Cape Town - Eight men appeared in the Wynberg Magistrate’s Court on Thursday charged with their alleged involvement in kidnapping an 8-year-old Rylands girl and extorting money from her father.
An application for the disclosure of confidential information which led to the successful arrest of the men accused of kidnapping the child in Rylands in November was on Thursday argued between the State and defence lawyers.
The Indian businessman was present in court as arguments were heard for the defence to obtain the CCTV footage which allegedly links the accused to the crime.
Four of the accused had legal representation yesterday.
Lawyers Phindile Vepile and Celeste Holmes sought an order from the court to have access to the information the State has regarding the “link” between four of the accused and the alleged offences.
Arguing for this disclosure of information, Holmes referred to the rights of citizens to have access to information that may be used against them in a court of law.
Holmes referred to the distinction between a public body and an individual’s rights to know what they are dealing with before building a case for their defence.
With yesterday’s arguments preceding the actual bail hearing of the accused, Holmes stressed that individuals who are charged with a schedule 5 or 6 offence – being liable to prove why they should be released on bail – ought to at least know what evidence the State avers to have, which could be “prejudicial” at the trial stage.
State prosecutor Darren Rudolph said that arguing constitutional matters in a magistrate’s court was an issue for legislation. He said the State works within its own limitations to adhere to what has already been set out.
“The applicants seem to challenge the legislation implicated in this offence. Their gripe appears to be more with the law rather than with the prosecution.
“She (Holmes) had more of an issue with the law, it should be changed or must be changed in the future but that does not mean what the State is doing in complying with the law, is unlawful.
“After all, it is not the State that creates the criminal procedure act, it is not the State that says doctrine dispersion may be abused … all we are doing is complying with the authority that is given to us,” Rudolph said.
The matter was postponed to February 7, for judgment on the application for docket disclosure.