Abraham v S (A395/18) [2022] ZAGPPHC 691 (13 September 2022)

Abraham v S (A395/18) [2022] ZAGPPHC 691 (13 September 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to present new facts sufficient to justify reconsideration of bail. The alleged new facts, including the recantation and supplementation of evidence by the applicant's former wife, were found to be suspect and inadequately explained. The court applied the principles from Liesching and Others v The State, holding that the requirements for admitting new evidence were not met: there was no reasonable explanation for the absence of the evidence at trial, no prima facie likelihood of its truth, and no material relevance established. The court concluded that the application did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or reasonable prospects of success...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 691
Parties
Applicant: Raaths William Abraham; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Case Number
A395/18
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Application for Bail Pending Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for bail pending leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court dismissed.
Judges
E van der Schyff, C J van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, New Facts in Bail, Exceptional Circumstances, Recantation of Evidence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal New Facts in Bail Exceptional Circumstances Recantation of Evidence

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raaths William Abraham

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Application for Bail Pending Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has presented new facts sufficient to justify a renewed bail application after previous dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the recantation and supplementation of evidence by the applicant's former wife constitutes exceptional circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's prospects of success in the Constitutional Court warrant bail pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to present new facts sufficient to justify reconsideration of bail. The alleged new facts, including the recantation and supplementation of evidence by the applicant's former wife, were found to be suspect and inadequately explained. The court applied the principles from Liesching and Others v The State, holding that the requirements for admitting new evidence were not met: there was no reasonable explanation for the absence of the evidence at trial, no prima facie likelihood of its truth, and no material relevance established. The court concluded that the application did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or reasonable prospects of success...

Court Disposition

Application for bail pending leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's application to be released on bail is dismissed.