2.2 Critically evaluate whether, in light of the facts provided, C's arrest may be said to be based on "reasonable grounds." Consider that C is accosted by the police while walking in a direction opposite to the altercation at Strasso Street, has a skull and bones tattoo associated with the Live to Die Gang, and is found in possession of a concealed 'Rambo' knife. (7)

3.1 Critically evaluate, in the context of section 189, the actions which Sergeant Nosey Kekana may pursue given K's refusal to cooperate, stating that he "knows what he knows," but that he is "no snitch" and "does not talk to the police." (Note: Do not include the process outlined in section 205 of the CPA.)

3.2 During the trial where C, D, and N are the accused, J, a journalist for the Morning Newspaper, wishes to attend the court proceedings. The accused, C and D, are adults, while N is 16 years old. J claims that "exceptional circumstances" exist that justify her attendance and reporting of the proceedings, including revealing N's identity. Critically discuss whether J's assertions, including the test for admittance by the court, are correct.

C's Direction and Behavior: C is walking in a direction opposite to an altercation, which could indicate avoidance. However, this alone might not establish reasonable grounds for belief without more context.
Tattoo and Gang Affiliation: The skull and bones tattoo, recognized as a mark of the "Live to Die Gang," might point towards gang affiliation. This fact could strengthen the suspicion if it is known that this gang was involved in the altercation.
Possession of Concealed Weapon: Carrying a concealed 'Rambo' knife can be seen as suspicious, especially if it is illegal in that jurisdiction or associated with gang violence.

In summary, the combination of these factors—gang affiliation indicated by the tattoo, possession of a weapon, and behavior in avoiding the conflict area—can provide reasonable grounds for the police to suspect C's involvement in a crime or threat to public safety. A reasonable person might indeed draw the same inferences given these facts.

3.1 Regarding Sergeant Kekana and section 189, since K refuses to talk voluntarily, Sergeant Kekana may pursue the following actions:

Compelling Attendance: Although section 205 outlines the process to compel witness attendance, Sergeant Kekana could consider seeking a directive from a court to require K's presence for questioning. This could involve demonstrating that K has vital information relevant to the case.
Protective Measures: To address K's fears, assurances might be offered regarding protection or confidentiality.
Legal Consequences: Informing K about potential legal consequences for withholding critical information or refusing to cooperate.

3.2 In the context of a trial involving a minor (N, age 16), J, a journalist, wishes to report and reveal N's identity. Considering the principle of covering legal proceedings:

Open Justice: Generally, courts allow reporting to ensure transparency. However, the identity of minors is typically protected to avoid undue harm.
Exceptional Circumstances: J would need to demonstrate how these circumstances truly warrant overriding the usual protections afforded to minors in court proceedings.
Court's Test for Admittance: The court must weigh the public interest in accessing information against the privacy and best interests of a child involved in the proceedings. If J cannot convincingly argue why revealing N's identity serves a greater public interest, the court is likely to deny this request.

Thus, J's assertions must be carefully evaluated against legal standards safeguarding minors' identities, and it is unlikely her views will hold unless strongly justified.