About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAWCHC 536
|
|
Matsika v S (A662/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 536 (9 November 2010)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN
CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE
NUMBER
:
A662/2010
DATE
:
9
NOVEMBER 2010
In
the matter between:
MAWETHU
MATSIKA
….................................................................
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
…..............................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
VELDHUIZEN,
J
:
The
appellant is charged with the crime of robbery with aggravating
circumstances. He applied for bail and the magistrate refused
his
application.
It
is the magistrate's refusal of his application for bail, which the
appellant now appeals to this court. It is true that it appears
that
the robbery that was committed was an organised one of a cargo truck
containing a consignment of cigarettes.
The
investigating officer also testified that crimes of this nature are
on the increase. Those two considerations also appear from
the
magistrate's reasons to have formed the basis on which the
appellant's application for bail was denied.
The
appellant was, at the time of his bail application, 27 years old. He
had a fixed address. He was single and had no dependants.
It is
important that he has no previous convictions and except for the
charge of robbery, which he faced, he had no other pending
criminal
cases. In my view, a court must be very careful to refuse bail simply
to satisfy public opinion. The public interest does
play a role when
a court is considering bail, but to refuse bail to satisfy public
opinion, is not a proper approach. A court must
also be careful not
to refuse bail so that it could serve as punishment in anticipation
that a conviction may follow.
According
to the investigating officer, the appellant had made a statement.
What exactly the contents of that statement are, is
not clear to me.
It is not clear to me on the evidence that there is a particularly
strong case against the appellant. Be that
as it may, none of the
usual grounds on which bail is refused, namely the likelihood that an
accused will not stand his trial,
the likelihood that he will
interfere with witnesses or the likelihood that he will, if admitted
to bail, commit further crimes,
appear to have been present in this
particular case.
When
the investigating officer was asked to state his grounds for opposing
bail, he testified:
"Your
Worship, hijacking has become problematic in the Western Cape as a
whole. It becomes, your Worship, out of hand, where
each and every
second day there is a hijacking being reported. Your Worship, the
curb that we (sic) the only thing is to send a
message, even to those
who still think that the crime does pay, that the crime does not pay
by putting all the perpetrators, your
Worship, in the place where
they belong."
This,
as I have mentioned earlier, is a wrong approach to the question
whether bail should be granted or not. In my view the interests
of
justice will not be prejudicially affected should the appellant be
admitted to bail.
In
the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the magistrate
was wrong. The appeal is, therefore, upheld, the magistrate's
order
is set aside and I make the following order.
THE
APPELLANT IS ADMITTED TO BAIL IN AN AMOUNT OF R2 000,00
on
condition that he appears on the next day in the court to which his
case is postponed and on every day thereafter to which the
matter may
be postponed until the conclusion of the case against him.
VELDHUIZEN,
J