On 29 March the Bloemfontein Appeal Court set aside Sheila Weinberg's conviction and sentence for contravening her banning order by meeting another person.
The Appeal judges said that Ms Weinberg's lunch date with Ian Robertson had not been a gathering within the meaning of the law, as her ban referred to 'any gathering of pupils or students for instruction etc' which clearly meant a minimum of three persons. The court, in delivering its judgment, added:
"Bearing in mind that the notice is addressed to the appellant personally, that she is referred to throughout as 'You' and that she is prohibited from attending the gathering, I think that the above phrase conveys the idea that for the notice, to be contravened at least three persons must be present at the gathering — the appellant 'you' and 'the persons present'. On that construction, a person so restricted would be able to accept an invitation from a prospective suitor to have tea in order to become acquainted." For these reasons the court allowed the appeal.
This is the first time that this aspect of the prohibition on gatherings for banned persons has been tested in court; hitherto it was assumed that meeting with one other did not contravene the law. While the judgement in this case partly supports this view, the Appeal Court also noted that, in terms of Section 11 of Act 44 of 1950 (the Suppression of Communism Act) a 'gathering' could 'consist of as few as two persons', unless the banning order specifically referred to a type of meeting with a minimum of more than two persons, as it appears Ms. Weinberg's did. It is hoped, however, that the judgement will restrain the police from prosecuting in cases such as this. One of the appeal judges said he had difficulty in conceiving of a more innocent contravention of a banning order than Ms. Weinberg had committed.
