A protest march about climate change at a G20 summit in Cape Town turns violent. Protesters clash with riot police. A policeman suffers third-degree burns as a result of being hit by a home-made explosive/incendiary device contained in a beer bottle. Camera evidence shows the bottle arcing through the air, hitting the policeman and exploding, but the camera footage does not capture the person who threw it. The chemical residue of the explosive material is analysed, and is found to comprise acetone, muriatic acid (the core ingredient of pool chlorine) and petrol.

While reviewing the footage of the whole protest, analysts spot that Simba Simelane was a member of the protesting group. Simelane has a reputation for provoking trouble. In fact, in 2002 he had been convicted for manufacturing and throwing a Molotov cocktail at police during a protest about service delivery that turned ugly in Cape Town. He had spent three years in jail for this. A similar charge (on strong evidence) had provisionally been laid against him in 2014 when striking dock workers and their supporters had clashed with police: however, part of the settlement of the labour dispute was that all charges concerning the incident would be withdrawn, and so the state agreed not to proceed with these matters, including the charge against Simelane. In that abandoned case, forensic evidence showed that the explosive had been manufactured from acetone, muriatic acid and petrol, as had the Molotov cocktail in 2002.

Acting on a valid warrant, police search Simelane's house and discover, in his garage, containers of pool cleaner, acetone and petrol. Simelane protests, saying that the pool cleaner is for his pool, the acetone is a wall-stripper for a forthcoming re-paint of his house, and he keeps the petrol supply for his lawnmower.

The police are convinced that Simelane is the man who threw the bomb in Cape Town and injured their colleague. They want him to be prosecuted, and say to him that they intend to use the evidence of his past history of misconduct to make their case against him. Simelane, who is worried (despite, of course, maintaining his innocence) consults his attorney, and tells him what the police have said. The attorney is unsure whether this would be possible, and so briefs you for an opinion on the matter. Provide this opinion. Note that the issue of what substantive crimes may have been committed is NOT part of the brief.

Please be advised that you are requested to draft an opinion as per attached set of facts