CPR3701 Assignment 1
Semester 2 Memo
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Due
27 August 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, Under Section 35(1)(d)(i) 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. A's contention that his
right was violated because he appeared in court ten weeks after his arrest has merit, but it's not a
straightforward case.
Critical Evaluation of A's Contention
A's argument is based on a literal interpretation of the law, which guarantees an appearance
within 48 hours. However, the legislation, specifically the CPA, also provides for exceptions.
Section 50(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA allows for a postponement of the 48-hour period if it is not a
court day or if the person is unable to be brought to court due to a physical condition. The latter
exception is particularly relevant here.
Discussion of Merits
The delay in bringing A to court was not a deliberate act by the state to violate his rights but was
due to his medical condition. A was recuperating from a gunshot wound in the hospital. The state
would argue that it was not "reasonably possible" to bring him before a court while he was
receiving medical treatment. A's health and safety would take precedence. The state's failure to
bring him before a court within the stipulated time was due to a circumstance beyond their
control, i.e., A's physical inability to attend court.
A's attorney, L, could argue that the state could have brought a magistrate to the hospital to
conduct a preliminary hearing or at least a bedside appearance. This would demonstrate that the
state made a reasonable effort to adhere to the 48-hour rule. However, a court would likely find
this an overly burdensome and impractical requirement, especially if A's condition was serious
enough to prevent his full participation.
In a similar case, the court would likely rule that the delay was justified. The purpose of the 48-
hour rule is to prevent prolonged detention without legal oversight and to ensure a person is
formally charged or released. A's detention in a hospital, rather than a police cell, fundamentally
changes the context. He was not being held incommunicado or arbitrarily. His whereabouts and
status were known, and his inability to attend court was documented.
Semester 2 Memo
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Due
27 August 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, Under Section 35(1)(d)(i) 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. A's contention that his
right was violated because he appeared in court ten weeks after his arrest has merit, but it's not a
straightforward case.
Critical Evaluation of A's Contention
A's argument is based on a literal interpretation of the law, which guarantees an appearance
within 48 hours. However, the legislation, specifically the CPA, also provides for exceptions.
Section 50(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA allows for a postponement of the 48-hour period if it is not a
court day or if the person is unable to be brought to court due to a physical condition. The latter
exception is particularly relevant here.
Discussion of Merits
The delay in bringing A to court was not a deliberate act by the state to violate his rights but was
due to his medical condition. A was recuperating from a gunshot wound in the hospital. The state
would argue that it was not "reasonably possible" to bring him before a court while he was
receiving medical treatment. A's health and safety would take precedence. The state's failure to
bring him before a court within the stipulated time was due to a circumstance beyond their
control, i.e., A's physical inability to attend court.
A's attorney, L, could argue that the state could have brought a magistrate to the hospital to
conduct a preliminary hearing or at least a bedside appearance. This would demonstrate that the
state made a reasonable effort to adhere to the 48-hour rule. However, a court would likely find
this an overly burdensome and impractical requirement, especially if A's condition was serious
enough to prevent his full participation.
In a similar case, the court would likely rule that the delay was justified. The purpose of the 48-
hour rule is to prevent prolonged detention without legal oversight and to ensure a person is
formally charged or released. A's detention in a hospital, rather than a police cell, fundamentally
changes the context. He was not being held incommunicado or arbitrarily. His whereabouts and
status were known, and his inability to attend court was documented.
