Davis and Another v S (2888/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 41 (8 May 2015)

Davis and Another v S (2888/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 41 (8 May 2015)

The court held that the appellants were not entitled to challenge the first refusal of bail after launching a new application on new facts. The facts presented in the second application did not constitute 'new facts' as required by Section 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but were merely an elaboration of evidence already before the court. The procedural requirements of Section 65 are peremptory, and the notice of appeal restricted the appeal to the decision of 14 November 2014. The magistrate's decision was not wrong, and the appeal was procedurally flawed. The court emphasized that allowing both appeals as one would create a procedural maze and grant appellants more rights than others,...

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 41
Parties
Appellant: Teven Davis; Appellant: Andile Bruce Meth; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Case Number
2888/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail on New Facts
Outcome
Appeal refused.
Judges
Steyn
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, New Facts in Bail, Section 65 Criminal Procedure Act, Constitutional Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances New Facts in Bail Section 65 Criminal Procedure Act Constitutional Rights

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teven Davis

Appellant

Andile Bruce Meth

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail on New Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were entitled to challenge the first refusal of bail after launching a new application on new facts.
  2. 2 Whether the facts presented in the second bail application constituted 'new facts' as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's decision on 14 November 2014 refusing bail was wrong.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellants were not entitled to challenge the first refusal of bail after launching a new application on new facts. The facts presented in the second application did not constitute 'new facts' as required by Section 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but were merely an elaboration of evidence already before the court. The procedural requirements of Section 65 are peremptory, and the notice of appeal restricted the appeal to the decision of 14 November 2014. The magistrate's decision was not wrong, and the appeal was procedurally flawed. The court emphasized that allowing both appeals as one would create a procedural maze and grant appellants more rights than others,...

Court Disposition

Appeal refused.

Orders

  • The appeal of both appellants is refused.