitary confinement without notice, reasons, or an opportunity to respond, the decision may be reviewed for unfairness and illegality.

Parole

If a parole board refuses release by relying on irrelevant factors or by ignoring the inmate’s rehabilitation record, the decision may be set aside.

Prosecutorial administration

Some prosecutorial choices are deeply tied to discretion and public interest. While courts are cautious, decisions still cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory, or irrational.

4.7 The standard of reasonableness

Reasonableness under administrative law does not mean “perfect” or “best” decision-making. It means a decision that falls within a range of acceptable outcomes based on the facts and law. Courts recognize that administrators often have expertise and policy responsibilities.

In a criminal justice setting, this may mean:

Security considerations can justify stricter measures;
Resource limitations may affect procedure, but not abolish fairness;
Risk assessment need not be exact, but it must be grounded in evidence;
Decision-makers are allowed a margin of discretion, but not unchecked power.

4.8 Deference and supervision

A recurring theme in administrative law is the balance between judicial supervision and administrative expertise. Courts do not run prisons or police services. They supervise legality and fairness. This balance is important because overbearing judicial intervention may disrupt public administration, but excessive deference may permit abuse.

The correct approach is principled restraint: courts respect expert judgment while enforcing constitutional standards. This is especially relevant where officials claim operational necessity, but the burden still lies on them to show that the decision was lawful and rational.

5. Exam Problem-Solving, Criminal Justice Applications, and High-Yield Revision

A strong exam script is not simply a recital of rules. It is an organised application of legal principles to facts. This final section focuses on exam technique, likely problem areas, and a concise but comprehensive revision framework tailored to ADL2601 in the criminal justice context.

5.1 A practical method for answering problem questions

When faced with a question, follow a disciplined structure:

Identify the decision or conduct
- Who acted?
- What was decided or done?
- What rights or interests were affected?
Determine whether the conduct is administrative action
- Was it taken by a public body or public official?
- Did it have direct external legal effect?
- Is it excluded from PAJA?
Identify the source of authority
- Statute?
- Regulation?
- Policy?
- Common law?
- Constitution?
Test legality
- Was the official empowered to act?
- Was the power used for the right purpose?
- Were mandatory procedures followed?
Test fairness
- Was notice given?
- Was there an opportunity to respond?
- Were reasons provided?
- Was the person heard meaningfully?
Test rationality and reasonableness
- Was the decision connected to the facts and the law?
- Was there consideration of relevant factors?
- Were irrelevant factors ignored?
State the remedy
- Set aside?
- Remit?
- Substitute?
- Declare invalid?
- Order reasons or reconsideration?

This structure prevents scattergun answers and ensures that the legal reasoning is systematic.

5.2 Common exam traps

Students often lose marks because of predictable mistakes. The most common are:

Confusing administrative action with any state action;
Treating a review as if it were an appeal;
Ignoring whether PAJA applies;
Failing to mention legality when PAJA is excluded;
Listing rights without linking them to facts;
Stating that all unfair decisions are automatically invalid without analysing materiality;
Forgetting that not all procedures require a full hearing;
Using cases without explaining their legal relevance.

Avoiding these errors can substantially improve exam performance.

5.3 Criminal justice scenarios and how to analyse them

Scenario 1: Arrest-related administrative conduct

A police station refuses to accept a formal complaint or loses an application for a clearance certificate. The issue is not whether the person is guilty of a crime but whether the police acted lawfully and fairly in performing a public function. The analysis should focus on authority, procedure, reasons, and rationality.

Scenario 2: Prison discipline

A correctional official places an inmate in segregation after a disturbance. The key questions are whether the power exists, whether emergency action was justified, whether the inmate was later informed of the reasons, and whether the inmate had an opportunity to contest the decision.

Scenario 3: Parole refusal

A parole board refuses release despite favourable reports. The question is whether the decision was based on relevant considerations such as risk, rehabilitation, and public safety, and whether the inmate had the chance to make representations.

Scenario 4: Internal disciplinary proceedings

A public prosecutor or police officer faces disciplinary proceedings. The process must be fair, unbiased, and based on evidence. If the presiding official had a personal interest in the outcome, the decision may be tainted by bias.

5.4 The principle of bias and independence

Bias is a recurring ground of review. The rule is that no one may be a judge in their own cause. In the criminal justice context, this is especially sensitive because officials often have strong institutional interests in the integrity of their decisions.

Bias may be:

Actual bias, where prejudgment exists;
Apprehended bias, where a reasonable person would think the decision-maker might not be impartial.

A helpful question is whether the circumstances would cause a reasonable, informed observer to suspect a lack of impartiality. If so, the decision may be invalid.

5.5 The role of reasons in disciplinary and correctional contexts

Reasons are not just a formality. They are a discipline on the exercise of power. They force administrators to think clearly, justify their choices, and demonstrate compliance with the law. In correctional and disciplinary settings, reasons also protect against hidden arbitrariness.

Good reasons typically state:

The power relied upon;
The facts established;
The criteria applied;
The conclusion reached;
Why alternative options were rejected.

Weak reasons merely recite conclusions. For example, saying “release refused for security reasons” without explaining the evidence or risk assessment may be inadequate.

5.6 High-yield summary table

Topic	Core rule	Common application in criminal justice
Legality	Public power must be authorised by law	Unlawful detention or overreach by officials
Administrative action	Public, external, rights-affecting decision	Parole, discipline, corrections, licensing
Procedural fairness	Hear the other side	Prison discipline, permit cancellation
Rationality	Decision must connect facts, purpose, and outcome	Security classification, release decisions
Reasonableness	Outcome must be within acceptable range	Parole refusal, administrative sanctions
Bias	No prejudgment or conflict	Internal hearings, review boards
Reasons	Explain the basis of the decision	Discipline, refusal, administrative denial
Review	Court supervises legality, not merits	Challenge to administrative decisions

5.7 Model conclusion language for exam answers

A strong conclusion should be short but decisive. It should identify the legal outcome and the basis for it.

Examples:

“The decision is reviewable because it constitutes administrative action that adversely affected rights and had direct external legal effect.”
“The failure to hear the affected party rendered the process procedurally unfair.”
“Although the official had discretion, the discretion was exercised irrationally because relevant considerations were ignored.”
“Even if PAJA does not apply, the conduct remains subject to the principle of legality and constitutional control.”
“The appropriate remedy is remittal for reconsideration, unless exceptional circumstances justify substitution.”

5.8 Final revision checklist

Before the exam, make sure you can confidently explain:

The meaning of administrative law;
The difference between administrative action and other forms of state conduct;
The role of the Constitution, PAJA, legality, and common law;
The requirements of procedural fairness;
The meaning of lawfulness, rationality, and reasonableness;
The grounds of review and available remedies;
The significance of leading cases;
How these principles apply to police, prisons, parole, and other criminal justice institutions.

A student who can do all of this has the core ADL2601 toolkit. The subject is not just about memorising definitions. It is about understanding how South Africa’s constitutional order controls public power so that criminal justice institutions act fairly, responsibly, and within the law.