Molokomme v S (A866/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 831 (3 February 2017)

Molokomme v S (A866/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 831 (3 February 2017)

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail. The regional court correctly considered the risk of flight, the strength of the State's case, and the likelihood of interference with witnesses or destruction of evidence. The appellant's personal circumstances and affidavit evidence did not outweigh the oral evidence presented by the State. The allegations of assault and duress regarding the confession and pointings-out were not substantiated or made at the relevant time. The court held that the regional magistrate exercised discretion properly and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 831
Parties
Appellant: Thapelo Raymond Molokomme; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Case Number
A866/16
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused for the appellant.
Judges
T M Makgoka
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Interests of Justice, Onus of Proof, Flight Risk, Witness Interference
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Interests of Justice Onus of Proof Flight Risk Witness Interference

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thapelo Raymond Molokomme

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the regional court correctly assessed the risk of flight, interference with witnesses, and destruction of evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the strength of the State's case and the appellant's personal circumstances warranted bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail. The regional court correctly considered the risk of flight, the strength of the State's case, and the likelihood of interference with witnesses or destruction of evidence. The appellant's personal circumstances and affidavit evidence did not outweigh the oral evidence presented by the State. The allegations of assault and duress regarding the confession and pointings-out were not substantiated or made at the relevant time. The court held that the regional magistrate exercised discretion properly and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused for the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions (Gauteng, Pretoria) is directed to investigate the full circumstances under which accused 1 (Ms Bonolo Lekalakala) was granted bail on 10 August 2016, and report in writing to the Judge President of this Division on or before 3 March 2017.