Mtshemle and Another v S (CA&R137/2022) [2022] ZAECMKHC 68 (27 September 2022)

Mtshemle and Another v S (CA&R137/2022) [2022] ZAECMKHC 68 (27 September 2022)

The court found that the appellants failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying their release on bail. The evidence against them, including their arrest in a vehicle identified in the robbery and their confessions, constitutes a strong prima facie case. Their personal circumstances, such as fixed abode and lack of prior convictions, are not exceptional and do not outweigh the seriousness of the offence or the risk of evasion. The magistrate's decision was not wrong, and the interests of justice do not permit bail, especially given the imminent trial date.

Citation
[2022] ZAECMKHC 68
Parties
Appellant: Myolisi Mtshemle; Appellant: Zivelisa Howard; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2022
Case Number
CA&R137/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
Smith
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Onus of Proof, Confession Admissibility
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Onus of Proof Confession Admissibility

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myolisi Mtshemle

Appellant

Zivelisa Howard

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established exceptional circumstances justifying their release on bail.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in finding that the state has a strong prima facie case against the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the personal circumstances of the appellants amount to exceptional circumstances under s. 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying their release on bail. The evidence against them, including their arrest in a vehicle identified in the robbery and their confessions, constitutes a strong prima facie case. Their personal circumstances, such as fixed abode and lack of prior convictions, are not exceptional and do not outweigh the seriousness of the offence or the risk of evasion. The magistrate's decision was not wrong, and the interests of justice do not permit bail, especially given the imminent trial date.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The magistrate's refusal of bail is confirmed.