https://www.polity.org.za
Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Case Law / High Courts RSS ← Back
Africa|Ahmed Timol
Africa|
africa|ahmed-timol
Close

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Sponsored by

Close

Article Enquiry

Rodrigues v National Director of Public Prosecutions of South Africa and Others (76755/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 159

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.
Close

Embed Video

Rodrigues v National Director of Public Prosecutions of South Africa and Others (76755/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 159

5th June 2019

SAVE THIS ARTICLE      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Font size: -+

Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

The Applicant seeks a permanent stay of prosecution with respect to a charge of murder and another charge. The Applicant alleges that he has suffered a delay in respect of the prosecution which results in an infringement of his right to fair trial in terms of section 35(3) of the Constitution, 1996. The charge of murder relates to the death of Mr Ahmed Timol, an anti-apartheid activist who died on or about 27 October 1971. This case comes before the courts after the reopening of an inquest in 2017 (2017 Inquest) conducted in 1972 following Mr Timol’s death (First Inquest) which found that Mr Timol had committed suicide and no one alive was responsible for Mr Timol’s death. The 2017 Inquest however found that Mr Timol was murdered.

Advertisement

The court discussed the factors to consider for a permanent stay of prosecution namely the length of the delay, the reasons the government relies on to justify the delay, the accused’s assertion of a right to a speedy trial, prejudice to the accused, nature of the offence and public consideration. The court also added a new factor, namely, the interest of the family or victims of the crime.

The applicant alleged that he suffers memory loss as a result of his age and therefore will be prejudiced. The court provided that age and infirmity are considered at sentencing or prior to the trial. The court held that there is no prejudice to the accused as there is no evidence to prove that poor memory will taint the fairness of the trial as the State carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Advertisement

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE      SAVE THIS ARTICLE ARTICLE ENQUIRY

To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here

Comment Guidelines

About

Polity.org.za is a product of Creamer Media.
www.creamermedia.co.za

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more

Subscriptions

We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store

Advertise

Advertising on Polity.org.za is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email advertising@creamermedia.co.za

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now