Rauf and Another v S (A84/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 187 (18 March 2016)

Rauf and Another v S (A84/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 187 (18 March 2016)

The court found that the State had discharged its onus by presenting credible and detailed evidence that the appellants, or someone on their behalf, contacted and intimidated witnesses in breach of bail conditions. The evidence of Mrs Meyer and Warrant Officer Van den Berg was accepted as credible and damning. The appellants did not give oral evidence and their affidavits did not sufficiently rebut the State's case. The procedural complaint regarding the provisional cancellation of bail was factually incorrect, as the appellants were afforded an opportunity to present their case. There was no material misdirection on the facts or law by the court a quo. Accordingly, there were no merits...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 187
Parties
Appellant: Rana Abdul Rauf; Appellant: Mohammad Shabbir; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Case Number
A84/16
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Bail Cancellation and Forfeiture Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
H.J Fabricius, A.A Louw, W. Hughes
Legal Topics
Bail Cancellation, Forfeiture of Bail Money, Criminal Procedure Act Section 66, Witness Intimidation
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Cancellation Forfeiture of Bail Money Criminal Procedure Act Section 66 Witness Intimidation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rana Abdul Rauf

Appellant

Mohammad Shabbir

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Bail Cancellation and Forfeiture Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants breached bail conditions by contacting and intimidating witnesses.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved its case for bail cancellation on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the procedure followed by the court a quo in cancelling bail was irregular.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State had discharged its onus by presenting credible and detailed evidence that the appellants, or someone on their behalf, contacted and intimidated witnesses in breach of bail conditions. The evidence of Mrs Meyer and Warrant Officer Van den Berg was accepted as credible and damning. The appellants did not give oral evidence and their affidavits did not sufficiently rebut the State's case. The procedural complaint regarding the provisional cancellation of bail was factually incorrect, as the appellants were afforded an opportunity to present their case. There was no material misdirection on the facts or law by the court a quo. Accordingly, there were no merits...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order cancelling bail and forfeiting the bail money to the State is confirmed.