Bader v S (A242/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 498; 2020 (2) SACR 444 (GP) (23 September 2019)

Bader v S (A242/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 498; 2020 (2) SACR 444 (GP) (23 September 2019)

The court held that bail is generally available only before conviction, and after conviction, the presumption of innocence no longer applies. The trial court retains discretion to extend bail until sentencing, but this discretion can only be challenged if exercised incorrectly. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate's decision was wrong or that exceptional circumstances justified his release on bail pending sentencing. The interests of justice and all relevant factors were considered cumulatively, and the requirements of section 65(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act were not met. The appeal court found no reason to interfere with the Magistrate's refusal to grant bail.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 498
Parties
Appellant: Brian Bader; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2019
Case Number
A242/2019
Procedural Posture
Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail After Conviction, Pending Sentencing
Outcome
Bail appeal dismissed; the Magistrate's refusal to grant bail is upheld.
Judges
P D Phahlane
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Sentence, Criminal Procedure Act, Judicial Discretion on Bail
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Sentence Criminal Procedure Act Judicial Discretion on Bail

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Bader

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail After Conviction, Pending Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a convicted person may be granted bail pending sentencing.
  2. 2 Whether the Regional Magistrate exercised her discretion incorrectly in refusing bail.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice permit the appellant's release on bail after conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that bail is generally available only before conviction, and after conviction, the presumption of innocence no longer applies. The trial court retains discretion to extend bail until sentencing, but this discretion can only be challenged if exercised incorrectly. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate's decision was wrong or that exceptional circumstances justified his release on bail pending sentencing. The interests of justice and all relevant factors were considered cumulatively, and the requirements of section 65(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act were not met. The appeal court found no reason to interfere with the Magistrate's refusal to grant bail.

Court Disposition

Bail appeal dismissed; the Magistrate's refusal to grant bail is upheld.

Orders

  • The bail appeal is dismissed.