Hewitt v S (SS91/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 173; [2016] 3 All SA 784 (GJ) (22 June 2016)

Hewitt v S (SS91/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 173; [2016] 3 All SA 784 (GJ) (22 June 2016)

The court found that the applicant, having been convicted of a Schedule 6 offence, must satisfy the requirements of section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The new evidence, consisting of emails between complainants, is relevant as it may contradict the trial court's finding that there was no collusion and could have impacted the acceptance of similar fact evidence. The urgency of the application and the applicant's compliance with previous bail conditions weighed in his favour. The court determined that the minimum threshold for an arguable case had been met and that the right to liberty and the interests of justice justified granting bail pending the outcome of the application for...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 173
Parties
Applicant: Robert Anthony John Hewitt; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2016
Case Number
SS91/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Bail Pending Direct Access to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Bail granted to the applicant pending the decision of his application for direct access to the Constitutional Court.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Exceptional Circumstances, Prospects of Success, New Evidence, Constitutional Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Exceptional Circumstances Prospects of Success New Evidence 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Anthony John Hewitt

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Bail Pending Direct Access to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending his application for direct access to the Constitutional Court.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 have been met.
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justifies reconsideration of bail and the right of access to a higher court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, having been convicted of a Schedule 6 offence, must satisfy the requirements of section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The new evidence, consisting of emails between complainants, is relevant as it may contradict the trial court's finding that there was no collusion and could have impacted the acceptance of similar fact evidence. The urgency of the application and the applicant's compliance with previous bail conditions weighed in his favour. The court determined that the minimum threshold for an arguable case had been met and that the right to liberty and the interests of justice justified granting bail pending the outcome of the application for...

Court Disposition

Bail granted to the applicant pending the decision of his application for direct access to the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted bail of R 10,000.00 pending the decision of his application for direct access to the Constitutional Court, on the same conditions as previously.
  • If the application to the Constitutional Court is refused, the applicant must hand himself over to the relevant authorities within seven days of refusal.