Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Pillay v S (10802/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 70; 2025 (2) SACR 110 (KZD) (16 October 2024)
High Court dismissed a bail appeal, holding that a protection order under section 60(12)(b) of the CPA is separate from bail conditions and not appealable under section 65.
Tsao v DPP Johannesburg (2024/052869) [2024] ZAGPJHC 567 (20 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application to relax bail conditions so the applicant could travel to Taiwan for his father’s funeral, finding the flight-risk concerns outweighed sympathy.
Lifman v Director of Public Prosecution Western Cape - Bail Appeal (CC35/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 302; 2024 (1) SACR 188 (WCC) (27 November 2023)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that amending his bail conditions to allow the return of his passport would be in the interests of justice. The seriousness of the charges, including murder and organised crime, and the potential sentence of life imprisonment, create a substantial risk of absconding if the applicant is permitted to travel internationally. The applicant's assertion that he would not abscond is insufficient, especially given the existence of another accused in Turkey whom the State has been unable to extradite. The court no…
Source excerpt
Patel v S (CC209/2015) [2023] ZALMPPHC 44 (4 July 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to relax bail conditions and to recall a witness in an ongoing murder trial, finding no basis in justice or evidence.
Ntsasa v S (A61/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 218 (29 May 2023)
The appeal succeeded because the State failed to discharge its onus on a balance of probabilities to justify cancellation of bail under section 68 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence presented regarding alleged threats was hearsay, and the State did not call the relevant witness or submit her affidavit. The appellant consistently maintained he did not know who the witnesses were, and the State failed to prove otherwise. The presiding magistrate's conduct during questioning was irregular and prejudicial, as she descended into the arena and cross-examined the appellant, using evidence o…
Source excerpt
Korver v S (A188/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 248; 2022 (1) SACR 298 (WCC) (3 December 2021)
The court found that there was no material change in circumstances since the original bail conditions were imposed. The appellant's compliance with bail conditions, delays in trial, and personal circumstances such as his parents' health and the Covid-19 pandemic did not justify relaxing the travel restrictions. The bail conditions were originally set by agreement and reflected a considered assessment of the appellant as a flight risk, given his foreign citizenship, overseas banking connections, and the nature of the alleged offences. The court distinguished the appellant's situation from case…
Source excerpt
Lifman v S (CC35/21) [2021] ZAWCHC 238; 2022 (1) SACR 241 (WCC) (19 November 2021)
The High Court dismissed an application to amend bail conditions so the accused could travel and work in Turkey, finding the request not in the interest of justice.
Sibeko v S (BA17/ 2020) [2020] ZAMPMHC 13 (30 May 2020)
The High Court upheld Dinky Freemen Sibeko’s bail appeal, set aside the magistrate’s refusal, and granted bail subject to conditions.
Mahlatsi and Others v S (A111/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 177 (28 May 2020)
High Court appeal against refusal of bail in a Schedule 5 matter was upheld, with bail granted subject to strict conditions protecting complainants and witnesses.
Mpongoshe v S (CA&R211/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 104 (9 September 2019)
The court found that the appellant was not properly informed of his right to legal representation and legal aid after his attorney withdrew, particularly given the seriousness of the charges and his lack of funds. The trial court failed to ensure that the appellant understood his rights and the consequences of conducting his own defence. Although the magistrate provided some assistance during the trial, the appellant's lack of understanding of key legal concepts and his inability to adequately represent himself resulted in substantial injustice. The irregularity in failing to promote the oppo…
Source excerpt
Explore more
