CPR3701
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, Criminal Procedure
1. A’s 48-hour appearance contention (7)
Section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution and section 50(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act
(CPA) require that an arrested person be brought before a court within 48 hours,
excluding non-court days. However, South African courts (e.g. S v Singo 2002 (4) SA
858 (CC)) have held that where a suspect is hospitalised and medically unfit to
attend court, the time requirement is suspended until they are fit to appear. In S v
Mhlungu 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC), the Constitutional Court confirmed that the right is not
absolute if physical impossibility prevents compliance.
In A’s case, he was in hospital recovering from a gunshot wound for ten weeks. If the
State can prove that his medical condition made him unfit to attend court and that they
acted diligently once he was fit, there is no breach of section 35(1)(d). But if he was fit
earlier and the State failed to arrange his court appearance, the delay would be
unlawful, potentially justifying a remedy such as striking the matter off the roll. The
success of A’s application will depend on medical evidence and proof of State
diligence.
2. Bail opposition arguments (Total 9 marks)
2.1 Arrest at the scene & presumption of innocence (3)
Being “arrested at the scene” does not remove the presumption of innocence in section
35(3)(h) of the Constitution. In S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC), the court held that
arrest circumstances cannot be used to presume guilt in bail proceedings. The State
must still prove why detention is necessary. The prosecutor’s reasoning here is legally
flawed.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, Criminal Procedure
1. A’s 48-hour appearance contention (7)
Section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution and section 50(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act
(CPA) require that an arrested person be brought before a court within 48 hours,
excluding non-court days. However, South African courts (e.g. S v Singo 2002 (4) SA
858 (CC)) have held that where a suspect is hospitalised and medically unfit to
attend court, the time requirement is suspended until they are fit to appear. In S v
Mhlungu 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC), the Constitutional Court confirmed that the right is not
absolute if physical impossibility prevents compliance.
In A’s case, he was in hospital recovering from a gunshot wound for ten weeks. If the
State can prove that his medical condition made him unfit to attend court and that they
acted diligently once he was fit, there is no breach of section 35(1)(d). But if he was fit
earlier and the State failed to arrange his court appearance, the delay would be
unlawful, potentially justifying a remedy such as striking the matter off the roll. The
success of A’s application will depend on medical evidence and proof of State
diligence.
2. Bail opposition arguments (Total 9 marks)
2.1 Arrest at the scene & presumption of innocence (3)
Being “arrested at the scene” does not remove the presumption of innocence in section
35(3)(h) of the Constitution. In S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC), the court held that
arrest circumstances cannot be used to presume guilt in bail proceedings. The State
must still prove why detention is necessary. The prosecutor’s reasoning here is legally
flawed.
