Leshilo v S (A 168/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 527 (19 March 2013)

Leshilo v S (A 168/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 527 (19 March 2013)

The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail for a Schedule 6 offence. His alibi was unsupported by witnesses or objective evidence, and his explanations regarding the cellular phone were vague and uncorroborated. The remainder of his personal circumstances were not unusual or exceptional. The magistrate did not exercise her discretion wrongly in refusing bail, and there was no basis for interference by the appeal court.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 527
Parties
Appellant: S S N Leshilo; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2013
Case Number
A168/13
Procedural Posture
Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Magistrate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
A B Rossouw
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Armed Robbery, Onus of Proof, Alibi Defence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Armed Robbery Onus of Proof Alibi Defence

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S S N Leshilo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail for a Schedule 6 offence.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate exercised her discretion wrongly in refusing bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail for a Schedule 6 offence. His alibi was unsupported by witnesses or objective evidence, and his explanations regarding the cellular phone were vague and uncorroborated. The remainder of his personal circumstances were not unusual or exceptional. The magistrate did not exercise her discretion wrongly in refusing bail, and there was no basis for interference by the appeal court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.