4 4.1 During the subsequent trial, B refuses to take the prescribed oath. He informs the court that he essentially regards himself "non-religious", and does not, therefore, regard the oath as binding on his conscience. Briefly state the applicable rule of procedure when it comes to the taking of the oath, and also explain the procedure which is supposed to follow B's refusal to take the prescribed oath. (6) 4.2 At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the accused are called upon to testify, after the denial of their application for a discharge in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977. The accused elect not to testify in their own defence, or to call witnesses. L (the accused's attorney) argues that "the State does not have a case against the accused upon which to answer". PLEASE NOTE: the question does not require a discussion of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977. 4.2.1 Critically evaluate the legitimacy of the accused's posture (through their attorney) and the advantages / consequences that may follow from such defence; and (7) 4.2.2 Write your own conclusion, based on the facts set out above, and refer to the advantages / consequences for the accused, in light of the merits of this case if they decline the right to present evidence