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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 259
|
|
S v Stafford (A07-2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 259 (11 March 2024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
: A07/2024
DATE
:
2024-02-22
1.
REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
2.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
3.
REVISED.
In
the matter between
THE
STATE
And
DRYSTAN
BRUCE STAFFORD
Accused
JUDGMENT
YACOOB,
J
: This is a bail appeal in
terms of section 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (“the
CPA”). The
accused is charged with a Schedule 6 offence
and therefore may not be released on bail unless he demonstrates to
the Court, as
required by section 60(11) of the CPA, that there are
exceptional circumstances which permit his release in the interests
of justice.
The question of the interest of the justice in
terms of section 60(4) therefore does not apply in a general way, as
the legislature
has made a decision that it is in the interest of
justice for an accused of a Schedule 6 offence to remain in
prison unless
that person demonstrates that there are exceptional
circumstances which support his release on bail. If there are
no exceptional
circumstances it is not in the interests of justice,
and if there are, it is.
In
terms of section 65(4) I do not have the power to set aside the
decision unless I am satisfied that the decision was wrong in
which
case, I must give the decision the lower Court should have given.
The
magistrate found that there were no exceptional circumstances and
therefore I must find that there are in fact exceptional
circumstances demonstrated by the accused which support his release.
In
support of the submission that there are exceptional circumstances it
is submitted for the appellant that his relatively young
age should
stand in his favour (he is 23 years old) and, secondly, that his
grandparents are ill and he would be living with his
grandparents and
taking care of them. A third factor which was relied upon is
that the appellant wishes to change his ways,
will enter treatment
and will further his studies.
As
far as his age is concerned, I am not satisfied that that is an
exceptional circumstance. As far as the need the grandparents
is concerned, Mr Stafford, the appellant’s grandfather gave
evidence for the Court
a quo
.
He indeed testified that he is ill, he has four different kinds of
cancer and his wife, the accused’s grandmother
is also ill.
She fell, had some condition with her back three months his relapse
with his cancer and therefore she is not
able to take care of him.
However, despite
this, the accused was not actually taking care of his grandparents
before his arrest and it appears that their
need for him, to the
extent that existed, only arose after he was arrested. In fact,
the grandfather’s testimony demonstrates
more a man who wants
to help the child, the grandson rather than a man who is in need of
the grandson’s help although he
does testify that it would
benefit him to have the grandson there. He does not say he is
in need of the grandson’s
help.
As
far as studying and obtaining treatment is concerned, there is no
evidence of what he wants to study and that it cannot be studied
while he is in prison. There is also no evidence that he cannot
receive treatment while in prison, awaiting trial.
I
therefore find that Mr Stafford has not demonstrated
circumstances that are sufficiently exceptional for him to obtain
bail
in terms of section 60(11) and therefore I am not satisfied that
the magistrate’s decision was wrong. The appeal is
therefore unsuccessful.
YACOOB J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
8 March 2024