Landela and Another v The State (A04/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 930 (30 November 2017)

Landela and Another v The State (A04/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 930 (30 November 2017)

The court found that the prosecution failed to properly allege or prove that the accused were charged with a Schedule 5 offence, as the charge sheet did not specify the value of the rhino horn or the existence of a criminal grouping or conspiracy. The absence of the statutory certificate further undermined the state's position. The court a quo erred in requiring the accused to discharge the Schedule 5 onus and in refusing bail on that basis. The evidence presented by the accused established that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail, subject to stringent conditions to address concerns about flight risk and interference with witnesses. The presumption of innocence and the object...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 930
Parties
Appellant: Rodney Kenneth Landela; Appellant: Tshifambano Kenneth Muchocho; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Case Number
A04/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal upheld; refusal of bail set aside; bail granted to both appellants subject to specified conditions.
Judges
Legodi
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Schedule 5 Offence, National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, Theft, Presumption of Innocence
Criminal Law Environmental Law Bail Application Schedule 5 Offence National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act Theft Presumption of Innocence

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Kenneth Landela

Appellant

Tshifambano Kenneth Muchocho

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were correctly found to be charged with a Schedule 5 offence for purposes of bail.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of bail by the court a quo was justified in law and on the facts.
  3. 3 Whether the accused should be released on bail pending trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prosecution failed to properly allege or prove that the accused were charged with a Schedule 5 offence, as the charge sheet did not specify the value of the rhino horn or the existence of a criminal grouping or conspiracy. The absence of the statutory certificate further undermined the state's position. The court a quo erred in requiring the accused to discharge the Schedule 5 onus and in refusing bail on that basis. The evidence presented by the accused established that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail, subject to stringent conditions to address concerns about flight risk and interference with witnesses. The presumption of innocence and the object...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; refusal of bail set aside; bail granted to both appellants subject to specified conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of release on bail is upheld.
  • The refusal of bail is set aside and substituted with an order granting bail to both accused.