S v Pietersen and Others [2004] ZAFSHC 96 (27 October 2004)

S v Pietersen and Others [2004] ZAFSHC 96 (27 October 2004)

The court held that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence presented regarding health conditions was unsubstantiated and did not demonstrate that adequate treatment could not be provided in custody. Stable employment and residence are prerequisites for bail, not exceptional circumstances. The cumulative effect of the factors advanced by the appellants did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The absence of state evidence at the bail hearing did not relieve the appellants of their statutory burden. The magistrate did not err in refusing bail, and there was no basis for...

Citation
[2004] ZAFSHC 96
Parties
Appellant: Edward Pietersen; Appellant: Moabi M S Tsunke; Appellant: Sebetsong Molefi; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2004
Case Number
A263/2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
The appeal by all three appellants is dismissed.
Judges
Malherbe RP, Kruger R
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Onus of Proof, Exceptional Circumstances, Criminal Procedure Act, Appellate Review
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Onus of Proof Exceptional Circumstances Criminal Procedure Act Appellate Review

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Pietersen

Appellant

Moabi M S Tsunke

Appellant

Sebetsong Molefi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants discharged the onus of proving exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under section 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of state evidence at the bail hearing affected the fairness of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence presented regarding health conditions was unsubstantiated and did not demonstrate that adequate treatment could not be provided in custody. Stable employment and residence are prerequisites for bail, not exceptional circumstances. The cumulative effect of the factors advanced by the appellants did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The absence of state evidence at the bail hearing did not relieve the appellants of their statutory burden. The magistrate did not err in refusing bail, and there was no basis for...

Court Disposition

The appeal by all three appellants is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of all three appellants against the refusal of bail is dismissed.
  • The order of the magistrate refusing bail stands.