S v Faye (A122/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 211; 2009 (2) SACR 210 (Tk) (24 December 2008)

S v Faye (A122/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 211; 2009 (2) SACR 210 (Tk) (24 December 2008)

The appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence presented did not meet the threshold for release on bail for a schedule 6 offence. The magistrate's decision was not shown to be wrong, and the appeal court is not entitled to interfere unless the lower court's decision is demonstrably incorrect. The appellant's assets did not provide sufficient assurance that the interests of justice would not be compromised, and the investigating officer's evidence of flight risk was not effectively challenged. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 211
Parties
Appellant: Lizo Faye; Respondent: The State
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 December 2008
Case Number
A122/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
X M Petse
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Schedule 6 Offence, Onus of Proof, Personal Liberty
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Schedule 6 Offence Onus of Proof Personal Liberty

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lizo Faye

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail for a schedule 6 offence.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate in the court a quo erred in refusing bail.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is a flight risk or likely to interfere with witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence presented did not meet the threshold for release on bail for a schedule 6 offence. The magistrate's decision was not shown to be wrong, and the appeal court is not entitled to interfere unless the lower court's decision is demonstrably incorrect. The appellant's assets did not provide sufficient assurance that the interests of justice would not be compromised, and the investigating officer's evidence of flight risk was not effectively challenged. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The Registrar is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment to the Station Commissioner Tabankulu for investigation of the appellant's allegation of assault in police custody as a matter of priority.