CPR3701
Assignment 1
Semester 2
2025
, Assignment 1
Semester 2
1. Critically evaluate and discuss the merits of A's contention
A's contention that their constitutional right to be brought before a court within 48 hours
has been violated has significant merit based on the provided facts. The Criminal
Procedure Act (CPA) and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa are central to
this issue.
Section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees that anyone arrested has the right to be
brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours after
the arrest. This right is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and is a
cornerstone of a fair criminal justice system. The purpose of this provision is to ensure
that the lawfulness of the arrest is promptly and independently assessed by a judicial
officer.
In A's case, they were only made to appear in court ten weeks after their initial arrest.
This is a clear and severe violation of the 48-hour rule. The fact that A was in the
hospital for recovery does not negate this right. While the circumstances might have
made an immediate court appearance difficult, there are legal mechanisms, such as a
bedside court hearing or a magistrate visiting the hospital, to ensure the right is upheld.
The delay of ten weeks is grossly excessive and the merits of A's application to have
their case "struck off the roll" are strong.
A successful application to have the case "struck off the roll" means that the court will
remove the matter from its list of cases. This is not an acquittal, but it effectively ends
the prosecution's case for the time being. The prosecution can, in theory, re-institute
charges against A at a later stage, provided they have a valid reason and the delay
doesn't prejudice A's right to a fair trial.
A's argument is well-founded and directly aligns with established South African
jurisprudence on the right to personal liberty and a fair trial. The court will likely rule in
Assignment 1
Semester 2
2025
, Assignment 1
Semester 2
1. Critically evaluate and discuss the merits of A's contention
A's contention that their constitutional right to be brought before a court within 48 hours
has been violated has significant merit based on the provided facts. The Criminal
Procedure Act (CPA) and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa are central to
this issue.
Section 35(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees that anyone arrested has the right to be
brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours after
the arrest. This right is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and is a
cornerstone of a fair criminal justice system. The purpose of this provision is to ensure
that the lawfulness of the arrest is promptly and independently assessed by a judicial
officer.
In A's case, they were only made to appear in court ten weeks after their initial arrest.
This is a clear and severe violation of the 48-hour rule. The fact that A was in the
hospital for recovery does not negate this right. While the circumstances might have
made an immediate court appearance difficult, there are legal mechanisms, such as a
bedside court hearing or a magistrate visiting the hospital, to ensure the right is upheld.
The delay of ten weeks is grossly excessive and the merits of A's application to have
their case "struck off the roll" are strong.
A successful application to have the case "struck off the roll" means that the court will
remove the matter from its list of cases. This is not an acquittal, but it effectively ends
the prosecution's case for the time being. The prosecution can, in theory, re-institute
charges against A at a later stage, provided they have a valid reason and the delay
doesn't prejudice A's right to a fair trial.
A's argument is well-founded and directly aligns with established South African
jurisprudence on the right to personal liberty and a fair trial. The court will likely rule in
