Brown and Another v S (CC 18/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 76; 2019 (1) SACR 691 (ECP) (14 December 2018)

Brown and Another v S (CC 18/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 76; 2019 (1) SACR 691 (ECP) (14 December 2018)

The court held that section 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not permit the reduction of bail for the purpose of enabling payment of legal fees. Bail serves as security for the accused's attendance and endures until the matter is finalised. Previous unreasoned orders from other courts cited by the applicants have no binding precedent value. The first applicant had complied with all bail conditions, but there were no changed circumstances justifying a reduction of bail. The cession of bail money to legal representatives does not entitle them to its refund prior to the conclusion of the trial. Regarding the second applicant, the court found insufficient evidence that he would comply...

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 76
Parties
Applicant: Julian Brown; Applicant: Eugene Victor; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Case Number
CC 18/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reduction of Bail and Fresh Bail Application
Outcome
Both applications for reduction of bail and release on bail are dismissed.
Judges
M Makaula
Legal Topics
Bail Reduction, Criminal Procedure Act, Changed Circumstances, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Reduction Criminal Procedure Act Changed Circumstances Right to Fair Trial

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

Parties

Julian Brown

Applicant

Eugene Victor

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Reduction of Bail and Fresh Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bail amount for the first applicant should be reduced to allow payment of legal fees.
  2. 2 Whether the second applicant should be released on bail after failing to attend court.
  3. 3 Whether section 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act permits reduction of bail for payment of counsel's fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not permit the reduction of bail for the purpose of enabling payment of legal fees. Bail serves as security for the accused's attendance and endures until the matter is finalised. Previous unreasoned orders from other courts cited by the applicants have no binding precedent value. The first applicant had complied with all bail conditions, but there were no changed circumstances justifying a reduction of bail. The cession of bail money to legal representatives does not entitle them to its refund prior to the conclusion of the trial. Regarding the second applicant, the court found insufficient evidence that he would comply...

Court Disposition

Both applications for reduction of bail and release on bail are dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for reduction of bail by the first applicant is dismissed.
  • The fresh bail application by the second applicant is dismissed.