5 days ago
Unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution leads to R1. 1 million compensation
A woman was awarded a sum of over R1.1million when she claimed for damages arising from her unlawful arrest, detention and malicious prosecution.
Image: File
A woman who was unlawfully arrested and detained for about a month will be compensated to the amount of approximately R1.1million after the court could not link her to the crimes she was accused of.
The woman was awarded this in the High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division, Mbombela (Main Seat), after she litigated to claim for damages arising from the unlawful arrest, detention and malicious prosecution.
The woman was arrested for burglary/housebreaking on 23 July 2020 after she found herself at a premises where she had asked for water. However, while at the premises of Dumisani Mdluli, people arrived who identified stolen items at Mdluli's property. She was taken with the group of people and Mdluli to various places where items were pointed out.
The woman and Mdluli were later taken to the police station where she was also detained. She was accused of having committed housebreaking.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
However, after there was no evidence in the docket linking the woman to either the crime of housebreaking or possession of suspected stolen property, charges against her were withdrawn and she was released.
The arresting officer testified that when the woman was brought to the Kanyamazane police station by the community, she was arrested for further investigations and after her first court appearance, where bail was fixed at R1,000, the woman remained in custody when family could not afford the bail payment.
Acting Judge Kgama Shai, handing down judgment, said: '(The arresting officer) should have foreseen the eventual further detention of the plaintiff in the event that bail is not posted. The police set the wheel in motion. Their conduct is closely linked to the further detention to attract liability. But for the unlawful arrest, the plaintiff could not have been detained and be further detained after the first court appearance. The (Minister of Police) should be held liable for detention pre-court appearance and detention post-court appearance.
'The (prosecutor) testified that she determined that the plaintiff was not linked to the commission of housebreaking. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was not found in possession of any property involved in the alleged housebreaking. It boggles one's mind in understanding on what basis the prosecutor decided on charging the plaintiff for possession of suspected stolen property,' said Shai.
Shai went further to say that had the prosecutor exercised due diligence in assessing or screening the docket, charges would not have been preferred against the plaintiff and this failure and not properly screening the docket led to the plaintiff's further detention.
'It is the evidence of (the prosecutor) that she could not link the plaintiff to the commission of housebreaking… She, however, decided at a later stage not to proceed with the prosecution. I cannot find that she genuinely believed that there was a reasonable and probable cause to proceed with the prosecution.
'Her decision to withdraw the charges should have been taken even before bringing the plaintiff to court. Her wanton disregard for facts not warranting prosecution should be regarded as indirect malice or animus iniuriandi,' the judgment read.
Both the Minister of Police and National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) were ordered to also pay the costs of suit.
The police ministry was ordered to pay an amount of R250,000 for unlawful arrest; and R150,000 for pre-court appearance detention.
The ministry and NDPP were jointly liable to pay R650,000 for the post-court appearance detention while the NDPP was ordered to pay a further R100,000 for malicious prosecution.
