Cape Town - In a matter pertaining to civil liberty, the Western Cape High Court upheld an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office wherein Sandile Khumalo sued the State for wrongful arrest and prosecution.
This follows an order by the Supreme Court of Appeal to have the matter heard before a full bench in the Western Cape Division following the court’s dismissal of the appeal application.
The full bench comprised judges Robert Henney, Elizabeth Baartman and Mark Sher. Khumalo was arrested in March 2014 and held in custody on a charge of theft before the State withdrew the charge in February 2015.
He was successful in his initial application, where the court found that his detention between July 2014 and March 2015 was unlawful and prosecution of his matter malicious, but his claim of unlawful arrest against the police minister was dismissed.
Khumalo denied from the outset that he had any knowledge of a robbery in Plettenberg Bay, a month prior to his arrest, and challenged the appeal on the grounds that the picture used to identify him as a suspect was glaringly different from his physical appearance.
In its appeal, the DPP noted a number of errors by the court in its finding, arguing that the court confused the facts of the case against Khumalo, the reasons why the charges were withdrawn and did not consider whether the prosecution had indeed failed.
Judge Henney, in handing down judgment, said: “I would uphold the appeal of the DPP against the findings that there was a malicious prosecution and unlawful detention of the respondent, and would dismiss the cross-appeal, which sought to hold the minister of police liable for the respondent’s detention.
He added: “It seems that the facts or evidence that initially were considered sufficient to justify his lawful detention suddenly morphed into insufficient facts or evidence, in order to conclude that the detention in the regional court was unlawful.
“The evidence on which the prosecutors in the district court believed that there were sufficient grounds to prosecute, was the very same evidence the regional court considered to be sufficient to warrant a prosecution in that court.”
The court found that there was no evidence pointing to malicious prosecution by the State as Khumalo was not acquitted of the charge and the charges were merely withdrawn in order for the State to strengthen its case.