9/11/2009 · The appellant submitted that the cumulative effective of these circumstances rendered them ‘exceptional’ for the purpose of justifying his release on bail. He added that he would not pose a danger to the public, evade his trial, interfere with witnesses or evidence, and that his release would not jeopardise the functioning of the criminal justice or bail system or public peace or order.
The first qualification is that exceptional circumstances has the meaning given to it by me and the second is that the magistrate’s statement that the legislature intended that it should be nearly impossible to obtain bail is to set the bar too high. Whilst it is apparent that the legislature intended that it should be more difficult, perhaps exceptionally difficult, to obtain bail, it did not intend to make it as difficult as.
In S v Jonas 1998 (2) SACR 673 (SEC) it was held that exceptional circumstances are established when an accused is able to adduce acceptable evidence that the prosecution’s case against him is non-existent or subject to serious doubt.
S v Mathebula 2010 (1) SACR 55 SCA For an applicant in a bail application, whe re exceptional circumstances have to be shown, it is not enough to merely repeat S 60(4) of Act 51 of 1977 without the addition of facts that add weight to this ipse dixit. The appellant was arrested on charges of murder and possession of arms and, In the case of S v Mathebula and Others 1997(1) SACR 10 (WLD) Claassen J held that ”exercising a discretion in favour of the State under the circumstances of this case in terms of s 174 would, in…
[25] Nicholson J in S v Jama and Another 1998 (2) SACR 237 NPD at 242g agreed with the sentiments expressed by Claasen J in Mathebula . [26] Mynhardt J in S v Makofane 1998 (1) SACR 603 TPD at 618h-619a disagreed with the judgment of Claasen J in Mathebula . Mynhardt J held that the only change the interim South African Constitution brought about …
case, was not considered as an exceptional circumstance in S v Mpulampula, loc cit, at 136b. [17] It is not the function of the court considering bail to make a provisional finding of guilt, but to assess the prima facie strength of the State case. See S v Van Wyk loc cit at para [6].
circumstances where the applicant was compelled to prove that he would be acquitted at trial where reliance is placed on a weak State’ s case in proving exceptional circumstances in compliance with section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
In its considered opinion, the Court was under obligation to examine the totality of the circumstances when applying itself to questions of bail. In this case, as was also the case in ‘Lukwe and Another v S ’ (CA&R64/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 41 a weak prima facie case was considered an exceptional circumstance that could justify the grant of bail.
