S v Scholz (B 361 of 2017; HH 234 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 234 (6 April 2017)

S v Scholz (B 361 of 2017; HH 234 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 234 (6 April 2017)

Bail pending appeal was refused because the appeal was unlikely to succeed, the sentence was within the discretion of the trial court and lenient compared to the statutory maximum, and the applicant was likely to abscond due to lack of ties to Zimbabwe, expired visa, and inducement from prison hardship.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 234
Parties
Applicant: Denis Scholz; Respondent: The State
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
6 April 2017
Case Number
B 361 of 2017 ; HH 234 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Bail Pending Appeal
Outcome
Bail pending appeal refused
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Sentencing, Drug Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail Pending Appeal Sentencing Drug Offences

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis Scholz

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Bail Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bail pending appeal should be granted to an applicant convicted of unlawful possession of cocaine
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the quantum of cocaine involved
  3. 3 Whether applicant's status as a foreigner should affect bail determination

Ratio Decidendi

Bail pending appeal was refused because the appeal was unlikely to succeed, the sentence was within the discretion of the trial court and lenient compared to the statutory maximum, and the applicant was likely to abscond due to lack of ties to Zimbabwe, expired visa, and inducement from prison hardship.

Court Disposition

Bail pending appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for bail pending appeal is dismissed