About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPJHC 311
|
|
Danisa and v S (A395/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 311 (11 December 2015)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: A395/2015
DATE OF HEARING: 10
DECEMBER 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11
DECEMBER 2015
In the matter between:
DANISA, QUINSELIHLE
ERIC
...................................................................................
First
Appellant
DANISA, MAPHUTHA
HENDRICK
........................................................................
Second
Appellant
And
THE
STATE
............................................................................................................................
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
AVVAKOUMIDES, AJ
[1] This is an appeal against the
decision of the magistrate sitting in the Protea Magistrates Court,
not to release the two Appellants
on bail pending their trial. The
Appellants were arrested on 7 and 8 August 2015 respectively. An
application for bail was brought
and refused and a further
application based on new facts was equally unsuccessful.
[2] The charges against the Appellants
are the following:
• Murder read with section 51 (1)
of Act 105 of 1997.
• Unlawful possession of firearms
a contravention of section 3 of Act 60 of 2000.
• Unlawful possession of firearms
a contravention of section 90 of Act 60 of 2000.
[3] It is settled law that the
Appellants have to show exceptional circumstances in order to be
released on bail and that it is
in the interests of justice that the
Appellants be released on bail. See: section 60 (11) (a) of Act 51 of
1977 and S v De Kock
1995 (1) SACR 299
(T). It is equally so that a
court sitting on appeal shall not set aside the decision against
which the appeal is brought unless
the court of appeal is satisfied
that the decision was wrong.
[4] I have had regard to the judgment
of the magistrate and can find no misdirection in his reasoning when
refusing bail. Moreover,
the so called “new facts” upon
which the second application for bail was based, were held not to
have been new facts.
I can find no exceptional circumstances which
compel me to release the Appellants on bail and in my view it would
not be in the
interest of justice to do so. The court correctly
evaluated the circumstances relating to the positive identification
of the two
Appellants by a witness, ballistic evidence and a
confession which is relied upon by the State. I am not persuaded that
it is in
the interests of justice to release the Appellants on bail.
[5] In the premises the appeal is
dismissed.
G. T. AVVAKOUMIDES
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Representation for Appellant:
Counsel: J. J. H. Huysamen
Instructed by: R. S. Madzivhandila
Attorneys
Representation for the Respondent:
Counsel: A. D. Maharaj
Instructed by: Director of Public
Prosecutions