R v Motseki (CRI\APN 133 of 95) [1995] LSCA 62 (3 April 1995)

R v Motseki (CRI\APN 133 of 95) [1995] LSCA 62 (3 April 1995)

The applicant is granted bail because the Crown's evidence of risk of interference with witnesses is hearsay and not substantiated by direct testimony or explanation for lack thereof. The applicant has discharged the onus required for bail.

Citation
[1995] LSCA 62
Parties
Applicant: Teboho Motseki; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
3 April 1995
Case Number
CRI\APN 133 of 95
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Application
Outcome
Bail granted with conditions
Legal Topics
Bail, Robbery, Burden of Proof, Witness Protection
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Bail Robbery Burden of Proof Witness Protection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teboho Motseki

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial for robbery
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable possibility the applicant will abscond or interfere with witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is granted bail because the Crown's evidence of risk of interference with witnesses is hearsay and not substantiated by direct testimony or explanation for lack thereof. The applicant has discharged the onus required for bail.

Court Disposition

Bail granted with conditions

Orders

  • Payment of M500-00 cash deposit
  • Production of surety acceptable to the Registrar in the sum of M500 (not cash)