Iuze Mukube

Murder and robbery accused Joel Angula was unsuccessful in appealing against his bail refusal in the Windhoek High Court.

The judgement dismissing his appeal was delivered last Friday by Windhoek High Court Judges Naomi Shivute and Philanda Christiaan.

Judge Shivute found that the magistrate committed no material misdirection and exercised her discretion correctly in refusing bail.

Angula was denied bail earlier this year by Magistrate Helvi Shikalepo in the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court.

On the grounds of appeal, Angula contended that the magistrate erred in refusing bail despite finding that there was no evidence establishing that he would likely abscond or interfere with investigations or state witnesses.

He further challenged the lower court’s finding that the State had established a strong case against him and failed to consider his personal circumstances when determining his suitability for bail.

Angula further contended that the magistrate failed to adequately provide the basis upon which she found that the interests of the public or of justice required his continued detention.

He further argued that the magistrate failed to sufficiently evaluate the evidence and the material facts before the court; therefore, the magistrate failed to exercise her discretion judicially in refusing bail.

Judge Naomi considered section 61 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), where a judge is given discretion, even if he or she finds that the accused may be unlikely to abscond or interfere with investigations, to refuse bail balanced on the continued detention that may be required in the interests of justice or the public.

The judge found that section 61 of the CPA does not therefore permit the refusal of bail merely because the accused faces a serious scheduled offence, but after an evaluation of evidence and circumstances before arriving at an informed decision.

Accordingly, she said, the present issue was whether the magistrate properly exercised her discretion under the applicable bail provisions, including section 61, and whether the refusal was wrong within other sections of the CPA.

Judge Shivute found that the “appellant’s argument therefore proceeds from an unduly conceived bail enquiry.”

“The magistrate’s favourable findings on the risk of abscondment and interference did not preclude the court from considering and determining the separate enquiry arising under section 61.”

Therefore, the first ground failed.

She also found that other grounds of appeal failed, stating that the magistrate did not only consider the seriousness of the charges but the totality of the evidence.

She added that the magistrate also did not treat the state’s evidence as conclusive proof of guilt but that she evaluated competing considerations instead of having an uncritical acceptance of the state’s case.

She found that what emerges from the grounds of appeal are mere disagreements with the weight which the magistrate attached to competing considerations, but that is insufficient for the court to interfere on behalf of the appellant.

“On a conspectus of the record and the reasons furnished, I am not persuaded that the magistrate committed a material misdirection of fact or law, took irrelevant considerations into account, failed to consider relevant considerations, or otherwise exercised her discretion wrongly,” Shivute stated.

She therefore found that none of the grounds before the court established that the magistrate’s decision was wrong.

The appeal therefore failed. Judge Christiaan concurred with the decision. Angula faces eight charges, including murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder and offences relating to possession and theft of rough and unpolished diamonds and an offence under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.

The charges are in connection with an armed robbery in which diamonds valued at over N$300 million were allegedly stolen at the Namdia head office in Windhoek.