S v Pashake and Another [2007] ZAFSHC 3 (22 January 2007)

S v Pashake and Another [2007] ZAFSHC 3 (22 January 2007)

The court found that the offences are serious and carry heavy sentences, which incentivize the appellants to evade trial. The first appellant possessed two passports and had travelled frequently, making it easy to leave the country. The explanations regarding the passports were unsatisfactory. The second appellant, though without a passport, had a history of illegal immigration and escape attempts, and could easily cross borders. Both appellants failed to convince the court that their release would serve the interests of justice. The magistrate's refusal of bail was justified and not shown to be incorrect. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 3
Parties
Appellant: Fanyane Ephraim Pashake; Appellant: Amos Machabela; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2007
Case Number
233/2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
The appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.
Judges
Malherbe RP, Van der Merwe R
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Flight Risk, Schedule 5 Offences, Criminal Gang Activity, Condonation of Late Filing
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Flight Risk Schedule 5 Offences Criminal Gang Activity Condonation of Late Filing

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

Parties

Fanyane Ephraim Pashake

Appellant

Amos Machabela

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have discharged the onus under section 60(11)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act to justify release on bail.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's refusal of bail was incorrect under section 65(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the personal circumstances of the appellants outweigh the interests of justice in denying bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the offences are serious and carry heavy sentences, which incentivize the appellants to evade trial. The first appellant possessed two passports and had travelled frequently, making it easy to leave the country. The explanations regarding the passports were unsatisfactory. The second appellant, though without a passport, had a history of illegal immigration and escape attempts, and could easily cross borders. Both appellants failed to convince the court that their release would serve the interests of justice. The magistrate's refusal of bail was justified and not shown to be incorrect. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of both appellants is dismissed.
  • The refusal of bail by the magistrate is confirmed.