About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAGPPHC 104
|
|
Van Vuuren v S (A721/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 104 (13 June 2012)
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT.
PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
Case
no. A721/2011
DATE:13/06/2012
IN
THE MATTER BETWEEN:
DANIEL
JACOBUS VAN
VUUREN
.........................................................................
1
st
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
.............................................................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
LEGODIJ
[1]
This matter came before me on an appeal against refusal of the
release of the first appellant on bail.
[2]
On the 17 April 2012, the first appellant was granted bail on certain
conditions. When I did so, I did not give reasons for
the order that
I made. I hereby now give reasons for the order.
[3]
As a brief background, the first appellant is an accused 1 in a case
where he appears together with other 8 accused persons
on various
charges under the Sexual Offences Act.
[4]
The other eight accused persons were granted bail on appeal on the 17
November 2011. At that time, the appellant (hereinafter
referred to
as the accused 1) decided not to proceed with his appeal against
refusal of his release on bail.
[5]
The accused 1 application for bail was refused in the regional court
sitting at Wonderboom, Pretoria-North, on the 4 January
2011. It was
refused together with that of the accused 2 to 8. The bail
application of the accused 1 was refused later on the 6
April 2011.
[6]
In upholding the appeal against the refusal of release of the accused
2 to 9 on bail, I made amongst others, the following findings:
6.1
That the potential for the interference with state witnesses was
minimised and that it would have less impact. Incoming to this
conclusion I took into account the following factors:
6.1.1
All the key witnesses, who are children at the time of the bail
application were kept at place of safety.
6.1.2
At the time of the bail application, statements from key witnesses
were already taken.
6.1.3
Access to the witnesses was not easy if not impossible, unless
permission to access them is given by those who are in charge
of
them.
6.2
That the accused had no means of evading justice, neither was there
evidence to suggest that they attempted to evade justice,
before
their arrest, during the bail application and thereafter. Incoming to
this conclusion, I took into account the following
factors:
6.2.1
They are all South Africans.
6.2.2
Most of them have never been outside the country.
6.2.3
Most of them do not have passports.
6.2.4
They do not have previous convictions.
6.2.5
They do not have other pending cases.
6.2.6
Their addresses are known to the police.
6.2.7
They have been staying at their respective specific residences
for
a period ranging from between five, nine months, seven years and
about fifteen years.
6.3
That the state case against the appellants could not be said to be so
strong as to refuse their release on bail. In coming to
this
conclusion, I took into account the following factors:
6.3.1
the state in the court a quo opposed bail based on the hearsay
evidence of the investigating officer, and
6.3.2
the hearsay evidence was based on the evidence of small children,
aged between five and seven years at the time of
the
alleged commission of the offences, whose evidence could easily be
destroyed.
6.4
That during the bail application, there was no suggestion that if
release on bail, the accused will temper with the pending
police
investigation.
6.4.1
In coming to the conclusion, all possible exhibits or most of them
were seized by the police and there was no evidence to
suggest that
the accused would easily have access to them.
[7]
All of the above findings should be found to be applicable to the
accused 1. By the way, the accused 1 is a husband to the accused
2.
The accused2's appeal was upheld on the 17 November 2011.
[8]
The accused 1 and 2 had been staying together as husband and wife at
Plot 62 Julliet Street, Lusthif Pretoria for a period of
over 15
years.
[9]
Based on all of the above, I ordered on the 17 April 2012 for the
release of the accused 1 (appellant 1) on bail as follows:
"1.
That the appeal against the refusal of release on bail in respect of
appellant 1 is hereby upheld and the decision refusing
the bail
application is hereby set aside and substituted as follows:
1.1
Accused 1 is hereby granted bail in the amount of R20 000 on the
following conditions:
1.1.1
that the accused 1 must attend court on all remand dates;
1.1.2
That the accused 1 must report twice daily between the hours of 06:00
and 09:00 and 18:00 to 21:00 at the Hammanskraal Police
Station;
1.1.3
That the accused 1 may not have any contact or communication directly
or indirectly with any of the State witnesses;
2.
That the investigating officer is hereby forthwith directed to
furnish directed to furnish the station commissioner of Hammanskraal
Police Station with the court order herein.
3.
That the station commissioner of Hammanskraal Police Station or any
person designated thereto by the station commissioner Hammanskraal
Police Station is hereby directed to immediately inform the
investigating officer should any of the accused herein default in
reporting as set out in 1.1.2 above
4.
That the reasons for the order to be furnished in due cause".
[10]
The order as indicate above is still hereby confirmed.
M
F LEGODI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Heard
on: 17 April 2012