Bail and the presumption of innocence : a comparative legal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every person arrested for allegedly having committed a crime, has a constitutional right to be released on bail if the interests of justice permit and subject to reasonable conditions. Every accused has a constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. \nThe focus of the research is on the consideration of bail be granted to an accused, charged with offences, falling within the ambit of the various schedules of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the effect thereof on the presumption of innocence and an accused’s constitutional rights, with a critical comparison to the Canadian law and its Constitution. \nThe research investigates the origin and historical background of bail with specific comparison to our current South African bail legislation. \nThe evidentiary rules in bail applications are explored and discussed. The reverse onus in schedule 5 and 6 bail applications and the effect on the presumption of innocence is meticulously assessed and analysed. \nThe discussion of bail pending appeal, after leave to appeal having been granted against conviction, explores the reality of the restoration of the presumption of innocence, post-conviction. \nThe conclusions reached in this research indicate that the Canadian bail legislation is more liberal and sensitive to the rights of an accused and, as such, the South African legislation should align itself with the Canadian legislation. The final recommendations propose particular amendments to the current legislation, which will address the criticisms identified in the research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".