Mhlongo v S (A54/2019) [2020] ZAMPMHC 6 (20 May 2020)

Mhlongo v S (A54/2019) [2020] ZAMPMHC 6 (20 May 2020)

The magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellant. The only evidence before the court was the appellant's own testimony, which was not contradicted by admissible evidence from the State. The affidavit by the investigating officer was invalid as it was commissioned by the prosecutor, who had an interest in the matter, contrary to statutory requirements. The magistrate incorrectly relied on inadmissible evidence and made findings not supported by the record, including assumptions about the appellant's employment and likelihood of reoffending. The requirements for bail under section 60(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were met, and there was no factual basis to deny bail. The decision...

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMHC 6
Parties
Appellant: Abram Themba Mhlongo; Respondent: The State
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Case Number
A54/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; magistrate's refusal of bail set aside and substituted with an order granting bail.
Judges
Brauckmann
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Commissioner of Oaths Irregularity, Onus of Proof, Parole Revocation, Schedule 1 Offence, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Commissioner of Oaths Irregularity Onus of Proof Parole Revocation Schedule 1 Offence Admissibility of Evidence

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abram Themba Mhlongo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of bail by the magistrate was correct in law and fact.
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit by the investigating officer was admissible evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate erred in relying on inadmissible evidence and failing to consider the applicant's undisputed version.

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellant. The only evidence before the court was the appellant's own testimony, which was not contradicted by admissible evidence from the State. The affidavit by the investigating officer was invalid as it was commissioned by the prosecutor, who had an interest in the matter, contrary to statutory requirements. The magistrate incorrectly relied on inadmissible evidence and made findings not supported by the record, including assumptions about the appellant's employment and likelihood of reoffending. The requirements for bail under section 60(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were met, and there was no factual basis to deny bail. The decision...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; magistrate's refusal of bail set aside and substituted with an order granting bail.

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of release on bail is upheld.
  • The refusal of release on bail is set aside.