Text in Afrikaans / Wanneer die konstitusionele invloed op borgstelling in die bree bespreek word, moet die
bepalings van die Grondwet 200 van 1993 met inbegrip van die Handves van Menseregte en die
onderliggende waardes, beginsels en doelstellings daartoe binne die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks
inaggeneem word. Die algemene transformasie van die Suid-Afrikaanse gemeenskap in 'n
verteenwoordigende demokrasie, veelvolkigheid van die Suid-Afrikaanse gemeenskap,
eskalerende misdaadsyfer, wantroue van die gemeenskap in die regstelsel en die beklemtoning van
fundamentele regte is aspekte wat figureer binne die Suid-Afrikaanse borgtogreg. Die
tradisionele benadering dat die bewyslas op die beskuldigde rus tydens borgtogverrigtinge is
binne die moderne borgtogreg en in die lig van die Grondwet 200 van 1993 asook die Tweede
Strafproseswysigingswet 75 van 1995 onvanpas. As algemene reel behoort die bewyslas by 'n
borgaansoek op die staat te rus op oorwig van waarskynlikhede. In sekere spesifiek omskrewe
gevalle soos vervat inartikel60(11) van die Tweede Strafproseswysigingswet rus die bewyslas op die
beskuldigde. Hierdie beperking is regverdigbaar in tenne van artike133 van die Grondwet
200 van 1993. Daar bestaan verder nie voldoende rede om nie gebruik te maak van die
bewyslasbegrip as gevestigde prosessuele maatreel tydens borgverrigtinge nie. In die moderne
Suid-Afrikaanse borgtogreg moet 'n balans gehandhaaf word tussen die belange van die gemeenskap en
die fundamentele regte van die individu. Die howe moet in elke spesifieke geval· inhoud aan hierdie
beginsel verleen. / When the effect of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 200 of 1993 on bail is
considered, the transformation of the South African community, multi-racial society, high
crimerate, disillusionment of the community with regard to the courtsystem and importance of
fundamental rights must be regarded. The traditional approach that the onus is upon the accused
(in his capacity as applicant) to prove on a balance of probability that the court should exercise
its discretion in favour of granting bail and, in discharging this burden, he must show that the
interests of justice will not be prejudiced, is in terms ofthe Constitution 200 of 1993 and the
Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Act 75 of 1995 unacceptable. It is submitted that the onus
should be on the State to place grounds before the Court why there should be an exercise of
discretion in favour of the State for further detention of the individual. In terms of certain
spesific crimes as described in article 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Act theis
placed on the accused. This exception is acceptable as it prescribes to
the requirements in article 33 of the Constitution 200 of 1993. It is submitted that there is no
reason why onus as excepted evidentiary rule should not be used in bail applications. A
balance between the interest of the community and fundamental rights of the individual must be kept
in modern law regarding bail. It is in the hands of the courts to substantiate this balance. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:uir.unisa.ac.za:10500/17232 |
| Date | 11 1900 |
| Creators | Loots, Maria Magdalena |
| Contributors | Van Der Merwe, D. P. |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | Afrikaans |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | 1 online resource (iv, 26 leaves) |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds