Piper murder: Bail decision sparks massive public outcry

Update

GEORGE NEWS - The granting of R1 000 bail each to the two men accused of murdering the 21-year-old Reinbrecht Piper has sparked a massive public reaction, with thousands of people responding to George Herald’s online article and many questioning how any accused facing a Schedule 6 murder charge could be released.

By Monday morning, George Herald’s Facebook post reporting the bail decision had attracted about 3 800 reactions and 1 200 comments, and had been shared more than 460 times.

Much of the reaction centred on the amount of bail, the State’s decision not to oppose the applications and questions about how bail could be granted in a murder case.

“How do accused get bail of R1 000 for murder?” one reader asked.

Another questioned whether the accused could pose a danger to George’s residents, while several wanted to know why the State had not opposed their release.

The strong reaction was accompanied by an outpouring of sympathy for Piper’s family, who had attended his memorial service on the same day that Justin Jafta (28) and Craig Nelson (27) were granted bail.

Jafta and Nelson are charged with murder with common purpose following Piper’s fatal stabbing during an altercation at the McDonald’s drive-through in Courtenay Street in the early hours of Sunday 27 September. They have not pleaded to the charge and remain presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Why can someone accused of murder get bail?

Contrary to some comments on social media, being granted bail does not mean an accused has been acquitted or that the court has determined that he is innocent.

Bail determines whether an accused should remain in custody while awaiting the conclusion of the criminal case.

The Department of Justice explains that when considering bail, courts consider factors such as whether an accused will stand trial, poses a danger to others, is likely to commit further offences or could intimidate witnesses.

However, Jafta and Nelson face an additional hurdle, because the charge against them was dealt with as a Schedule 6 offence.

Section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a person charged with a Schedule 6 offence must remain in custody unless the accused presents evidence satisfying the court that exceptional circumstances exist which, in the interests of justice, permit his or her release.

The fact that the State does not oppose bail does not remove the court’s responsibility to consider whether release is justified.

The Criminal Procedure Act specifically provides that even where the prosecution does not oppose bail, the court must weigh the accused’s personal interests against the interests of justice.

State did not oppose bail

As George Herald previously reported, the State did not oppose Jafta and Nelson’s bail applications.

Their attorneys argued that they had fixed addresses, permanent employment, no previous convictions and family responsibilities. They also argued that the accused were not flight risks and would not interfere with witnesses or the investigation.

The court ultimately granted each accused bail of R1 000, subject to conditions.

The NPA’s own training material states that when prosecutors elect not to oppose bail in a Schedule 6 matter, their reasons for doing so must be placed on record. It also states that policy directives regulate who may make such a decision.

George Herald has therefore approached the NPA for clarity on why bail was not opposed in this case.

Why is the Lifman case different?

Several readers have questioned why Jafta and Nelson were released while Johannes ‘Jakes’ Jacobs and Gert ‘Johnny’ Bezuidenhout, the men accused of murdering Cape businessman Mark Lifman, remain behind bars.