Rune v S (82/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 175 (16 October 2020)

Rune v S (82/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 175 (16 October 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to present any genuinely new facts that would justify reconsideration of bail. The alleged weakening of the state's case was based on the applicant's perception of witness quality, not on any witness contradicting the state's allegations. All witnesses who testified continued to incriminate the applicant as alleged. The addition of further charges increased the severity of potential sentence and the risk of absconding, rather than supporting bail. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be ameliorated by the easing of restrictions and reopening of borders. The applicant's personal circumstances had already been considered in previous...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 175
Parties
Applicant: General Ronnie Rune; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 October 2020
Case Number
82/2019
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Application for Bail on New Facts After Previous Refusals and Commencement of Trial
Outcome
Application for bail on new facts dismissed.
Judges
C Nekosie
Legal Topics
Bail on New Facts, Exceptional Circumstances, Schedule 6 Offences, Witness Interference, Covid19 Impact on Proceedings
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail on New Facts Exceptional Circumstances Schedule 6 Offences Witness Interference Covid19 Impact on Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Ronnie Rune

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Application for Bail on New Facts After Previous Refusals and Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has presented new facts justifying reconsideration of bail.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged weakening of the state's case constitutes a new fact.
  3. 3 Whether the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and additional charges amount to new facts relevant to bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to present any genuinely new facts that would justify reconsideration of bail. The alleged weakening of the state's case was based on the applicant's perception of witness quality, not on any witness contradicting the state's allegations. All witnesses who testified continued to incriminate the applicant as alleged. The addition of further charges increased the severity of potential sentence and the risk of absconding, rather than supporting bail. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be ameliorated by the easing of restrictions and reopening of borders. The applicant's personal circumstances had already been considered in previous...

Court Disposition

Application for bail on new facts dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.