Judge demands robbery case be sped up

Durban Magistrate Court wants the the state to make a decision on a case of six accused of theft, robbery and firearm possession.

Durban Magistrate Court wants the the state to make a decision on a case of six accused of theft, robbery and firearm possession.

Published Sep 15, 2022

Share

Durban — A prosecutor at Durban Magistrate’s Court was instructed by a judge to seek advice from a senior prosecutor regarding a case of six house robbery suspects.

This comes after the matter has dragged on for nine months “without further evidence”.

Judge Singh (first name withheld) denied the State’s request for an adjournment, adding that granting further adjournment would be an injustice to the suspects.

Asanda Mzotho, Asiphe Nhlangulana, Lungani Ngcobo, Monelisi Mazingisa, Philani Bhengu, and Thabani Innocent Dlamini were arrested in January 2022.

They are facing charges of robbery, theft, housebreaking and possession of firearms in four areas, namely Berea, Isipingo, uMlazi and Sydenham.

On Tuesday, the group appeared in court where the defence argued that the State was dragging the matter out, with no direction.

The defence alleged that the State had had enough time to conduct further investigations and gather evidence.

Meanwhile, the State requested more time to go through the docket. The court was adjourned for an hour, granting reading time for the prosecutor.

After the break, prosecutor Shange (first name withheld) said there were quite a number of outstanding pieces of evidence.

“There’s a lot of missing evidence on the docket, including the facial recognition report and complainant statement. The ballistic report is written at two different police stations. There are different cases handled by different investigating officers from different police stations. Lots of things here are causing confusion,” said Shange.

He further asked the court for more time to properly gather all the missing evidence and to conduct thorough investigations. Judge Singh said considering the number of postponements he was convinced the State was not willing to conclude the matter soon.

“The court was not aware the ballistic report had missing information. The investigating officers are also failing to do their work properly.

“This is also the first time the court was advised that the facial recognition report and the complainants’ statement were never brought before the court. The suspects were released on bail and have been showing up in court as required, yet in nine months this matter has moved to another prosecutor, but nothing has been finalised,” said Judge Singh.

He further adjourned the case for the prosecutor to seek a decision from a senior prosecutor.

Daily News