Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 10 Const. Application No. 79/14 That is the familiar rule of locus standi based on the requirement of proof by the claimant of having been or of being a victim of infringement or threatened infringement of a fundamental right or freedom enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution. The second aspect of the rule is not so familiar. It needs elaboration. The Canadian cases of R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985) 18 DLR (4th) 321 and Morgentaler Smoling and Scott v R (1988) 31 CRR 1 illustrate the point that a person would have standing under a provision similar to s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution to challenge unconstitutional law if he or she could be liable to conviction for an offence charged under the law even though the unconstitutional effects were not directed against him or her per se. It would be sufficient for a person to show that he or she was directly affected by the unconstitutional legislation. If this was shown it mattered not whether he or she was a victim. In R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (supra) a corporation was allowed to challenge the constitutionality of a statutory provision at a criminal trial on the grounds that it infringed the rights of human beings and was accordingly invalid. The corporation had been charged in terms of a statute which prohibited trading on Sundays. It did not have a right to religious freedom. The corporation was nevertheless permitted to raise the constitutionality of the statute which was held to be in breach of the Charter on the Rights and Freedoms (See Ferreira v Levin NO and Others 1996(1) SA 984 at 1102I). The corporation had a financial interest in the form of profits made out of trading on Sundays. The concept used in s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution is “own interests”, the broad meaning of which includes indirect interests such as commercial interests.