100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
CPR 3701 (CPR3701) R151,00
Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

CPR 3701 (CPR3701)

 20 views  0 purchase

Exam (elaborations) CPR 3701 (CPR3701)

Preview 2 out of 8  pages

  • July 10, 2021
  • 8
  • 2020/2021
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
All documents for this subject (8)
avatar-seller
tralphmasiwa52
CPR3701 ASSIGNMENT 02

2021 SUPER SEMESTER

Unique number: 645023

, QUESTION 1 – BAIL

Burden and standard of proof

The standard of proof required from an accused where he bears the burden of proof as
provided for in s 60(11)(a) and (b) of the CPA is the civil standard, namely proof on a
balance of probabilities.

In all cases falling outside the ambit of s 60(11)(a) and (b), the burden of proof is on the
prosecution. The standard of proof is proof on a balance of probability. Proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is not necessary because guilt or innocence in respect of the charge
is not the issue.

Section 25(2)(d) of the interim Constitution provided that every person arrested for the
alleged commission of an offence shall, in addition to the rights which he has as a
detained person, have the right ‘to be released with or without bail, unless the interests
of justice require otherwise’.1 This former constitutional provision, which is echoed by
section 60(1)(a) of the CPA, placed the burden of proof on the state.2 It is submitted that
s 35(1)(f) of the new Constitution has not altered the position.3




Proof of previous convictions

According to the courts, previous convictions may be proved by the state in the course
of a bail application.4

In terms of section 60(11B)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act the accused or his legal
adviser is also compelled to inform the court whether the accused has previously been
convicted of an offence. Sub-section 60(11B)(a)(ii) also states that any charges pending

1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1993.
2
Njadayi 1994 (5) BCLR 90 (E) [96c-d] and Magano v District Magistrate, Johannesburg (1) 1994
(2) SACR 304 (W).
3
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.
4
Patel 1970 (3) SA 565 (W) [566B-C]; Ho 1979 (3) SA 734 (W); Attorney-General, Zimbabwe v
Phiri 1988 (2) SA 696 (ZHC); Mdleleni 1992 SACJ 197.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying this summary from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller tralphmasiwa52. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy this summary for R151,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

53022 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now

Start selling
R151,00
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added