Section 34 of the Criminal Law Code [Chapter 9:23]
provides:
''No proceedings shall be instituted or continued
against any person in respect of a crime in terms of this Chapter, other than
proceedings in respect of the crime of possessing a dangerous weapon or
unlawfully possessing or wearing a camouflage uniform or for the purposes ...
Section 34 of the Criminal Law Code [Chapter 9:23]
provides:
''No proceedings shall be instituted or continued
against any person in respect of a crime in terms of this Chapter, other than
proceedings in respect of the crime of possessing a dangerous weapon or
unlawfully possessing or wearing a camouflage uniform or for the purposes of
remand, without the authority of the Attorney General.''
Clearly, no further action in this matter can be taken
until the Attorney General has given authority.
This, together with the admission that the Attorney
General takes several months to consider such matters means that the first respondent
may be kept in prison for a long time. In my view, this was a very relevant
consideration in determining whether or not to grant bail.
I do not agree that there was any misdirection
whatsoever on the part of the magistrate. He properly exercised his discretion
in favour of the first respondent. I therefore come to the conclusion that this
appeal is completely devoid of merit.
Accordingly,
it is hereby dismissed.
