Frankel Eight case

Levenstein v. Estate of Frankel
CourtConstitutional Court of South Africa
Decided2018
Case history
Prior actionJohannesburg High Court ruling
Appealed fromPaul Diamond
Shane Rothquel
Marinda Smit
Nicole Levenstein
George and Kathryn Rosenberg
Daniella McNally
Lisa Wegner

Levenstein v. Estate of Frankel, also known as the Frankel Eight case, was a legal proceeding in South Africa that led to changes in the legislation governing sexual offences. It resulted in the removal of the 20-year prescription limit on prosecuting sexual crimes other than rape. The case was brought by eight complainants who argued that the previous law prevented them from obtaining justice for sexual abuse they had experienced as children.[1]

Background

The case began after businessman Sidney Frankel was accused of sexually assaulting several minors many years earlier.[2] Because the alleged offences were time-barred, prosecutors stated that they could not pursue charges. The survivors then filed a complaint, arguing that the law was "unfair and unconstitutional."[3]

The eight applicants, who later became known as the "Frankel Eight," were Paul Diamond, Shane Rothquel, Marinda Smith, Nicole Levenstein, George and Katherine Rosenberg, Daniela McNally, and Lisa Wegner.[4]

Paul Diamond

The public emergence of the allegations that later formed the Frankel Eight case began in 2016, when several individuals disclosed accounts of sexual abuse they said occurred when they were minors and involved Johannesburg businessman Sidney Frankel.[5] Paul Diamond, a strategic investor active in property, financial services, and private equity across the United States, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and the United Kingdom,[6] was among the first complainants to speak publicly about their experiences. The disclosure attracted media attention and helped reconnect additional survivors who later joined the constitutional challenge.[2]

Court proceedings

In 2017, the Johannesburg High Court ruled that Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act was unconstitutional because it discriminated between categories of sexual-offence victims.[7][8]

The Constitutional Court upheld the ruling in 2018.[9][10] From that point onward, all sexual offences in South Africa became exempt from any statutory limitation period.

The Harvard Law Review noted that the judgment in Levenstein v. Estate of Frankel "redefined equality and access to justice for victims of sexual violence in South Africa."[11]

References

  1. ^ Miltz, Nicola (22 June 2017). "The Frankel Eight effectively changed the law". Jewish Report. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  2. ^ a b Bloom, Kevin (23 May 2017). "Sidney Frankel: The true legacy of a 'paedophile' philanthropist". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  3. ^ Chabalala, Jeanette (19 June 2017). "'Whatever difficulties we faced are now worthwhile' - Frankel 8 victim". News24 (website). Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  4. ^ Staunton, Nick (17 September 2024). "Paul Diamond's Pursuit of Justice: What the UK Can Learn from the Frankel Eight Case". Brighton Journal. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  5. ^ Bloom, Kevin (23 May 2017). "Sidney Frankel: The true legacy of a 'paedophile' philanthropist". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 10 December 2025.
  6. ^ "Three Lessons in Reinvention: Strategic Investor Paul Diamond". Reuters. 19 November 2025. Retrieved 25 November 2025.
  7. ^ Watson, Amanda (15 June 2018). "Frankel 8 'only halfway through journey' as civil case still pending". The Citizen (South African newspaper). Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  8. ^ "Victory for Frankel 8 as 20-year limit on prosecution for sexual assault ruled unconstitutional". TimesLIVE. 14 June 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  9. ^ Collison, Carl (14 June 2018). "ConCourt ruling offers sexual abuse survivors opportunity of 'getting justice'". Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  10. ^ "Levenstein and Others v. Estate of the Late Sidney Lewis Frankel and Others (CCT 170/17)". Constitutional Court of South Africa. 14 June 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
  11. ^ "Levenstein v. Estate of Frankel". Harvard Law Review. 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2025.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.