Rune v S (A165/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 117 (29 April 2021)

Rune v S (A165/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 117 (29 April 2021)

The court found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail. The permanent stay of prosecution on certain counts was acknowledged as a new fact, but when considered with all the evidence, it did not tilt the scale in favour of bail. The court held that the new facts presented were not sufficiently different from those previously raised and amounted to a reshuffling of old evidence. The risk of interference with witnesses remained, and the charges relating to key witnesses were undisturbed. The interests of justice did not permit the appellant's release, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 117
Parties
Appellant: General Ronnie Rune; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Case Number
A165/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Bail Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
Mhlambi, Parks, Boonzaier
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Permanent Stay of Prosecution, Interests of Justice, Witness Interference
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Permanent Stay of Prosecution Interests of Justice Witness Interference

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Ronnie Rune

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail.
  2. 2 Whether new facts presented in the bail application were sufficiently different from previous applications.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice permit the release of the appellant on bail given the nature of the charges and risk of interference with witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail. The permanent stay of prosecution on certain counts was acknowledged as a new fact, but when considered with all the evidence, it did not tilt the scale in favour of bail. The court held that the new facts presented were not sufficiently different from those previously raised and amounted to a reshuffling of old evidence. The risk of interference with witnesses remained, and the charges relating to key witnesses were undisturbed. The interests of justice did not permit the appellant's release, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.