CPR3701
Assignment 1
Unique No:
DUE 2025
, Criminal Procedure
1. A’s Claim Regarding the 48-Hour Court Appearance (7 marks)
In terms of section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution and section 50(1)(d) of the Criminal
Procedure Act (CPA), an arrested person must be brought before a court within 48
hours, excluding days on which courts are closed.
However, South African courts have clarified that this time frame is flexible in situations
where it is physically impossible to comply. In S v Singo 2002 (4) SA 858 (CC), the
Constitutional Court held that if an accused person is hospitalised and cannot attend
court for medical reasons, the 48-hour period is suspended until they are fit to appear.
Similarly, S v Mhlungu 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC) confirmed that constitutional rights may
reasonably be limited in cases of genuine impossibility.
In A’s case, he was hospitalised for ten weeks due to a gunshot injury. If the
prosecution can present credible medical evidence showing that his medical condition
made him genuinely unable to appear, and they acted promptly once he recovered, the
delay would not amount to a violation. Conversely, if he was fit to attend earlier and the
State unnecessarily delayed, his detention could be deemed unlawful, possibly leading
to remedies such as the case being struck from the roll. The determination will depend
on the medical records and whether the State acted diligently.
2. Arguments Against Bail (Total: 9 marks)
2.1 Arrest at the Scene & Presumption of Innocence (3 marks)
Being apprehended at the scene does not negate the constitutional presumption of
innocence under section 35(3)(h). In S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC), the court
held that the circumstances of arrest cannot be relied upon to infer guilt during bail
hearings. The prosecution must still provide legitimate reasons for continued detention.
Thus, using the location of arrest as proof of guilt is legally flawed.
Assignment 1
Unique No:
DUE 2025
, Criminal Procedure
1. A’s Claim Regarding the 48-Hour Court Appearance (7 marks)
In terms of section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution and section 50(1)(d) of the Criminal
Procedure Act (CPA), an arrested person must be brought before a court within 48
hours, excluding days on which courts are closed.
However, South African courts have clarified that this time frame is flexible in situations
where it is physically impossible to comply. In S v Singo 2002 (4) SA 858 (CC), the
Constitutional Court held that if an accused person is hospitalised and cannot attend
court for medical reasons, the 48-hour period is suspended until they are fit to appear.
Similarly, S v Mhlungu 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC) confirmed that constitutional rights may
reasonably be limited in cases of genuine impossibility.
In A’s case, he was hospitalised for ten weeks due to a gunshot injury. If the
prosecution can present credible medical evidence showing that his medical condition
made him genuinely unable to appear, and they acted promptly once he recovered, the
delay would not amount to a violation. Conversely, if he was fit to attend earlier and the
State unnecessarily delayed, his detention could be deemed unlawful, possibly leading
to remedies such as the case being struck from the roll. The determination will depend
on the medical records and whether the State acted diligently.
2. Arguments Against Bail (Total: 9 marks)
2.1 Arrest at the Scene & Presumption of Innocence (3 marks)
Being apprehended at the scene does not negate the constitutional presumption of
innocence under section 35(3)(h). In S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC), the court
held that the circumstances of arrest cannot be relied upon to infer guilt during bail
hearings. The prosecution must still provide legitimate reasons for continued detention.
Thus, using the location of arrest as proof of guilt is legally flawed.
