Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The Court of Appeal may just as well be facing a similar scenario in the case concerning the Police appeal against the decision of Justice Nicholson of the High Court in the Jason Arioka case.
Crown Solicitor Tingika Elikana appeared for the Police and Anthony Robinson who acted for Jason Arioka also appeared.
Robinson had earlier successfully submitted in the High Court that the Police had not disclosed evidence they held to enable him properly advise his client, Arioka, how to plead. He claimed Police did not comply with the requirements of s99 of the Criminal Procedures Act in that the summary they presented was insufficient. Over a period of six months the Arioka case had been adjourned eight times for want of the Police disclosure.
In his submission Elikana submitted that Arioka had to firstly plead before the requirements of s99 regarding disclosure, took effect. 
Robinson submitted that under the Constitution, Arioka had a right to know why he had been arrested or detained. He submitted that once Aroika was charged the right to disclosure came into play. It did not matter whether a plea had been entered or not.
Arioka had initially been charged with burglary but Police could not prove breaking and entering so on 27 January 2005, a theft charge was laid. Arioka appeared in Court on 24 February 2005 but entered no plea. There has been a continuing request for disclosure.
Justices Barker and Smellie proposed that Arioka could have entered a plea after which full disclosure would be required by Police. They queried why the Police prosecutor did not demand that a plea be entered. 
Elikana rounded up his submissions by saying the Police stance is s99 does not apply until a plea is entered.
The Court reserved its decision and the session ended at 12.30pm.