In
looking at the strength of the respondent's case, I receive comfort from
SANDURA JA who in., had this to say:
"I
should add that in determining a bail application, the strength of the case for
the prosecution should be assessed. As MILLIN J said in.,:
'The
court looks at the circumstances of the case to see ...
In
looking at the strength of the respondent's case, I receive comfort from
SANDURA JA who in., had this to say:
"I
should add that in determining a bail application, the strength of the case for
the prosecution should be assessed. As MILLIN J said in.,:
'The
court looks at the circumstances of the case to see if the person concerned
expects, or ought to expect, conviction. If it is found on the circumstances
disclosed to the court that the likelihood of his conviction is substantial,
that the person ought reasonably to expect conviction then the likelihood of
absconding is greatly increased. Thus the court goes into the circumstances of
the case, that is, evidence at the disposal of the crown, where there has been
a preparatory examination of, that is, the material which is used. Where no
preparatory examination has yet been held, the court has to consider such
material as is furnished to it by the accused himself (the applicant) or by the
Attorney General or his representative.'"
The
fact that the applicants face serious charges is common cause. As for the issue
of offensive weapons, given the circumstances of this case, one cannot easily
dismiss the possibility of the truth of the explanations of each applicant. I
would therefore, place the applicants in the same position as their co-accused
who are now out on bail. Accordingly, I find no basis in saying that the
applicants, unlike their co-accused, if granted bail, would abscond, commit
similar offences, prejudice the bail system and/or endanger the maintenance of
law and order and national security.
The
State has not made a case in respect of all its fears. There is no evidence to
support those fears.
The principle of equal treatment before the law
should be observed. There are no compelling reasons for the applicants to be
treated differently from their co-accused.
