In my view the role of the prosecutor in charging suspects is an important one. The first plaintiff was nothing other than an innocent bystander but after arrest he was in the hands of the authorities, he was reliant upon them to assess the evidence against him objectively and competently. His liberty was at stake. If the decision went against him he was then in the hands of the court in the sense that his liberty could only be recovered by way of a bail application. He was therefore reliant on Mr Pretorius to conscientiously apply his mind to the docket. But Mr Pretorius did not do this and his decision, especially in the light of his weak explanations disclosed a dereliction of duty.’ [13] In respect of the damages he awarded to Du Plessis, Campbell AJ made the following order: The first defendant is ordered to pay the amount of R100 000.00 to the first plaintiff, plus ‘1. interest at the rate of 15.5 per annum from 24 February 2012 to date of payment. 2. The second defendant is ordered to pay the amount of R120 000.00 to the first plaintiff plus interest at the rate of 15.5 percent per annum from 24 February 201 to date of payment. 3. The defendants are ordered jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the first costs of plaintiff’s suit.’ He dismissed action with costs. The Minister and the NDPP now appeal against the Bosch’s findings referred to above and the order set out in this paragraph. [14] Police bear the onus to justify an arrest and detention. In Minister of Law and Order and others v Hurley and another 1986 (3) SA 568 (A) at 589E-F the following is stated: arrest constitutes an interference with the liberty of the individual concerned, and it therefore ‘An seems to be fair and just to require that the person who arrested or caused the arrest of another person should bear the onus of proving that his action was justified in law.’ [15] Our new Constitutional Order, conscious of our oppressive past, was designed to curb intrusions upon personal liberty which has always, even during the dark days of apartheid, been judicially valued, and to ensure that the excesses of the past would not recur. The right to liberty
In my view the role of the prosecutor in charging suspects is an important one. The first plaintiff was nothing other than an innocent bystander but after arrest he was in the hands of the authorities, he was reliant upon them to assess the evidence against him objectively and competently. His liberty was at stake. If the decision went against him he was then in the hands of the court in the sense that his liberty could only be recovered by way of a bail application. He was therefore reliant on Mr Pretorius to conscientiously apply his mind to the docket. But Mr Pretorius did not do this and his decision, especially in the light of his weak explanations disclosed a dereliction of duty.’ [13] In respect of the damages he awarded to Du Plessis, Campbell AJ made the following order: ‘1. The first defendant is ordered to pay the amount of R100 000.00 to the first plaintiff, plus interest at the rate of 15.5 per annum from 24 February 2012 to date of payment. 2. The second defendant is ordered to pay the amount of R120 000.00 to the first plaintiff plus interest at the rate of 15.5 percent per annum from 24 February 201 to date of payment. 3. The defendants are ordered jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the first plaintiff’s costs of suit.’ He dismissed Bosch’s action with costs. The Minister and the NDPP now appeal against the findings referred to above and the order set out in this paragraph. [14] Police bear the onus to justify an arrest and detention. In Minister of Law and Order and others v Hurley and another 1986 (3) SA 568 (A) at 589E-F the following is stated: ‘An arrest constitutes an interference with the liberty of the individual concerned, and it therefore seems to be fair and just to require that the person who arrested or caused the arrest of another person should bear the onus of proving that his action was justified in law.’ [15] Our new Constitutional Order, conscious of our oppressive past, was designed to curb intrusions upon personal liberty which has always, even during the dark days of apartheid, been judicially valued, and to ensure that the excesses of the past would not recur. The right to liberty