Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Bail refused where applicants likely to continue campaign of intimidation of main witness
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses applications for bail, on the grounds that: (a) the prosecution had proven that there was a likelihood that the applicants would interfere with and intimidate the main witness for the prosecution if they were released on bail; (b) the evidence for that finding was clear, cogent and convincing, and sufficient to satisfy the court that the applicants had already sought to do exactly that; and (c) the court could not fail to mitigate the risk to the complainant and his family simply because the applicants had shown themselves capable of orchestrating a similar campaign of intimidation when in custody.
Bail applications made by three brothers - applicants accused of committing violent disorder and second and third applicants also of assault - all charges arising out of same incident - since alleged offences complainant and members of his family victims of shooting and petrol bomb attacks by unknown assailants - applicants' contention that there was no evidence linking them to such attacks - not contested that there was an ongoing feud between applicants' family and complainant's family - right to bail deriving from constitutional principles - whether applicants entitled to bail - whether, if released, applicants would interfere with witnesses - whether, if released, there was a risk that applicants would commit further serious offences.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
