Goddard v S (1493/17P) [2017] ZAKZPHC 64 (27 March 2017)

Goddard v S (1493/17P) [2017] ZAKZPHC 64 (27 March 2017)

The court found that the magistrate misdirected himself by relying on unsupported allegations and failing to consider relevant information, including the appeal court's previous judgment. The State did not present substantive evidence to support the charges or demonstrate a strong case against the appellant. The risk of interference with witnesses or flight was not substantiated, and the appellant's circumstances, including loss of employment and residence details, reduced such risks. The appellant established a substantial number of factors in favour of bail, satisfying the requirement of exceptional circumstances under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Pre-trial detention...

Citation
[2017] ZAKZPHC 64
Parties
Appellant: Darren Marc Goddard; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2017
Case Number
1493/17P
Procedural Posture
Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Second Bail Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; magistrate's refusal of bail set aside; bail granted to appellant with conditions.
Judges
Mngadi
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Sexual Offences Against Children, Onus of Proof, Interference With Witnesses
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Sexual Offences Against Children Onus of Proof 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 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Marc Goddard

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Second Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate misdirected himself in refusing bail based on unsupported allegations and absence of evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the risk of interference with witnesses or flight risk was substantiated by the State.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate misdirected himself by relying on unsupported allegations and failing to consider relevant information, including the appeal court's previous judgment. The State did not present substantive evidence to support the charges or demonstrate a strong case against the appellant. The risk of interference with witnesses or flight was not substantiated, and the appellant's circumstances, including loss of employment and residence details, reduced such risks. The appellant established a substantial number of factors in favour of bail, satisfying the requirement of exceptional circumstances under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Pre-trial detention...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; magistrate's refusal of bail set aside; bail granted to appellant with conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The magistrate's decision refusing bail is set aside and replaced with an order granting bail.