R v Grigoriou

• Judge: Ramsbottom J and Lucas J
• Judgment Date: 07 May 1951
• Citation: 1953 (1) SA 479 (T)
• Hearing Date: 07 May 1951
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Ramsbottom, J.:

The applicant in this matter has been committed for trial on a charge of murder. He applies for bail pending the trial. That F application has been opposed by the Attorney-General, and the question which we have to decide is whether the applicant has made out a case which will justify this Court in admitting the applicant to bail despite the opposition of the Attorney-General.

The principle by which a Court is guided in applications of this kind G has recently been fully examined in the case of Leibman v Attorney-General, 1950 (1) SA 607 (W). In that case MILLIN, J., reviewed the authorities, the first to which he referred being the case of McCarthy v Rex, 1906 T.S. 657. In that case the CHIEF JUSTICE said:

'The Court is always desirous that an accused person should be allowed bail if it is clear that the interests of justice will not be H prejudiced thereby, more particularly if it thinks upon the facts before it that he will appear to stand his trial in due course. In cases of murder, however, great caution is always exercised in deciding upon an application for bail.'

MILLIN, J., continues:

'The meaning of this last sentence, as appears from subsequent cases, is that the very fact that a person is charged with a crime which may entail the death penalty is in itself a motive to abscond. But that fact

Ramsbottom J

is not enough. If it were otherwise - if that fact were regarded as enough - no person charged with a capital offence could ever hope for bail, and yet bail has in many cases been granted to persons charged with capital offences. The Court looks at the circumstances of the case to see whether the person concerned expects, or ought to expect, conviction. If it is found on circumstances disclosed to the Court that the likelihood of conviction is substantial, that the person ought A reasonably to expect conviction, then the likelihood of his absconding is greatly increased. Thus the Court goes into the circumstances of the case, that is, the evidence at the disposal of the Crown. Where there has been a preparatory examination that is the material which is used. Where no preparatory examination has yet been held the Court has to consider such material as is furnished to it by the accused himself (the B applicant) or by the Attorney-General or his representative.'

In the present case the Attorney-General does not put forward any special grounds for opposing the application. He does not put forward...