Mothapo and Another v S (A226/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 304 (6 May 2021)

Mothapo and Another v S (A226/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 304 (6 May 2021)

The court held that the offences charged fell within Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, placing the onus on the appellants to prove exceptional circumstances justifying bail. The Magistrate had correctly assessed the evidence and exercised her discretion in refusing bail, as no new facts or evidence demonstrated exceptional circumstances. The appeal court found no misdirection or error in the lower court's decision and concluded that the appellants failed to discharge the onus required by law. The right to freedom must be balanced against the interests of justice, and in this case, the interests of justice did not permit release on bail.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 304
Parties
Appellant: Thabiso Mothapo; Appellant: Lucus Mofokeng; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2021
Case Number
A226/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail on New Facts
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order refusing bail confirmed.
Judges
Mokose
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Onus of Proof, Schedule 6 Offences, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Onus of Proof Schedule 6 Offences Appeal Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabiso Mothapo

Appellant

Lucus Mofokeng

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail on New Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under Schedule 6 offences.
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate erred in refusing bail on new facts.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo exercised its discretion incorrectly in denying bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the offences charged fell within Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, placing the onus on the appellants to prove exceptional circumstances justifying bail. The Magistrate had correctly assessed the evidence and exercised her discretion in refusing bail, as no new facts or evidence demonstrated exceptional circumstances. The appeal court found no misdirection or error in the lower court's decision and concluded that the appellants failed to discharge the onus required by law. The right to freedom must be balanced against the interests of justice, and in this case, the interests of justice did not permit release on bail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order refusing bail confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against the order of the court a quo refusing to admit the appellants to bail is dismissed.