Amulenda and Another v S (Appeal Judgement) (CA 28 of 2016) [2016] NAHCNLD 80 (7 September 2016)

Amulenda and Another v S (Appeal Judgement) (CA 28 of 2016) [2016] NAHCNLD 80 (7 September 2016)

The magistrate erred in refusing bail as the State failed to provide evidence connecting the appellants to the offences or to demonstrate that their release would prejudice the administration of justice. The appellants' denial of involvement and lack of prior convictions, in the absence of further evidence, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of a propensity to commit crimes. The decision to refuse bail was therefore wrong and should be set aside.

Citation
[2016] NAHCNLD 80
Parties
1st Appellant: Simon Amulenda; 2nd Appellant: Johannes Ndashaala; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Local Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
7 September 2016
Case Number
CA 28 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Bail Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; bail granted to appellants.
Legal Topics
Bail, Onus of Proof in Bail Applications, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Judicial Discretion in Bail, Pending Criminal Cases and Bail, Interest of Justice in Bail Decisions
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Bail Onus of Proof in Bail Applications Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Judicial Discretion in Bail Pending Criminal Cases and Bail Interest of Justice in Bail Decisions

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Amulenda

1st Appellant

Johannes Ndashaala

2nd Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the appellants discharged the onus to show they are suitable candidates for bail
  3. 3 Whether pending cases and lack of prior convictions demonstrate a propensity to commit crimes

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred in refusing bail as the State failed to provide evidence connecting the appellants to the offences or to demonstrate that their release would prejudice the administration of justice. The appellants' denial of involvement and lack of prior convictions, in the absence of further evidence, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of a propensity to commit crimes. The decision to refuse bail was therefore wrong and should be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; bail granted to appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The decision of the Magistrate, Oshakati, under case No. OSH – CRM 2739/2015, dated 6 April 2016, is set aside.