About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAECPEHC 48
|
|
Ranana v S (CA&R15/2017) [2017] ZAECPEHC 48 (10 October 2017)
Links to summary
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN
CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH)
Case
No: CA & R 15/2017
In
the matter
between:
NANDIPHA
RANANA
Appellant
And
THE
STATE
Respondent
Coram:
Chetty J
Heard:
6 October 2017
Delivered:
10 October 2017
JUDGMENT
Chetty
J:
[1]
On 4 August 2017, the appellant, a 36 year old occupational
therapist, appeared before the Specialised Commercial Crimes Division
of the Regional Court, in Port Elizabeth at an enquiry held pursuant
to the provisions of s 68 of the
Criminal
Procedure Act
[1]
(the Act) to determine whether her bail, to which she had been
admitted in respect of a charge pending before that court, should
be
cancelled. The question whether she appeared at the hearing of her
own volition or under a warrant is of no consequence whatever.
The
issue of a warrant contemplated by s 68(1) is to secure the presence
of an accused before the court to enable the envisaged
enquiry to be
conducted. The informal nature of the proceedings before the court
a
quo
appears to have been acquiesced in by the parties and on the strength
of an affidavit handed in, albeit with the consent of the
appellant’s
attorney, that the appellant had committed an offence in Johannesburg
whilst on bail, the magistrate revoked
the appellant’s bail and
ordered that she remain in custody. The gravamen of the appeal
against that order is that the magistrate
misdirected himself in
concluding that the interests of justice impelled the grant of the
order sought.
[2]
The ratio of the judgment is expresses thus: -
“
I
am in agreement with the State that the criminal conduct . . .
(indistinct) or the alleged criminal conduct subsequent to her
being
granted and released on bail in the present case is indeed worrying
and I deem it in the interest of justice to revoke and
cancel the
bail as set on the previous occasion.”
The reasoning underlying
the finding appears to be informed by the magistrate’s
perturbation that, given the appellant’s
alleged subsequent
commission of another offence, she had the propensity to commit
crime. I have grave difficulty in comprehending
his
raison
d’étre
.
The mere fact that the appellant may have committed the offence in
question does not
per
se
warrant the inference that she had the penchant to commit further
crimes. The evidence adduced by the state in support of the
application was in my view wholly insufficient to justify the
conclusion reached that the interests of justice warranted the
cancellation
of the appellant’s bail.
[3]
In the result the following order will issue: -
The
magistrate’s order granted on 4 August 2017 cancelling the
appellant’s bail is set aside and the bail to which she
had
been previously admitted, is reinstated.
________________________
D.
CHETTY
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Obo
the Appellant:
Mr P. Daubermann
Wayne
Mac Gear, 697 Govan Mbeki Avenue, North End, Port Elizabeth
Tel:
(041) 487 2783
Obo
the Respondent:
Adv L. Pillay-Selahle
NDPP, Uitenhage Road,
Port Elizabeth
Tel: (012) 842 1488
[1]
Act No, 51 of 1977