S v Essack

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Miller J
• Judgment Date: 15 January 1965
• Citation: 1965 (2) SA 161 (D)
• Hearing Date: 15 January 1965
• Court: Durban and Coast Local Division

S v Essack
1965 (2) SA 161 (D)

1965 (2) SA p161

Citation	1965 (2) SA 161 (D)
Court	Durban and Coast Local Division
Judge	Miller J
Heard	January 15, 1965
Judgment	January 15, 1965

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde E

Criminal procedure — Bail — Granting of — Opposition by Attorney-General based on general grounds — No evidence or F indication touching the applicant personally.

Headnote : Kopnota

Where the Attorney-General opposes an application for bail, then, generally speaking, before it can be said that there is any likelihood of justice being frustrated through an accused person resorting to the known devices to evade his trial, there should be some evidence or some indication which touches the applicant personally in regard to such likelihood. General observations applicable to a certain group of G persons are undoubtedly relevant and entitled to some weight if the applicant is a member of that group, but they can never be conclusive in themselves. H

Case Information

Application for an order releasing the applicant on bail. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

R. N. Leon, Q.C. (with him G. I. Raftesath), for the applicant.

J. H. Combrinck, for the State.

Judgment

Miller, J.:

This is an application for an order releasing the applicant on bail pending his trial on charges under the Suppression of Communism Act, the allegation against him being, apparently, that as a banned person he communicated with other banned persons and attended a gathering in breach of the notice served upon him. His

1965 (2) SA p162

Miller J

application for bail to a regional magistrate was refused but it was common cause that that is no bar to the present application.

The application is opposed by the Attorney-General and counsel appearing A for him has very fairly stated that there are no significant facts known to the Attorney-General but not disclosed in the papers before me, which have operated to influence the Attorney-General to oppose this application. In other words, the case for his opposition is contained in the affidavits filed by and on behalf of the Attorney-General. It B appears from those affidavits that the Attorney-General considers that there is a strong prima facie case against the applicant and that, because the applicant is a member of an organisation several members of which have been served with banning orders and some of whom have fled the country, it is feared that the applicant might do likewise, particularly in as much as it is clear that escape routes are easily available to adjoining territories with which the Republic has no C extradition treaty in cases of this nature.

In dealing with an application of this nature, it is necessary to strike a balance as far as that can be done, between protecting the liberty of the individual and safeguarding and ensuring the proper administration D of justice. I refer, in acknowledgment of those...