This case is about a claim of a land in Pretoria from which applicants were removed in 1960-1968.

Documents concerning his arrest, detention and torture at 'The Greys' Johannesburg, including plaintiff's declaration, requests for particulars and other documents.

Also documents for John Edward Matthews, re the same.

This collection consists mainly of court records from various trials, which were handled by the LRC in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town.

Accused of furthering the aims of the Communist Party.

Examination by state prosecutor of Petrus Arnoldus Beyleveld (who turned state witness) and others including Fischer (pp1-41 and pp151-247, incomplete).

The applicant was seeking an order to declare the respondent dangerous. The applicant was indicted for a contravention of Section 11 (b) of Act 44/1950 by wrongfully and unlawfully undergoing training of a political, military and technical nature which could be used to further the aims and objects of the Communist Party of South Africa and the African National Party. The accused was discharged.

(Accused of being members of a banned organisation (SWAPO) and participating in terrorist activities aiming to break down law and order and foment a revolution in South West Africa.) In the High Court, Transvaal division 1967.

These two æTerrorism' cases were substantively the same. The original 22 (Samson Ndou et al) who had been charged with terrorism, alternatively forwarding the aims of the ANC, were found not guilty in February 1970, discharged and immediately rearrested, and charged again together with Benjamin Ramotse who had been arrested in Botswana in 1968 (Benjamin Ramotse et al).á30f 1969/1970

In the case of the second trial Ramotse made a plea that his arrest was in violation of international law, the others including Samson Ndou made a plea that they had already been acquitted on the same charge. (Their plea was successful, Ramotse's unsuccessful).

A priest of the Dominican Order in the Roman Catholic Church was charged with contravening section 8 (1) of the Publications Act, No.42 of 1974 by wrongfully having in his possession a prohibited publication and by wrongfully distributing an undesirable publication. The accused was not found guilty on all charges.