Lukwe and Another v S (CA&R64/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 41 (5 June 2014)

Lukwe and Another v S (CA&R64/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 41 (5 June 2014)

The court found that the alleged new facts, including the appellants' health, business suffering, and the strength or weakness of the State's case, had already been raised and considered in previous bail applications. The fact that more witnesses had testified did not materially alter the position, as the nature of their evidence was known beforehand and the key State witness had not yet testified. The court held that the evidence of an accomplice must be viewed with caution but is not inherently unreliable. The appellants failed to show that the State's case was so weak that acquittal was probable. The cumulative effect of the alleged new facts did not amount to exceptional circumstances...

Citation
[2014] ZAECGHC 41
Parties
Appellant: Thandile Lukwe; Appellant: Andile Lawrence Vana; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2014
Case Number
CA&R64/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Regional Magistrate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Onus of Proof, Accomplice Evidence, Alibi Defence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Onus of Proof Accomplice Evidence 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thandile Lukwe

Appellant

Andile Lawrence Vana

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Regional Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have shown exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged new facts amount to exceptional circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the strength or weakness of the State's case constitutes exceptional circumstances for bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the alleged new facts, including the appellants' health, business suffering, and the strength or weakness of the State's case, had already been raised and considered in previous bail applications. The fact that more witnesses had testified did not materially alter the position, as the nature of their evidence was known beforehand and the key State witness had not yet testified. The court held that the evidence of an accomplice must be viewed with caution but is not inherently unreliable. The appellants failed to show that the State's case was so weak that acquittal was probable. The cumulative effect of the alleged new facts did not amount to exceptional circumstances...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.