Rudman v S (CA&R103/2013) [2017] ZAECGHC 79 (6 July 2017)

Rudman v S (CA&R103/2013) [2017] ZAECGHC 79 (6 July 2017)

The court held that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would find the further evidence regarding the applicant's conduct post-sentencing to be relevant or admissible for the purposes of an appeal against sentence. Furthermore, the application for leave to appeal is procedurally defective as it does not include a prayer for special leave to the Supreme Court of Appeal, as required by Section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act. Consequently, the application for extension of bail pending the outcome of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 79
Parties
Applicant: Royden Rudman; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2017
Case Number
CA&R103/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Extension of Bail Pending Petition to Supreme Court of Appeal for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of bail pending petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Judges
NG Beshe
Legal Topics
Bail Extension, Leave to Appeal, Admissibility of Evidence, Superior Courts Act
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Extension Leave to Appeal Admissibility of Evidence Superior Courts Act

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royden Rudman

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Extension of Bail Pending Petition to Supreme Court of Appeal for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of bail pending a petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether further evidence relating to the applicant's conduct post-sentencing is admissible in an appeal against sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal is procedurally valid without a prayer for special leave to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would find the further evidence regarding the applicant's conduct post-sentencing to be relevant or admissible for the purposes of an appeal against sentence. Furthermore, the application for leave to appeal is procedurally defective as it does not include a prayer for special leave to the Supreme Court of Appeal, as required by Section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act. Consequently, the application for extension of bail pending the outcome of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of bail pending petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for extension of bail pending the outcome of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal is dismissed.