S v Marole

• Judge: Patel J
• Judgment Date: 16 December 2002
• Citation: 2002 JDR 0910 (T)
• Docket Number: CC304/2001
• Hearing Date: 16 December 2002
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Patel J:

[1] This is an ex tempore judgment following upon the accused's conviction. Mr Bam launched an application on the accused's behalf for bail pending sentence. The sentencing of the accused is set down for 20 and 22 November 2002.

[2] Section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides that where an accused is charged with an offence referred to in Schedule 6 the Court shall order that he or she be detained in custody, unless he or she has been given a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence to satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist which are in the interest of justice to permit his or her release from custody.

[3] In support of the application Mr Bam, from the Bar, intimated that the accused attended his trial without any problem and was never late. There was no suggestion that he would not stand trial, abscond or flee the country .The incident occurred in 1999 and the accused had the opportunity to flee from the country but continued to live at his last address and to practice as a medical doctor in

2002 JDR 0910 p2

Patel J

Mamelodi. He is also looking after his minor children who are living with him. The accused was initially granted bail in the amount of R3 000 without any conditions and subsequently released on warning. Finally, Mr Bam submitted that the accused will not interfere with the course of justice. It was indicated that the accused owned two properties the total value of which is half a million rand and his passport was taken away by the police. It was proposed that the accused should be released on bail in the amount of R3 000 to R5 000 on the condition that he report to the police once a week.

[4] The application was opposed by the State. Ms Roeloffs submitted, first, that the circumstances have changed since the accused was convicted of a serious crime. Secondly, imprisonment is now staring the accused in the eyes. Thirdly, there were no exceptional circumstances. Fourthly, it is in the interest of justice that bail should not be granted to the accused at this stage.

[5] I am surprised that counsel did not call the accused to tender evidence in support of his bail application. For the accused to succeed in securing bail pending sentence it is incumbent upon him to adduce evidence which will satisfy this Court that there are exceptional circumstances which are in the interest of justice to release him from custody. The statutory provision places a duty on the accused to adduce...