Doorewaard and Another v S (CAB33/2018) [2018] ZANWHC 87 (6 December 2018)

Doorewaard and Another v S (CAB33/2018) [2018] ZANWHC 87 (6 December 2018)

The High Court held that the trial court retains the discretion to extend bail pending sentence after conviction. The order remanding the accused in custody after conviction constitutes a court order, which stands unless challenged on appeal. Section 58 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for a new bail application before a different court after conviction; it only governs the effect and extension of bail already granted. The High Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider or review the trial court's decision to revoke bail post-conviction. The application was therefore dismissed on the basis that the points in limine raised by the State were upheld.

Citation
[2018] ZANWHC 87
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Doorewaard; Applicant: Phillipus Lodewyk Schutte; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2018
Case Number
CAB33/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Bail Pending Sentencing After Conviction
Outcome
Application dismissed; points in limine upheld.
Judges
Matlapeng
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Sentence, Jurisdiction of High Court, Criminal Procedure Act, Revocation of Bail
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Sentence Jurisdiction of High Court Criminal Procedure Act Revocation of 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Doorewaard

Applicant

Phillipus Lodewyk Schutte

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Bail Pending Sentencing After Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a bail application after the trial court has revoked bail post-conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court's order remanding the accused in custody constitutes a court order subject to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether a new bail application can be brought before a different court after conviction and pending sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the trial court retains the discretion to extend bail pending sentence after conviction. The order remanding the accused in custody after conviction constitutes a court order, which stands unless challenged on appeal. Section 58 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for a new bail application before a different court after conviction; it only governs the effect and extension of bail already granted. The High Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider or review the trial court's decision to revoke bail post-conviction. The application was therefore dismissed on the basis that the points in limine raised by the State were upheld.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; points in limine upheld.

Orders

  • The points in limine are upheld.
  • The application for bail pending sentence is declined.