Highlight ten of the most important considerations for a successful (or otherwise not successful) application for discharge in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.With SouthAfrican case law as examples.
1. Strong Evidence: It is crucial to have strong evidence supporting the application for discharge. The accused must present evidence that raises doubt regarding their guilt.
Example: In the case of S v Maritz (2008), the court found that the accused's alibi witnesses provided strong evidence that raised a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt, leading to a successful application for discharge.
2. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof rests on the State to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused does not need to prove their innocence but must present sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the State's case.
Example: In S v Makhubela (2017), the court found that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the crime, leading to a successful application for discharge.
3. Inadmissible Evidence: The accused should challenge any evidence that is inadmissible or obtained illegally. Such evidence may be excluded from consideration, weakening the State's case.
Example: In S v Lekalakala (2010), the court found that certain evidence was obtained through a violation of the accused's constitutional rights, leading to a successful application for discharge.
4. Witness Credibility: The accused should challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses to weaken the State's case. Inconsistencies or contradictions in their testimony can cast doubt on their reliability.
Example: In S v Adams (2008), the court found that the witness credibility was questionable due to contradictions in their testimonies, leading to a successful application for discharge.
5. Unreliable Identification: The accused may challenge the reliability of identifications made by witnesses. Mistaken or unreliable identifications can weaken the State's case.
Example: In S v Van Wyk (2012), the court found that the identification evidence was unreliable due to factors such as poor lighting and the witness's limited opportunity to observe, leading to a successful application for discharge.
6. Constitutional Rights Violations: The accused should raise any violations of their constitutional rights during the investigation or trial. Such violations can potentially lead to a successful application for discharge.
Example: In S v Phillips (2019), the court found that the accused's constitutional right to legal representation was violated during the trial, leading to a successful application for discharge.
7. Missing Evidence: The accused may argue that crucial evidence is missing or was not properly preserved, making it difficult for the State to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Example: In S v Ntuli (2014), the court found that the State's failure to preserve DNA evidence weakened their case, leading to a successful application for discharge.
8. Conflicting Evidence: The accused may point out inconsistencies or conflicts in the evidence presented by the State. A lack of coherence can weaken the State's case.
Example: In S v Mhlongo (2011), the court found that the State's evidence was riddled with contradictions, leading to a successful application for discharge.
9. Expert Testimony: The accused may challenge the credibility or reliability of expert witnesses presented by the State. Raising doubts about their qualifications or the scientific validity of their conclusions can weaken the State's case.
Example: In S v Melapi (2015), the court found that the expert witness's methodology and conclusions were flawed, leading to a successful application for discharge.
10. Prejudice: The accused may argue that due to delays or other prejudicial factors, they cannot receive a fair trial. Prejudice can be a ground for a successful application for discharge.
Example: In S v Mthetwa (2013), the court found that the substantial delay in bringing the accused to trial prejudiced their ability to mount a proper defense, leading to a successful application for discharge.