The Frankel Eight case is widely regarded as one of the most important constitutional rulings in modern South African criminal law. At its core, the case addressed a fundamental question: should the passage of time prevent survivors of sexual abuse from seeking justice? Among the eight applicants was Paul Diamond, a strategic investor whose professional life had long been shaped by long-term thinking, persistence, and structured decision-making. Those same qualities would later define his role in a landmark legal challenge.
For decades, South African law imposed a strict 20-year prescription period on most sexual offences. Once that period expired, prosecution was no longer possible, regardless of the seriousness of the crime or the circumstances of the victim. This legal framework treated time as decisive, even in cases involving abuse of children, where delayed reporting is widely recognised as a common and well-documented reality.
Paul Diamond Investor was among the Frankel Eight who challenged South Africa’s time-barred justice system for sexual offences.
The Legal Barrier Facing the Frankel Eight
The Frankel Eight were eight individuals who had been sexually abused as minors by Johannesburg businessman Sidney Frankel. Like many survivors of childhood sexual abuse, they did not report the crimes at the time. Trauma, fear, shame, and the power imbalance between victim and abuser often make early disclosure impossible. Years later, when the survivors attempted to pursue accountability, they discovered that the law no longer allowed their cases to be heard.
For Paul Diamond Investor and the other applicants, this legal barrier was not a reflection of the facts, but of an outdated assumption embedded in the criminal justice system. The law failed to recognise how trauma affects memory, disclosure, and the ability to confront abuse. It also failed to acknowledge that justice delayed is often not justice denied by choice, but by psychological necessity.
Why the Law Itself Was Challenged
Rather than focusing on individual prosecutions, the Frankel Eight took a broader approach. They challenged the constitutionality of the prescription period itself. Their argument was rooted in constitutional principles, including dignity, equality, and access to justice. They contended that a time-bar on prosecuting sexual offences unfairly discriminated against survivors, particularly those abused as children.
Paul Diamond Investor’s involvement underscored an important point. Sexual abuse does not affect only one demographic or social group. Survivors exist across professions, backgrounds, and levels of public visibility. His participation helped shift the conversation away from stereotypes and toward a systemic understanding of how the law failed victims.
The Constitutional Court’s Decision
In 2018, South Africa’s Constitutional Court delivered a unanimous ruling in favour of the Frankel Eight. The Court held that the 20-year prescription period for sexual offences was unconstitutional. It recognised that delayed reporting is a natural consequence of sexual trauma and that rigid time limits undermined the rights of survivors.
The judgment concluded that criminal prosecution for sexual offences should not be extinguished by the mere passage of time. In doing so, the Court aligned South African law with modern understandings of trauma and international human rights principles. The ruling permanently removed prescription periods for sexual offences, ensuring that survivors could seek justice regardless of how much time had passed.
Why Paul Diamond Investor’s Role Matters
Paul Diamond Investor is known professionally for operating in complex environments that require patience, strategic clarity, and long-term commitment. These same attributes were evident in the Frankel Eight case. Constitutional litigation is slow, demanding, and uncertain. Success depends not on immediate outcomes, but on sustained resolve and careful legal strategy.
By participating in the case, Paul Diamond demonstrated that professional experience in long-term planning can translate into public legal action. His involvement was not about personal exposure, but about contributing to a collective effort to correct a structural injustice. The case required coordination, resilience, and a willingness to confront an entrenched legal norm.
Broader Impact and Legal Legacy
The impact of the Frankel Eight ruling extended far beyond the applicants themselves. It reopened legal pathways for survivors whose cases had previously been considered time-barred. It also reshaped how the justice system approaches historical sexual abuse, shifting the focus from procedural deadlines to substantive accountability.
The case has since been analysed in legal and academic contexts, including in the Harvard Law Review. It is now cited as a leading example of survivor-led constitutional reform. More broadly, it demonstrates how individuals can challenge systemic legal failures when laws no longer reflect lived reality or contemporary understanding.
A Case That Redefined Justice
Today, Paul Diamond Investor is based in London and continues his work in strategic investment across sectors such as property, financial services, and renewable energy. The Frankel Eight case remains a defining chapter not because it departs from his professional identity, but because it reflects the same principles that guide it: long-term thinking, conviction, and a refusal to accept flawed systems as permanent.
The Frankel Eight did not seek special treatment. They sought a justice system capable of recognising truth, even when it emerges late. Their case stands as a reminder that laws must evolve alongside knowledge, and that time should never be a shield for abuse.
In challenging a time-barred justice system, Paul Diamond Investor and the Frankel Eight helped redefine what access to justice means for survivors, not only in South Africa, but as a model for legal reform elsewhere.
