Pataka v S (A337/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 73; 2018 (2) SACR 135 (GJ) (23 April 2018)

Pataka v S (A337/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 73; 2018 (2) SACR 135 (GJ) (23 April 2018)

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus required under section 60(11)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 to show that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail pending appeal. The appellant relied solely on affidavit evidence, which was less persuasive than viva voce evidence and could not be tested by cross-examination. There was no verification of his address or employment, and no confirmatory affidavits from his employer or family. The seriousness of the offence, the sentence imposed, and the lack of guarantees against absconding weighed against the appellant. The court found no demonstrable misdirection by the court a quo and concluded that the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 73
Parties
Appellant: Pataka Vhonani Donald; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2018
Case Number
A337/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal
Outcome
The appeal against the refusal of bail pending appeal is dismissed.
Judges
Dosio
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Murder Conviction, Interests of Justice, Onus of Proof, Schedule 5 Offence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Murder Conviction Interests of Justice Onus of Proof Schedule 5 Offence

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pataka Vhonani Donald

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant discharged the onus to show that it is in the interests of justice to grant bail pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo erred in refusing bail to the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success on appeal justify the granting of bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus required under section 60(11)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 to show that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail pending appeal. The appellant relied solely on affidavit evidence, which was less persuasive than viva voce evidence and could not be tested by cross-examination. There was no verification of his address or employment, and no confirmatory affidavits from his employer or family. The seriousness of the offence, the sentence imposed, and the lack of guarantees against absconding weighed against the appellant. The court found no demonstrable misdirection by the court a quo and concluded that the...

Court Disposition

The appeal against the refusal of bail pending appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appellant's application for bail is dismissed.