Moetimofokeng v Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/APN 142 of 97) [1997] LSHC 49 (9 June 1997)

1 C R I / A P N / 1 4 2 / 97 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter between M O E T I M O F O K E NG A P P L I C A NT and T HE D I R E C T OR OF P U B L IC P R O S E C U T I O NS R E S P O N D E NT J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n o u r a b le M r. Justice M . M. R a m o d i b e di On the 9 th d ay of J u n e, 1 9 9 7. In this application it is s o u g ht to p e r s u a de the C o u rt to release the A p p l i c a nt on bail p e n d i ng his trial on a c h a r ge of a r m ed r o b b e ry involving an a m o u nt of M 24 0 0 0 - 00 belonging to F r a m e r 's S u p e r m a r k et at Pitseng in L e r i be district on or a b o ut the 7th F e b r u a ry 1 9 9 7. T he application w h i ch is strenuously o p p o s ed by the Director of Public P r o s e c u t i o ns w as a r g u ed before me o nt he 19th M ay 1 9 97 a nd after h e a r i ng s u b m i s s i o ns f r om b o th sides I d i s m i s s ed the application a nd intimated that r e a s o ns w o u ld f o l l ow t o d a y. T h e se are the r e a s o n s: In t e r ms of Section 1 09 of the C r i m i n al P r o c e d u re a nd E v i d e c ne A ct 1 9 81 t he H i gh C o u rt is v e s t ed w i th a discretion w h e t h er or n ot to grant bail to an a c c u s ed p e r s on at a ny stage of a ny p r o c e e d i n gs t a k ne in a ny court in respect of an offence. T he full text of that section is as follows:- " 1 0 9. T he H i gh C o u rt m ay at a ny stage of a ny p r o c e e d i n g s, t a k en m a ny court in respect of an o f f e n c e, a d m it the a c c u s ed to bail." As this court stated in D a v id L e l i n g o a na J o n a t h an v Director of Public P r o s e c u t i o ns C R I / A P N / 6 3 6 / 96 ( u n r e p o r t e d) in exercising the discretion c o n f e r r ed by the said S e c t i on 1 09 of T he C r i m i n al P r o c e d u re a nd E v i d e n ce A ct 1 9 81 the g u i d i ng principle is to u p h o ld the interests of justice by b a l a n c i ng the r e a s o n a b le r e q u i r e m e n ts of the State w i th the r e q u i r e m e n ts of o ur l aw as to the liberty of the subject. M o r e o v er the court m u st a l w a ys b e ar in m i nd that the p r e s u m p t i on of i n n o c e n ce o p e r a t es in f a v o ur of the applicant e v en w h e re it is said that there is a strong p r i ma facie c a se against h im b ut that if there are indications that the granting of bail will d e f e at or frustrate the p r o p er administration of justice t h en the c o u rt w o u ld be fully justified in refusing to a l l ow the applicant bail. S ee Sv E s s a ck 1 9 65 ( 2 ) S . A. 1 61 ( D) at 1 62 p er M i l l er J. As I h ad o c c a s i on to state in D a v id L e l i n q o a na J o n a t h an v D i r e c t or of P u b l ic P r o s e c u t i o ns (supra) the o n us is on the A p p l i c a nt to s h ow on a b a l a n ce of probabilities that the grant of bail will n ot prejudice the interests of justice. In this respect our l aw differs drastically f r om the current position in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th Africa. T h e re as I u n d e r s t a nd the current position the o n us is n ow on the State to s h ow w hy bail should not be granted in the interests of justice. S ee M a g a no & A n o t h er v District M a g i s t r a t e, J o h a n n e s b u rg & ors. (1) 1 9 94 ( 4 ) S . A. 1 69 at 1 7 1. T he fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions o p p o s es bail, as in this c a s e, is a factor w h i ch the court should per se attach w e i g ht in balancing the probabilities in the matter but the ipse dixit of the Director of Public Prosecutions is h o w e v er n ot conclusive a nd the court m u st still l o ok at all the circumstances of the c a se to d e t e r m i ne w h e t h er the applicant will stand trial a nd not a b s c o n d. A g a in as this court stated in D a v id L e h i n g o a na J o n a t h an v Director of Public Prosecutions (supra) the seriousness of the offence c h a r g ed is o ne of the factors for consideration by the court in a bail application in as m u ch as the possibility of a severe sentence is in itself a potential i n d u c e m e nt to an a c c u s ed p e r s on to flee rather than stand his trial. N ow it is against the a b o ve m e n t i o n ed principles that I p r o c e ed to d e t e r m i ne the factors in this application a nd w h e t h er the applicant h as discharged the o n us to s h ow that his release on bail will not prejudice the interests of justice as well as w h e t h er he will stand trial. It is c o m m on c a u se that the A p p l i c a nt is a n on citizen in this country. He c o m es f r om M a k h a l a n e ng Witsi's h o e k, Q wa Q wa in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th Africa w h e re he resides. I consider therefore that he c o m es f r om outside the jurisdiction of this court. I h a ve taken this factor into a c c o u nt in refusing bail in this matter as I felt the applicant h as failed to m a ke o ut a c a se that despite t he fact that he is a n on citizen residing outside the jurisdiction of this court he will s t a nd trial. He d o es n ot e v en m a ke a t o k en u n d e r t a k i ng in that r e g a rd in his f o u n d i ng affidavit a nd this court subscribes to the principle that a litigant m u st s t a nd or fall by his f o u n d i ng affidavit. In his f o u n d i ng affidavit the A p p l i c a nt h as failed to state his p e r s o n al c i r c u m s t a n c es a nd b a c k g r o u nd f r om w h i ch the court c an d e t e r m i ne w h e t h er he is likely to s t a nd trial rather t h an flee. A g a in this is a factor against the A p p l i c a nt in this matter. In this r e g a rd I a c c e pt M r. R a m a f b l e 's s u b m i s s i on on b e h a lf of the R e s p o n d e nt that the A p p l i c a nt h as not p l a c ed factors that w o u ld influence the court to c o n f i d e n t ly exercise its discretion in f a v o ur of the applicant. T h e re is a g a in the a s p e ct of the n a t u re of the c h a r ge t he A p p l i c a nt is facing. As earlier stated the A p p l i c a nt is facing a c h a r ge of a r m ed r o b b e ry i n v o l v i ng an a m o u nt of M 2 4 , 0 0 0 - 0 0. I c o n s i d er that this is a v e ry serious c h a r ge i n d e ed a nd that the applicant faces a v e ry substantial t e rm of i m p r i s o n m e nt in p r o s p e c t. T h at is the reality of t he m a t t er w h i ch this c o u rt c a n n ot lose sight of a nd I c o n s i d er that the i n d u c e m e nt for t he A p p l i c a nt to flee rather t h an s t a nd trial is therefore v e ry great i n d e e d, Mr Fantsi for t he A p p l i c a nt s u b m i ts that o n ly Ml 5 0 - 00 w as f o u nd on t he p e r s on of the A p p l i c a nt after his arrest. I u n d e r s t a nd h im to i m p ly t h e r e by that it c a n n ot be correct that the applicant stole t he a m o u nt of M 24 0 0 0 - 00 as alleged. 1 don't agree. In my v i ew this a r g u m e nt is clearly a n on sequitur a nd m u st be rejected as s u c h. It d o es n ot merit a ny further attention by this court. O ne C l e m e nt K o a qo w ho is a d m i t t e d ly a relative of the applicant's alleged a c c o m p l i ce n a m e ly o ne P u le R a d e be w ho w as shot at the s c e ne of the c r i me h as d e p o s ed an affidavit in support of the R e s p o n d e n t 's opposition to bail. T h is is w h at he states in p a r a g r a p hs 2-6 thereof:- " 2. I k n ow the A p p l i c a nt herein as he w as a friend of my relative, w ho is n ow d e c e a s e d, P u le R a t e b e. I am u s ed to the applicant herein. 3. On the 8th February, 1997,I f o u nd applicant at my aforesaid h o m e, he w as already in a vehicle with o ne M a t h a b a ng Petlane a nd my m o t h e r, M a k o a qo K o a q o. 4. A p p l i c a nt then i n f o r m ed me that the p r e v i o us d a y, b e i ng the 7th February, 1 9 9 7, he w as f r om Pitseng in the c o m p a ny of the d e c e a s ed a nd others a nd that whilst en route to H l o t s e, they m et the Police w ho a t t e m p t ed to stop their v a n, b ut they ignored t h em h e n ce the police shot at t h em a nd injured P u le R a t e b e, so they w e re n ow g o i ng to see the condition of P u le R a t e be at the hospital. 5. T he reason applicant a d v a n c ed for not stopping w h en r e q u e s t ed to do so w as that they w e re transporting d a g g a. 6. I a s k ed applicant w h e re the d a g ga w a s, b ut no a n s w er w as f o r t h c o m i n g ." In his replying affidavit the A p p l i c a nt a d m i ts p a r a g r a ph 2 a b o ve b ut " v e h e m e n t l y" denies the rest of the p a r a g r a p hs q u o t ed a b o v e. He s e e ks to p e r s u a de the court that the d e p o n e nt C l e m e nt K o a qo is "referring to an incident w h i ch t o ok place in B o t ha B o t he w h e re I w as fined M 5 0 - 00 for p o s s e s s i on of d a g g a ." W e ll I ' do not agree. T he d e p o n e nt C l e m e nt K o a qo is specific as to dates. It m ay be that the A p p l i c a nt told h im half truths a b o ut the incident a nd preferred to label it d a g ga b ut I d o n 't think that a n y t h i ng turns on this for the p u r p o se of this application. W h at matters is that I c o n s i d er that there is a p r i ma facie c a se against the A p p l i c a nt a nd in this r e g a rd I h a ve also t a k en into a c c o u nt w h at the investigating officer T p r. L e h a ta s a ys in p a r a g r a ph 7 of his o p p o s i ng affidavit n a m e ly "there is e v i d e n ce that applicant w as i n v o l v ed in the said r o b b e ry a nd he k n ew that the d e c e a s ed w as shot at the s c e n e ." In s um therefore I r e m a in u n p e r s u a d ed that the A p p l i c a nt will s t a nd trial if r e l e a s ed on bail. On the contrary I c o n s i d er that, as m a t t e rs stand, the administration of justice will be p r e j u d i c ed a n d / or d e f e a t ed if bail is granted. A c c o r d i n g ly the application is dismissed., M . M. R a m o d i b e di J U D GE 9th d ay of J u ne 1997. F or Applicant F or R e s p o n d e nt : : M r. Fantsi M r. R a m a f o le