Nando v S (A39/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 108 (8 May 2020)

Nando v S (A39/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 108 (8 May 2020)

The appellant failed to discharge the onus required for bail in a Schedule 5 offence. His affidavit lacked material facts supporting his assertions, and he did not adequately address pending charges, prior convictions, or provide a convincing account of his circumstances. The risks of flight and public endangerment were not sufficiently rebutted. The magistrate's decision was properly reasoned and in line with constitutional and statutory requirements. The appeal court found no misdirection or error in the lower court's exercise of discretion and concluded that the interests of justice do not permit the appellant's release on bail.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 108
Parties
Appellant: Nando, Macovela; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2020
Case Number
A39/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
de Villiers AJ
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Schedule 5 Offence, Interests of Justice, Onus of Proof, Constitutional Rights, Judicial Discretion
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Schedule 5 Offence Interests of Justice Onus of Proof Constitutional Rights Judicial Discretion

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

Parties

Nando, Macovela

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant satisfied the onus to show that the interests of justice permit his release on bail for a Schedule 5 offence.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's refusal to grant bail was wrong and should be set aside on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's constitutional rights and personal circumstances outweigh the risks identified by the State.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the onus required for bail in a Schedule 5 offence. His affidavit lacked material facts supporting his assertions, and he did not adequately address pending charges, prior convictions, or provide a convincing account of his circumstances. The risks of flight and public endangerment were not sufficiently rebutted. The magistrate's decision was properly reasoned and in line with constitutional and statutory requirements. The appeal court found no misdirection or error in the lower court's exercise of discretion and concluded that the interests of justice do not permit the appellant's release on bail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.