Blose v S (D11892/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 71 (14 February 2023)

Blose v S (D11892/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 71 (14 February 2023)

The court found that the facts presented by the appellant did not constitute new facts as required for a bail application on new facts. The alleged delay in investigations and the reinstatement of the appellant's sister were not exceptional circumstances justifying release. The magistrate correctly considered the risk of interference with witnesses, the seriousness of the offences, and the appellant's position as a police officer. The court held that the magistrate's discretion was properly exercised and that there was no basis to interfere with the refusal of bail. The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the appellant's case.

Citation
[2023] ZAKZDHC 71
Parties
Appellant: Njabulo Musawenkosi Blose; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2023
Case Number
D11892/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail on New Facts
Judges
Singh
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Presumption of Innocence, Schedule 6 Offences, Interference With Witnesses
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Presumption of Innocence Schedule 6 Offences Interference With Witnesses

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

Parties

Njabulo Musawenkosi Blose

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail on New Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant presented new facts sufficient to warrant reconsideration of bail.
  2. 2 Whether the new facts amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under Section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate exercised discretion incorrectly in refusing bail on new facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the facts presented by the appellant did not constitute new facts as required for a bail application on new facts. The alleged delay in investigations and the reinstatement of the appellant's sister were not exceptional circumstances justifying release. The magistrate correctly considered the risk of interference with witnesses, the seriousness of the offences, and the appellant's position as a police officer. The court held that the magistrate's discretion was properly exercised and that there was no basis to interfere with the refusal of bail. The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the appellant's case.