S v Whitehead and Others (CA & R 2/06) [2006] ZANCHC 98 (7 July 2006)

S v Whitehead and Others (CA & R 2/06) [2006] ZANCHC 98 (7 July 2006)

The court found that the applicants do not present a flight risk and otherwise meet the standard requirements for bail. However, the determining factor is the prospects of success on appeal. The applicants were convicted on direct eyewitness evidence and failed to adduce any evidence to counter the State's strong prima facie case. The court had already dismissed their appeals and applications for further evidence. Applying the most favourable test for the applicants, the court concluded that their application for leave to appeal is manifestly doomed to failure and devoid of merit. Therefore, the interests of justice require that bail pending appeal be refused and the applicants commence...

Citation
[2006] ZANCHC 98
Parties
Applicant: Alexander George Whitehead; Applicant: Arend Christiaan De Waal; Applicant: Gerhardus Johannes Taljaard; Applicant: Louis George Rademeyer; Applicant: Willem Jacobus Petrus Jacobs; Applicant: Hans Jacob Wessels; Applicant: Ryno Adriaan Rossouw; Applicant: Ryan Albutt; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2006
Case Number
CA & R 2/06
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Application for Bail Pending Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for bail pending leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Kgomo, Majiedt
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Prospects of Success, Culpable Homicide, Public Violence, Criminal Procedure Act, Flight Risk
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Prospects of Success Culpable Homicide Public Violence Criminal Procedure Act Flight Risk

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander George Whitehead

Applicant

Arend Christiaan De Waal

Applicant

Gerhardus Johannes Taljaard

Applicant

Louis George Rademeyer

Applicant

Willem Jacobus Petrus Jacobs

Applicant

Hans Jacob Wessels

Applicant

Ryno Adriaan Rossouw

Applicant

Ryan Albutt

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Application for Bail Pending Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants present a flight risk or meet the standard requirements for bail.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success in the proposed appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants do not present a flight risk and otherwise meet the standard requirements for bail. However, the determining factor is the prospects of success on appeal. The applicants were convicted on direct eyewitness evidence and failed to adduce any evidence to counter the State's strong prima facie case. The court had already dismissed their appeals and applications for further evidence. Applying the most favourable test for the applicants, the court concluded that their application for leave to appeal is manifestly doomed to failure and devoid of merit. Therefore, the interests of justice require that bail pending appeal be refused and the applicants commence...

Court Disposition

Application for bail pending leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for extension of bail pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively for bail to be fixed by this Court, is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to report to the appropriate authorities within 7 days of delivery of this judgment to commence serving their sentences.