Stanfield’s Bid for Pollsmoor Return Rejected

Ralph Stanfield, the alleged leader of the 28s gang, has seen his plea to return to Pollsmoor turned down after citing stress from his solitary confinement situation.

The Western Cape High Court dismissed an urgent request that challenged his transfers from Pollsmoor to Brandvlei, and later to Helderstroom Correctional Centres.

In legal documents, Stanfield asserts that his constitutional rights were violated due to being confined in solitary confinement for 23 hours daily, leading to psychological distress.

Correctional Services officials contended that he was not in solitary confinement, explaining that he faced disciplinary measures after a cellphone was discovered in his cell.

Stanfield submitted his application in April during his incarceration, directing it against the Minister of Correctional Services, Regional Correctional Services, as well as the heads of Brandvlei, Helderstroom, and Pollsmoor Prisons.

He stated that he was transferred to Brandvlei Prison following orders from the Anti-Gang Unit and was informed by a correctional officer that he would be held in a single cell, following which he was placed in solitary confinement.

Moreover, Stanfield argues he is being treated as a convicted prisoner even though he is still awaiting trial.

Along with his wife, Nicole Johnson, and their co-accused, Stanfield faces 41 counts under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA).

He claimed his detention constitutes unlawful solitary confinement, infringing upon his constitutional rights to fair procedure and legal consultation.

Respondents to his claims indicated that Stanfield is categorized as a high-risk detainee.

The court documents note: “The respondents assert that the applicant is closely linked to the gang known as the Firm, where he is recognized as a senior leader.

“He is also connected to the prison gang, the 28s, which maintains a substantial presence at Pollsmoor.

“Given his considerable influence among gang members at Pollsmoor, he could not be detained there…”

Upon making the ruling, the judge concluded that Stanfield’s rights had not been violated.