[ad_1]
Lots of mixed alcohol. (proceedings)
- The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ordered police to return alcohol they confiscated from a pub during the closure of Level 3.
- It is alleged that an employee of the establishment in Pretoria was caught selling bottles of brandy, but the police decided to seize all the stocks.
- The court determined that the police actions were illegal and invalid.
Police who illegally and illegally confiscated a large quantity of alcohol from a popular pub and restaurant in Pretoria were ordered to return the drink within 48 hours.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria rendered the ruling after Padstal’s owners approached the court in an attempt to get their liquor back.
According to Judge Colleen Collis’s ruling, police arrested a Padstal employee on July 15 for allegedly violating Disaster Management Act regulations while the sale of alcohol was still prohibited.
It is alleged that the employee sold or distributed two bottles of brandy to an unknown person.
The police foiled the alleged transaction, confiscating the two bottles and charging the employee. These charges were still pending.
READ | No alcohol for companies that break closure rules, threaten brewers
However, the police entered Padstal without a warrant, searched the warehouse located at the back of the restaurant and confiscated the entire liquor stock.
The owners alleged that the action was never part of any alleged violation of any regulations, nor did the public have access to the drink.
According to them, the seized stock was not under the control or possession of the employee and that the two bottles of brandy seized were not part of the warehouse stock.
When the police confiscated the alcohol, they also reportedly refused to provide a detailed list of the liquor seized or the legal reasons why it was consumed.
“However, subsequently, the requests addressed by the plaintiffs’ lawyer to the defendant [police] to account for the whereabouts of the seized assets and the amount of alcohol seized and to have the plaintiff’s property returned, the defendants neglected and did not respond and / or adhere to such requests, ”Collis said in his judgment.
The police defended their actions, arguing that the property was seized without a warrant due to the alleged violation by the employee.
READ ALSO | Accidents, arrests and deaths: South Africans drink alcohol below level 2
Furthermore, they argued that they had the right to confiscate the shares if there were reasonable grounds to worry that they would be used in the commission or alleged commission of a crime.
Collis found that only the two bottles of brandy should have been seized by the police, given the allegation was that the employee was not allowed to sell the two bottles.
Furthermore, it found that the police had not explained what alleged wrongdoing the owners committed to justify the wrongful seizure and retention of the rest of their property.
READ | Joburg restaurants adhere to alcohol ban, one serves alcohol in teapots
“In addition to this, it is common cause that, to date, the plaintiff has not been charged with any crime that justifies the seizure of her property in terms of article 20 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Law.”
Collis declared that the warrantless search and seizure by the police was illegal and invalid and ordered that the drink be returned to the owners.
The court also ordered the defendants, the Silverton police station commander, and the national commissioner to pay the costs of the application.
