Judge turns down appeal for bail in drugs, gun case

THE Western Cape High Court has rejected an appeal against the refusal by a magistrate at the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court to grant bail to a person who was arrested for possession of a firearm and dealing in drugs while out on bail for assault.

Moegamat Zameer Levy was arrested on July 29 last year and before that arrest, Levy faced charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and pointing a gun at someone on July 19.

After the first arrest Levy was released on R1 000 bail.

After his second arrest, the magistrate denied him bail and it was this denial that took Levy to the High Court to launch his appeal.

In the Magistrate’s Court the investigating officer opposed bail and said on July 29 police had entered Levy’s premises after a tip-off from the public that Levy was dealing in drugs and had a gun on his property.

The police found a 7.65 calibre Browning under Levy’s mattress and “a lot of drugs in the room”.

They told the magistrate that they had arrested Levy but investigations in the matter were still incomplete as the ballistic and medical report of the complainant on the assault charge were still outstanding.

They opposed bail because Levy had been found in possession of a gun and drugs despite having been out on bail for just two weeks.

Before Judge James Lekhuleni at the High Court, Levy’s advocate argued that the magistrate was wrong to find that Levy had a predisposition to commit these types of offences and was a danger to the public. The advocate said Levy had the right to be presumed innocent

The State argued that Levy was not a suitable candidate for bail as he had 12 previous convictions, four drug-related. The State argued that Levy had a propensity to commit schedule one offences and if he was released on bail there was a real likelihood that he would commit further offences.

Judge Lekhuleni said: “In my view, it cannot be said that the magistrate was wrong in refusing to admit him to bail. There is no basis in law for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the magistrate. It follows therefore that the appeal must fail.”