CPR3701
Assignment 1
Unique No:
DUE 2025
, Criminal Procedure
1. A’s 48-Hour Court Appearance Claim (7)
Section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution and section 50(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act
(CPA) provide that an arrested person must appear before a court within 48 hours,
excluding days when courts are closed.
South African case law clarifies that this rule is not rigid in situations of physical
impossibility. In S v Singo 2002 (4) SA 858 (CC), the Constitutional Court held that if a
detainee is hospitalised and unable to attend court for medical reasons, the 48-hour
period is effectively paused until the person is fit to appear. Similarly, in S v Mhlungu
1995 (3) SA 867 (CC), it was confirmed that constitutional rights may be subject to
reasonable limitations when compliance is physically impossible.
In A’s case, he remained in hospital for ten weeks recovering from a gunshot wound. If
the prosecution can demonstrate, using medical evidence, that A’s condition made him
genuinely unfit to appear and that they acted promptly once he recovered, the delay
would not amount to a violation. However, if he was fit to attend earlier and the State
delayed unnecessarily, the detention could be unlawful, potentially leading to remedies
such as striking the matter from the roll. The outcome hinges on the medical records
and whether the State can show diligence.
2. Arguments Against Bail (Total: 9 marks)
2.1 Arrest at the Scene & Presumption of Innocence (3)
Being caught at the scene of a crime does not remove the constitutional presumption of
innocence in section 35(3)(h). In S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC), the court made it
clear that arrest circumstances cannot be relied on to assume guilt in bail proceedings.
The State must still show valid reasons for continued detention. The prosecutor’s
reliance on the arrest location as proof of guilt is therefore legally unsound.
Assignment 1
Unique No:
DUE 2025
, Criminal Procedure
1. A’s 48-Hour Court Appearance Claim (7)
Section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution and section 50(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act
(CPA) provide that an arrested person must appear before a court within 48 hours,
excluding days when courts are closed.
South African case law clarifies that this rule is not rigid in situations of physical
impossibility. In S v Singo 2002 (4) SA 858 (CC), the Constitutional Court held that if a
detainee is hospitalised and unable to attend court for medical reasons, the 48-hour
period is effectively paused until the person is fit to appear. Similarly, in S v Mhlungu
1995 (3) SA 867 (CC), it was confirmed that constitutional rights may be subject to
reasonable limitations when compliance is physically impossible.
In A’s case, he remained in hospital for ten weeks recovering from a gunshot wound. If
the prosecution can demonstrate, using medical evidence, that A’s condition made him
genuinely unfit to appear and that they acted promptly once he recovered, the delay
would not amount to a violation. However, if he was fit to attend earlier and the State
delayed unnecessarily, the detention could be unlawful, potentially leading to remedies
such as striking the matter from the roll. The outcome hinges on the medical records
and whether the State can show diligence.
2. Arguments Against Bail (Total: 9 marks)
2.1 Arrest at the Scene & Presumption of Innocence (3)
Being caught at the scene of a crime does not remove the constitutional presumption of
innocence in section 35(3)(h). In S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC), the court made it
clear that arrest circumstances cannot be relied on to assume guilt in bail proceedings.
The State must still show valid reasons for continued detention. The prosecutor’s
reliance on the arrest location as proof of guilt is therefore legally unsound.
