Fresh bail bid in Mark Lifman murder case

The legal teams representing the men accused of murdering the controversial Cape Town businessman Mark Lifman launched a blistering attack on the state’s conduct in the George Regional Court today, reports the George Herald.

During a fresh bid for bail, high-profile advocates argued that ‘dirty hands’, a chaotic investigation and a trial timeline stretching towards 2030 constitute exceptional circumstances for their release.

Adv Michael Hellens SC, representing Johan ‘Jakes’ Jacobs, and Adv Reuben Liddell, appearing for Gert Johnny’ Bezuidenhout, presented their heads of argument in a ‘new facts’ bail application that seeks to overturn the previous refusal of bail in January 2025.

Allegations of ‘dirty hands’

Hellens told the court the state’s hands are not clean, accusing the investigating officers of actively misleading the prosecution and the court. Hellens singled out Lieutenant Colonel Dirk van Renen and Sergeant Marlon Appollis, claiming they employed ‘delaying tactics’ to stall proceedings.

According to Hellens, these tactics include missing scheduled meetings and evading requests from the defence. He further argued that despite the previous assurances from the state that the investigation had been finalised, the docket remains in a state of disarray.

“I am certain that if the magistrate had the necessary information before him during the first bail applications, bail would have been granted to the two accused,” Hellens submitted.

The 2030 timeline

Central to the application is the projected length of the trial.

Liddell argued that the matter had been moved to the regional court purely to prevent it from being struck from the roll in the district court.

With over 40 witnesses expected to testify and a court roll burdened by more than 300 other cases, Liddell warned that the trial could realistically run until 2030.

He argued that keeping the accused in custody for another five years while they are presumed innocent is a violation of the interests of justice.

“The accused are innocent. They haven’t been tried,” Liddell said, adding that the state’s case is entirely circumstantial.

Maximum security and segregation

The court also heard details regarding the conditions of the men’s detention.

Liddell highlighted that both Jacobs and Bezuidenhout are being held in a maximum-security facility intended for sentenced offenders rather than detainees awaiting trial.

He claimed the men are being kept in segregation, which has severely hampered their ability to consult with their legal teams. He argued that private consultations are nearly impossible as the guards are allegedly able to overhear discussions and read legal correspondence.

New facts vs original refusal

The defence maintains that the landscape of the case has changed significantly since bail was denied on January 17.

The new facts presented to the court include:

Docket analysis:

The defence has now had the opportunity to study the docket and claims the State’s evidence is weaker than initially presented.

Systemic delays:

The realisation that the trial will not be finalised for several years.

Procedural irregularities:

The alleged misconduct and stalling by the investigating officers.

The state is expected to respond to these allegations as the application continues this afternoon.

Under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the burden remains on the accused to prove that exceptional circumstances exist that permit their release in the interest of justice.

Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel.

Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal.