2.1 During an altercation with his neighbour, Feisty Belligerent in the year 2000, Ed Crook allegedly 'slapped the complainant across the face with an open hand', and also 'urinated on his lawn'. Feisty subsequently laid charges of assault and malicious damage to property. Feisty did not suffer any physical injuries. 2.1.1 Briefly discuss, in the context of section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA), whether the right to prosecute Ed has prescribed if he is only arrested in 2022. (5) Hints: i. The answer to the question must be sought from p. 79, par, 4.15 ii. Your answer must only be restricted to (a) The general applicable principle as set out in s 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 - in other words, the circumstances under which the prescription of offences in respect of prosecution, applies; and (b) The point whether the offences mentioned in 2.1 above, conform to the legal provision mentioned above. NB: All other information is irrelevant, and will not be credited. 2.2 On the same facts mentioned in 2.1 above, Ed is arrested two days after the commission of the alleged offences. Feisty is adamant that Ed should be 'prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law'. However, Ed's attorney, Clever Trevor, makes representations to the prosecutor to withdraw the charges against his client. The request is made after Ed has pleaded 'not guilty' to the charges, and Feisty has already testified. Discuss the workability of a withdrawal in the circumstances sketched above. (10) Hints: your answer must; i. First set out the requirements for a withdrawal as set out in chapter 3 of the Handbook; ii. Secondly, discuss whether the matter against Ed can, realistically, be withdrawn, based on the requirements set out in hint (i), above; and iii. Thirdly, provide most plausible legal application or alternative (i.e a possible conclusion) if withdrawal is not the most workable solution.