The appellants, Robert Green and Bheki Mashaba, were charged in the regional magistrates’ court, Mpumalanga, with robbery with aggravating circumstances involving the use of firearms, a Schedule 6 offence under the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. They applied for bail but were refused on the basis that they had failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by s 60(11)(a). The State alleged strong prima facie evidence linking them to the robbery, including fingerprints, CCTV footage, seized money, clothing, vehicles, and statements by former co-accused who became State witnesses. Much of the investigating officer’s evidence was undermined in cross-examination. The magistrate nevertheless accepted certain aspects of the evidence and refused bail. An appeal to the High Court was dismissed. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld. The orders of the High Court and the magistrate were set aside. No order on bail was made at that stage, and the State was directed to grant the defence access to the CCTV video tapes and any fingerprint expert statements linking the appellants to the crime, after which the bail application was to be reconsidered.
The case clarifies the proactive and inquisitorial role of courts in bail proceedings, particularly in Schedule 6 matters. It affirms that where crucial, readily available evidence is withheld and the court lacks reliable information, s 60(3) must be invoked. The judgment emphasises that courts may not simply refuse bail on incomplete or selectively accepted evidence, reinforcing fair process within the constitutionally valid but stringent bail regime.