S v Savoi, In re: Savoi (1306/2011) [2011] ZANCHC 23 (7 October 2011)

S v Savoi, In re: Savoi (1306/2011) [2011] ZANCHC 23 (7 October 2011)

The court found that although the applicant had established changed circumstances due to the unreasonable conduct of the authorities in refusing permission to travel, the proposed amendment to the bail conditions would result in conflicting orders across different jurisdictions. This would render the bail conditions unenforceable and defeat the purpose of bail, which is to ensure the applicant stands trial and is subject to proper monitoring. The court held that it cannot grant an order that is not practically feasible or enforceable, and therefore dismissed the application for amendment of bail conditions.

Citation
[2011] ZANCHC 23
Parties
Applicant: Gaston Savoi; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 October 2011
Case Number
1306/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Amendment of Bail Conditions Under Section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Hughes-Madondo
Legal Topics
Bail Conditions, Changed Circumstances, Enforceability of Court Orders, Jurisdictional Conflict
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Conditions Changed Circumstances Enforceability of Court Orders Jurisdictional Conflict

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaston Savoi

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Application for Amendment of Bail Conditions Under Section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated changed circumstances justifying amendment of bail conditions.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment to bail conditions is practically feasible and enforceable given conflicting orders in different jurisdictions.
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant an order that cannot be effectively enforced.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant had established changed circumstances due to the unreasonable conduct of the authorities in refusing permission to travel, the proposed amendment to the bail conditions would result in conflicting orders across different jurisdictions. This would render the bail conditions unenforceable and defeat the purpose of bail, which is to ensure the applicant stands trial and is subject to proper monitoring. The court held that it cannot grant an order that is not practically feasible or enforceable, and therefore dismissed the application for amendment of bail conditions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for amendment of bail conditions is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.