POLOKWANE – Raulinga, citing case law, said the court must, as the judiciary act in the interest of justice and the decision to allow or refuse discharge of the accused or not, differs from one case to the next.
He said a ruling in terms of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedures Act may not be appealed, according to the law, as only the state can appeal such a ruling.
Raulinga stated that the application by Patel had no merit, and was done merely to delay proceedings. He was not inclined to deal with the issue of costs, as was requested by the State Prosecutor.
Johann Engelbrecht SC, council for the accused, said he would file a petition before the Judge President against this ruling.
A provisional date for the case to continue and hear the outcomes of the petition was set for 30 September.
Patel case resumes in Polokwane High Court
POLOKWANE – The case of Rameez Patel, for murdering his wife, will proceed in the Polokwane High Court today.
Yesterday, Judge Joseph Raulinga heard arguments by the advocate for the accused, asking for leave to appeal the admission of hearsay.
Advocate Johann Engelbrecht wants the charge or murder against Patel, dismissed.
Council for the accused and the state debated the issues of review and appeal, the state saying that according to the law, the accused cannot ask for review. Engelbrecht stated several issues that he described as immaterial to the accused’s culpability, and said certain issues described as circumstantial evidence were not, according to him.
Read more: “Rameez told me that he killed Fati” – Brother of accused testifies
He said the court can only expect an explanation if there is evidence that shows cause for an explanation, and that his client cannot be expected to incriminate himself.
The gist of the matter was decided to be if the matter is appealable or not.
The state prosecutor said the defence at first referred to a review, and then later to an appeal. Raulinga wanted to know if the defence want to appeal on a point of fact or on a point of law.
The state said that the application of Engelbrecht was vexatious and without merit, stressing that he was not saying that Engelbrecht’s client cannot bring applications, but they cannot bring applications merely to interrupt the proceedings.
Read more: Rameez Patel to appear in court in 2020 for mother’s murder case
He asked for the application to be dismissed, with a cost order. The defence’s Advocate Thipe Mahapa said the state was incorrect, as the Criminal Procedure Act does not allow for a cost order to be made.
Engelbrecht disputed the state’s argument that a review could not take place, and said a higher court has the right to review.
Judge Raulinga reserved judgement.
