Rohde v S (1007/2019) [2019] ZASCA 193; 2020 (1) SACR 329 (SCA) (18 December 2019)

Rohde v S (1007/2019) [2019] ZASCA 193; 2020 (1) SACR 329 (SCA) (18 December 2019)

The majority (Nicholls JA) held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of showing that it is in the interests of justice to be released on bail pending appeal. The court found that the seriousness of the offence, the lengthy sentence, and the appellant's international ties and financial means created a real risk of abscondment. The fact that the appellant holds expired passports from three countries and has a history of international mobility, combined with the porous nature of South Africa's borders, weighed against granting bail. The court also found that the appellant's financial and family ties in South Africa were not sufficiently strong to mitigate the risk. The majority...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 193
Parties
Appellant: Jason Thomas Rohde; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Case Number
1007/2019
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal
Outcome
The appeal against refusal of bail pending appeal is dismissed by the majority. The minority would have granted bail subject to conditions.
Judges
Maya, Van Der Merwe, Nicholls
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Flight Risk, Interests of Justice, Criminal Procedure Act, Prospects of Success
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Flight Risk Interests of Justice Criminal Procedure Act Prospects of Success

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

Parties

Jason Thomas Rohde

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has discharged the onus to show that it is in the interests of justice to be released on bail pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is a flight risk given his international ties and financial means.
  3. 3 Whether the grant of leave to appeal implies reasonable prospects of success sufficient to justify bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Nicholls JA) held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of showing that it is in the interests of justice to be released on bail pending appeal. The court found that the seriousness of the offence, the lengthy sentence, and the appellant's international ties and financial means created a real risk of abscondment. The fact that the appellant holds expired passports from three countries and has a history of international mobility, combined with the porous nature of South Africa's borders, weighed against granting bail. The court also found that the appellant's financial and family ties in South Africa were not sufficiently strong to mitigate the risk. The majority...

Court Disposition

The appeal against refusal of bail pending appeal is dismissed by the majority. The minority would have granted bail subject to conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the court a quo refusing bail is confirmed.