NAME: ZANELE

SURNAME: NHLAPO
STUDENT NUMBER: 66719844
CPR3701- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
OCT/NOV EXAMINATION 2023
Section 1
1.1. Criminal procedure law.
1.2 Criminal act.
1.3 Nolle Prosequi Certificate.
1.4 Without specific information about the applicable laws and regulations in South
Africa, it is not possible to definitively determine whether H had the authority to arrest
D in the manner described. However, as a civilian, H's use of lethal force and arrest of
D may be subject to scrutiny and potential legal consequences depending on the
circumstances and the laws governing the use of force and citizen's arrests in South
Africa.
1.5 Regarding V's to C and D, assumption about granting bail it would depend on the
and specific laws regulations governing bail in the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions,
may have investigating officers the authority to others, grant bail, while in this authority
may lie with the courts or designated judicial officers.
1.6 Imprisonment.
1.7 The term that describes the "putting forward" of the case against C and D to the
next date before the trial starts is called an Adjournment.
1.8 Appeal.

Section 2
2.1 C's assertion that he has the "right to remain silent" is correct. This right, commonly
known as the right to remain silent or the right against self-incrimination, is a
fundamental legal principle in many jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada,
and various European countries. It is typically derived from the notion that individuals
should not be compelled to provide evidence against themselves.
The right to remain silent is often protected by constitutional provisions, such as the
Fifth Amendment in the United States, which states that no person "shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This means that individuals have
the right to refuse to answer questions or provide information that may incriminate
them.
Therefore, if C chooses to invoke his right to remain silent, Sergeant V cannot compel
him to speak or answer any questions that may incriminate him. C's assertion that he
has the right to remain silent is legally valid.
However, C's assertion that Sergeant V does not have the right to question him as a
"free citizen" is not entirely accurate. Law enforcement officers generally have the
authority to question individuals in the course of their investigations, as long as they
have reasonable grounds to believe that the person being questioned may have
information relevant to the case.
This authority is usually derived from laws and regulations that grant police officers the
power to investigate and gather evidence. However, it is important to note that the
right to question is not absolute and must be exercised within the boundaries of the
law, including respecting an individual's rights, such as the right to remain silent.
In summary, C's assertion that he has the right to remain silent is correct, and Sergeant
V cannot compel him to speak or answer potentially incriminating questions. However,
Sergeant V does have the right to question C as long as it is done within the
boundaries of the law and respects C's rights.
2.2 Sergeant V's assertion that the right to legal representation "strictly speaking ...
only applies during actual court proceedings" is not accurate. The right to legal
representation, commonly known as the right to counsel, extends beyond the actual
court proceedings and applies at various stages of the criminal justice process,
including during police interrogations and pre-trial proceedings.
The right to legal representation is a fundamental principle of criminal law in many
jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, and various European countries. It
is typically derived from constitutional provisions or statutes that guarantee individuals
the right to a fair trial and due process.
In the United States, for example, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees
the right to counsel, stating that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence." This right has been interpreted by the courts
to extend to critical stages of the criminal process, including custodial interrogations
and pre-trial proceedings.
The implications of Sergeant V's assertion are significant. Denying C's request for
legal representation at this stage could potentially violate his constitutional rights and
undermine the fairness of the criminal justice process. Legal representation during
police interrogations is particularly important as it helps to ensure that the accused's
rights are protected, prevents coerced confessions, and provides a safeguard
against potential abuses of power by law enforcement.
By denying C's request for legal representation, Sergeant V may be infringing upon
C's rights and compromising the integrity of the investigation. It is essential for law
enforcement officers to respect and uphold the right to legal representation, even
before court proceedings, to ensure a fair and just criminal justice system.
In conclusion, Sergeant V's assertion that the right to legal representation only
applies during actual court proceedings is inaccurate. The right to legal
representation extends to various stages of the criminal justice process, including
police interrogations and pre-trial proceedings. Denying C's request for legal
representation at this stage may violate his constitutional rights and undermine the
fairness of the criminal justice system.
Section 3
3.1
(a) Adversarial system.
(b) In South African criminal justice proceedings, the role of the presiding officer,
typically a judge, is similar to that of the presiding officer in the European or
Continental System. The presiding officer's primary responsibility is to ensure a fair
and impartial trial, uphold the rule of law, and protect the rights of all parties involved.
The presiding officer in South African criminal justice proceedings has several
important roles and responsibilities, including:
1. Procedural fairness: The presiding officer is in charge of making sure that the trial
is run in conformity with the rules of evidence and procedure. This include deciding
whether or not evidence is admissible, overseeing how witnesses are presented, and
upholding courtroom decorum.
2. Making legal determinations: The presiding officer is responsible for making legal
determinations during the trial. This includes ruling on objections, interpreting and
applying the law, and instructing the jury or assessing the evidence in a bench trial.
3. The presiding officer must maintain their objectivity and impartiality throughout the
entire trial. They should ensure that both the prosecution and the defence have an
equal opportunity to present their cases and contest the evidence without favouring
one side over the other.
4. Protection of the accused's rights, including their right to a fair trial, their right to
legal counsel, and their right to remain silent: The presiding officer has a
responsibility to uphold the rights of the accused. They must make sure that the
accused is given a fair trial and that their rights are upheld.
While the specific procedures and practices may differ between South African
criminal justice proceedings and the European or Continental System, the
overarching role of the presiding officer in ensuring a fair trial remains consistent.
The presiding officer's primary duty is to act as an impartial arbiter of justice and to
ensure that the trial is conducted in accordance with the law, regardless of the
specific legal system in place.
3.2 D's contention that his Constitutional right to appear before court within 48 hours
has been violated has merit.
Section 35(1)(d)) of the South African Constitution guarantees the right of a person
who is arrested for allegedly committing an offense to be brought before a court as
soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours after the arrest. This
provision is aimed at protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that they are
not unduly detained without appearing before a court.
In D's case, he was shot and injured during the robbery and is currently in the
hospital under police guard. However, ten weeks have passed since the robbery,
and he has not been brought before a court. This delay clearly exceeds the 48-hour
limit set by the Constitution.
The violation of D's right to be brought before a court within 48 hours is a serious
infringement of his constitutional rights. The purpose of this provision is to prevent
arbitrary and prolonged detention without judicial oversight. By failing to bring D
before a court within the specified time frame, the authorities have deprived him of
his right to have his case heard promptly and to seek appropriate legal remedies.
In light of this violation, D has a valid basis for requesting that the case be struck off
the roll. The court may consider the delay in bringing D before a judge as a violation
of his constitutional rights and may deem it appropriate to dismiss the case.
However, it is important to note that the court will consider all relevant factors and
may take into account any justifiable reasons for the delay, such as the need for D to
receive medical treatment.
In conclusion, D's contention that his Constitutional right to appear before court
within 48 hours has been violated has merit. The prolonged delay in bringing him
before a court constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights, and he may have
grounds to request that the case be struck off the roll. The court will assess the
circumstances and determine the appropriate remedy based on the facts presented.
3.3
(a) Ms. PP's contention that the crime of robbery with aggravating circumstances is
classified under Schedule 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act is significant in the context
of the bail application.
Ms. PP's argument that the accused should not be granted bail is based on the
seriousness of the offense and the classification under Schedule 5. She is likely to
contend that the accused pose a flight risk, may interfere with witnesses, or could
potentially commit further offenses if released on bail. These arguments are often
used in cases involving offenses classified under Schedule 5 to justify the denial of
bail.
(b) Ms. PP's contention that the prosecution must discharge its onus beyond any
reasonable doubt during the bail application is not accurate.
During a bail application, the prosecution does not need to discharge its onus
beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is lower, and the prosecution
must present evidence to show strong grounds for denying bail. The court will
assess the evidence and make a decision based on the interests of justice and the
specific circumstances of the case.
(c) Ms. PP's contention that the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that "substantial and compelling" circumstances exist to justify
release on bail, as stated in section 60(11)(a), is not accurate.
Section 60(11)(a) of the South African Criminal Procedure Act does not require the
prosecution to prove 'substantial and compelling" circumstances beyond a
reasonable doubt during a bail application. This provision relates to the factors that
the court must consider when deciding whether to grant or deny bail. The
prosecution must present evidence and arguments to show strong grounds for
denying bail, but the standard of proof is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. The
court will consider the interests of justice.

Section 4
4.1 In order to ensure the fairness of the trial, it is important to consider the potential
conflict of interest that arises due to Q being a shareholder of City Bank, which was
allegedly robbed by the accused. The recusal process may be embarked upon under
the following circumstances:
1. Finding the conflict of interest: The attorney for L, A, B, C, and D must first gather
information and demonstrate that Q's ownership of shares in City Bank poses a
conflict of interest. This can be accomplished by learning more about Q's ownership
of shares and proving a connection between City Bank and the alleged crime.
2. Raising the issue with the court: Once the conflict of interest is identified, L, A, B,
C, and D's attorney should bring this matter to the attention of the court. This can be
done by filing a motion or making an oral application during the trial proceedings.
3. Presenting arguments: L, A, B, C, and D's attorney must present compelling
arguments to support the recusal of Q as an assessor. This may include highlighting
the potential bias that could arise due to Q's financial interest in the outcome of the
trial or any other factors that may compromise the fairness of the proceedings.
4. Examination of Q's position: The court will then examine Q's position and assess
the validity of the conflict of interest claim. This may involve questioning Q about
their shareholding in City Bank and any potential bias or influence it may have on
their role as an assessor.
5. Judicial decision: Based on the arguments presented and the examination of Q's
position, the court will make a decision regarding the recusal of Q as an assessor. If
the court finds that there is a valid conflict of interest, Q may be recused from the
proceedings.
6. Appointment of a new assessor: In the event that Q is recused, the court will
appoint a new assessor to ensure the trial proceeds with a fair and impartial panel.
It is essential to note that the specific recusal process may vary depending on the
jurisdiction and the rules of the regional court. However, the general principles of
identifying a conflict of interest, raising the issue, presenting arguments, examining
the position, and making a judicial decision are common in ensuring the fairness of
the trial.
4.2
(a) E's objection to taking the prescribed oath on the grounds that it conflicts with her
intellectual beliefs raises an issue of freedom of religion or belief. Whether or not the
court upholds E's objection will depend on the legal framework and principles in the
jurisdiction.
In many legal systems, oaths are considered an important part of the judicial process
to ensure truthfulness and accountability. However, courts also recognize the
importance of accommodating individuals' religious or philosophical beliefs.
Possible alternatives that can be pursued to accommodate E's objections include:
1. Affirmation: People who disagree with taking an oath because of their religious or
philosophical convictions are frequently permitted to declare an affirmation in its
instead. A solemn pronouncement made without mentioning a religious deity is
called an affirmation.
2. Statutory provisions: To accommodate people who have objections based on their
beliefs, some countries may have explicit law provisions that allow for alternative
forms of oath or affirmation.
3. Exemption: If the court determines that the objection is sincere and well-founded,
it may in some circumstances have the power to provide an exemption from taking
an oath or affirmation. Alternative approaches to judging the witness's testimony's
veracity and credibility may be taken into account by the court.
4. Compromise: The court may look at potential agreements that respect both the
significance of the oath and the person's religious convictions. This can entail
retaining the solemnity and integrity of the procedure while allowing the witness to
make an altered oath or affirmation that is more in line with their values.
Ultimately, the court will need to balance the importance of the oath in ensuring the
truthfulness of testimony with the individual's right to freedom of religion or belief.
The specific outcome will depend on the legal framework and principles in the
jurisdiction, as well as the discretion of the court.
(b) L's argument that F is not competent to testify before a court due to her apparent
mental deficiency" based on her previous diagnosis of cerebral palsy raises
concerns about the weight of this argument. However, it is important to consider the
legal framework and principles surrounding witness competency in order to assess
the validity of L's argument.
1. Legal standards for witness competency: In most jurisdictions, the legal standard
for witness competency focuses on the ability of the witness to perceive, recall, and
communicate information accurately. Competency is generally not determined based
on a person's physical or mental condition, but rather on their ability to understand
the nature of the oath, the questions asked, and provide coherent and reliable
testimony.
2. Expert opinion: L's argument assumes that cerebral palsy automatically leads to a
mental deficiency. However, this assumption may not be accurate. Cerebral palsy is
a physical condition that affects movement and coordination, but it does not
necessarily imply intellectual impairment. It would be necessary for L to present
expert medical opinion or evidence to establish a direct link between cerebral palsy
and F's alleged mental deficiency.
3. Assessing witness credibility: The weight of F's testimony should be determined
based on her ability to perceive, recall, and communicate relevant information about
the robbery. This can be assessed through questioning during the trial, where the
court can evaluate F's understanding of the questions, coherence of her responses,
and the consistency of her account.
4. Accommodating disabilities: Courts are generally committed to ensuring that
individuals with disabilities have equal access to justice. Accommodations, such as
providing appropriate support, aids, or adjustments, can help individuals with
disabilities effectively participate in the legal process and provide their testimony.
In conclusion, L's argument that F is not competent to testify solely based on her
previous diagnosis of cerebral palsy may not carry significant weight. Witness
competency is typically determined by the ability to perceive, recall, and
communicate information accurately, rather than physical or mental conditions. The
court should evaluate F's ability to provide reliable testimony through questioning
and consider any necessary accommodations to ensure her equal access to justice.