Faas v S (153/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 23 (29 April 2008)

Faas v S (153/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 23 (29 April 2008)

The court found that both bail applications pertained to the charge of conspiracy to murder, which is a Schedule 1 offence. The Magistrate's reasoning was criticized for procedural irregularities and lack of clarity regarding the applicable schedule. However, the evidence established that there was a plan to kill a key witness and threats of violence against the appellant. The grounds for refusing bail under Section 60(4)(a), (c), and (d) of the Criminal Procedure Act were satisfied, and the interests of justice did not permit the appellant's release. Despite the Magistrate's flawed reasoning, the decision to refuse bail was not wrong and was upheld on appeal.

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 23
Parties
Appellant: Brendan Faas; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2008
Case Number
153/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; refusal of bail upheld.
Judges
Meer
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Conspiracy to Murder, Exceptional Circumstances, Schedule 6 Offence, Witness Intimidation
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Conspiracy to Murder Exceptional Circumstances Schedule 6 Offence Witness Intimidation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Faas

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellant on the charge of conspiracy to murder.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances existed justifying the appellant's release on bail.
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding bail for Schedule 1 and Schedule 6 offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both bail applications pertained to the charge of conspiracy to murder, which is a Schedule 1 offence. The Magistrate's reasoning was criticized for procedural irregularities and lack of clarity regarding the applicable schedule. However, the evidence established that there was a plan to kill a key witness and threats of violence against the appellant. The grounds for refusing bail under Section 60(4)(a), (c), and (d) of the Criminal Procedure Act were satisfied, and the interests of justice did not permit the appellant's release. Despite the Magistrate's flawed reasoning, the decision to refuse bail was not wrong and was upheld on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; refusal of bail upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall remain in custody pending trial.