Prinsloo v S (613/2013) [2013] ZASCA 178 (29 November 2013)

Prinsloo v S (613/2013) [2013] ZASCA 178 (29 November 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in finding itself functus officio and refusing to entertain a further bail application based on new facts. Section 65(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act expressly requires that new facts be placed before the judicial officer whose decision is appealed, and only after a decision on those facts may an appeal be brought. The trial court's refusal deprived the appellant of the opportunity to have new facts considered, placing him in an untenable position and effectively preventing him from seeking bail pending appeal. The procedure adopted by the trial court, making an order in chambers without properly entertaining the application,...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 178
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus Michael Prinsloo; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2013
Case Number
613/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Against Refusal to Entertain Further Bail Application Based on New Facts.
Outcome
Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside; matter referred back for hearing of bail application.
Judges
Lewis, Theron, Majiedt
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Functus Officio, New Facts in Bail Application, Criminal Procedure Act Section 65, Judicial Propriety
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Functus Officio New Facts in Bail Application Criminal Procedure Act Section 65 Judicial Propriety

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Michael Prinsloo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Against Refusal to Entertain Further Bail Application Based on New Facts.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court was functus officio and thus unable to entertain a further bail application based on new facts.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to have new facts considered in a subsequent bail application pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the procedure adopted by the trial court in chambers was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in finding itself functus officio and refusing to entertain a further bail application based on new facts. Section 65(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act expressly requires that new facts be placed before the judicial officer whose decision is appealed, and only after a decision on those facts may an appeal be brought. The trial court's refusal deprived the appellant of the opportunity to have new facts considered, placing him in an untenable position and effectively preventing him from seeking bail pending appeal. The procedure adopted by the trial court, making an order in chambers without properly entertaining the application,...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside; matter referred back for hearing of bail application.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the trial court that it was functus officio when a fresh bail application was brought before it is set aside.