Judgment No. CCZ 11/14 3 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 4/13 complainant could sue the applicant. erroneous. Quite clearly, this conclusion by the law officer is The alleged conduct of the applicant, if proved, constitutes both a criminal offfence and a civil wrong. In May 2011 the Attorney-General rescinded his earlier decision to decline prosecution and directed that the applicant be re-summoned to attend court. It would appear that the Attorney-General rescinded the earlier erroneous decision after representations from the complainant in Count One. On 10 August 2011 the applicant was placed on remand and thereafter remanded on a number of occasions. On 20 February 2012 the applicant made an application for referral of this matter to this Court for determination in terms of s 24(2) of the Constitution. The trial magistrate granted the application and the matter was referred to this Court. Two issues fall for determination in this application – 1. Whether the applicant’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as enshrined in s 18 of the Constitution, was violated; and 2. Whether the applicant’s right to protection of the law, as enshrined in s 18 of the Constitution was violated by the State, in that the Attorney-General rescinded his decision not to prosecute the applicant after receiving representations from the complainant in Count One. Counsel for the applicant made detailed submissions in support of these two grounds.