The court considered an appeal on the basis that the magistrate erred in denying the accused bail and that the magistrate erred in finding that the accused may abscond and fail to attend trial due to his ability to enter and leave the Republic without going through a border. When the incident took place, the accused was in the park with other men, who were unknown to the accused. The accused indicated that he entered the country legally and had the requisite stamps to prove it. The state disputed this on the basis that the stamps were fictitious. Given the nature of the crime, and the fact that the accused could abscond, his bail was opposed. The state argued that the interests of justice dictate that if the accused was released, there was a likelihood that he would attempt to evade his trial. The court found that the court below correctly took into consideration the evidence led, specifically the fact that the accused did not have a residence in the Republic and that when released he would go back to Mozambique. The accused had no ties in the Republic and there was not guarantee he would stand trial if bail was granted.