Radieta v S (A102/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 291 (24 October 2022)

Radieta v S (A102/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 291 (24 October 2022)

The court found that the appellant failed to disclose his previous convictions for robbery and murder, which are serious offences, and was dishonest in his affidavit and oral statements to the court. He was on bail for another robbery at the time of the current offence and was apprehended with stolen money and an unlicensed firearm. The appellant did not testify but relied on an untested affidavit. The withdrawal of the Ermelo case did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The court held that the appellant is a flight risk and a danger to society, and that releasing him on bail would undermine the interests of justice. The Magistrate's Court's refusal to grant bail was not wrong and...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 291
Parties
Appellant: Tebogo Mahleke Radieta; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Case Number
A102/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
Opperman, J
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Schedule 6 Offence, Exceptional Circumstances, Previous Convictions, Flight Risk
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Schedule 6 Offence Exceptional Circumstances Previous Convictions Flight Risk

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tebogo Mahleke Radieta

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate's Court erred in refusing bail to the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's failure to disclose previous convictions affects his eligibility for bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to disclose his previous convictions for robbery and murder, which are serious offences, and was dishonest in his affidavit and oral statements to the court. He was on bail for another robbery at the time of the current offence and was apprehended with stolen money and an unlicensed firearm. The appellant did not testify but relied on an untested affidavit. The withdrawal of the Ermelo case did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The court held that the appellant is a flight risk and a danger to society, and that releasing him on bail would undermine the interests of justice. The Magistrate's Court's refusal to grant bail was not wrong and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.