Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division and Others is a 2003 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the right to freedom of expression.

[2] He was best known as the owner of the Ranch, a club in Sandton which came under intense scrutiny by the Scorpions in 2000; as part of this investigation, Phillips was charged with several offences, including violating the terms of his liquor license for allowing striptease dancing on the premises.

[3][4] Section 160(d) of the Liquor Act, 1989 made it a criminal offence for holders of on-consumption licenses to allow:any person– to perform an offensive, indecent or obscene act; or who is not clothed or not properly clothed, to perform or to appear, on a part of the licensed premises where entertainment of any nature is presented or to which the public has access.Ahead of prosecution on this charge, Phillips and Viva Afrika approached the High Court of South Africa to challenge the constitutionality of section 160(d).

Thus on 14 June 2002, the Witwatersrand Local Division delivered judgment in favour of Phillips, finding that section 160(d) imposed an unjustifiable limitation on the right to freedom of expression.

Yacoob found it was self-evident that this right was limited by section 160(d) of the Liquor Act, insofar as it had the effect of restricting the performance of various kinds of entertainment covered by the provision's broad scope.

However, Ngcobo concluded that it was not necessary to reach a firm conclusion on these issues, because the impugned provision applied in theatres, and the limitation on freedom of expression could not be justified in that context.

On the other hand, in contrast to Ngcobo, Sachs sought to reverse the majority's emphasis on artistic freedom, arguing instead that the central issue was, "to what extent and in what way may the state dictate dress and undress in off-the-street places to which the public has access?".

Unlike the majority, Madala held that the impugned provision was sufficiently narrowly tailored to avoid trenching unjustifiably on freedom of expression.