Pretorius v S (CC91/2003) [2011] ZAGPPHC 65 (29 April 2011)

Pretorius v S (CC91/2003) [2011] ZAGPPHC 65 (29 April 2011)

The Court found that while the lengthy duration of the trial was a new ground for bail, the applicant failed to discharge the onus required for release. The applicant presented evidence by affidavit but did not subject himself to cross-examination, which is necessary for the Court to properly assess credibility and reliability. The delay in the trial was attributed to the complexity of the case, the number of accused and witnesses, and numerous applications brought by the applicant and others. The applicant was found to be untrustworthy, and his undertaking to comply with bail conditions could not be relied upon. The interests of justice did not permit his release on bail pending judgment.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 65
Parties
Applicant: Johan Pretorius; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2011
Case Number
CC91/2003
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Application for Bail on New Facts Pending Judgment
Outcome
Application for bail pending judgment is refused.
Judges
Mabuse
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Judgment, Onus of Proof in Bail, Lengthy Trial Delay, Cross Examination in Bail, Schedule 5 Offences
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Judgment Onus of Proof in Bail Lengthy Trial Delay Cross Examination in Bail Schedule 5 Offences

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Pretorius

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Application for Bail on New Facts Pending Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established new grounds for bail pending judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the lengthy duration of the trial constitutes a new ground for bail.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's use of affidavit evidence without submitting to cross-examination satisfies the onus for bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while the lengthy duration of the trial was a new ground for bail, the applicant failed to discharge the onus required for release. The applicant presented evidence by affidavit but did not subject himself to cross-examination, which is necessary for the Court to properly assess credibility and reliability. The delay in the trial was attributed to the complexity of the case, the number of accused and witnesses, and numerous applications brought by the applicant and others. The applicant was found to be untrustworthy, and his undertaking to comply with bail conditions could not be relied upon. The interests of justice did not permit his release on bail pending judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for bail pending judgment is refused.

Orders

  • The application is refused.