High Court denies bail to accused gang murderer Jody Jury, citing flight risk
Even though accused murderer Jody Jury submitted that he cooperated with police when he handed himself over at the Manenberg police station in connection with what is believed to be a retaliation murder, his bail application failed, and he will remain behind bars.
Jury’s first bail application failed at the Athlone Magistrate’s Court, where he is co-accused with two others on charges of murder and attempted murder, classified as Schedule 6 offences.
His bail application was opposed by the State and was premised on the fact that, after being involved in a murder which occurred on Sneeuberg Road, he was led by his co-accused to run towards Heideveld Train Station.
“In addition, the police visited his address on two occasions, and his mother did not know his whereabouts. These allegations remain uncontested and negate Jury’s case that he is not a flight risk,” the judgment read.
It is still not clear to the court where Jury was after the commission of these offences and a few days thereafter. For him to exercise his right to remain silent was to his detriment, the court said.
Investigations, with evidence before the court, detailed another murder incident which occurred on June 6, 2025, at approximately 6.15am on the corner of Turfhall Road.
Police responded to the scene where they found the body of the deceased, “who was in the same gang as the accused, was found inside a car on the driver’s side with multiple gunshot wounds”, court documents read.
The police left the crime scene and followed leads to solve the case. The leads included following up on information related to the shooting incident that occurred at Sneeuberg Road in Heideveld. At the location, Jury is alleged to have shot in an area where Terrible Westsiders gang members used to hang out.
“They (police) also consulted with several witnesses who identified Jury, his co-accused, and two outstanding accomplices as the culprits. They also found video footage which depicted the faces of him and his co-accused, and the roles they played during the commission of these offences,” the judgment noted.
The State’s investigation included visuals captured by cyclops CCTV cameras running down Bloukrans Road, Heideveld, in which Jury is seen in a black hoodie after shooting at a group and killing one of them.
“According to the investigating officer, this was an ultimate revenge for the killing which took place earlier in the morning, and the deceased in that incident was a member of the Westsiders gang to which Jury and others are affiliated.
“The investigating officer further stated that the release of Jury will endanger the safety of the community and the witnesses, who reside in the same area and are known to him. There is a likelihood that he will evade trial because this case attracts long-term imprisonment.
“Moreover, he and his co-accused are gangsters who move around from one place to the next, and that will make it difficult for the police to trace him. The investigating officer averred further that Jury and his co-accused would undermine the proper functioning of the criminal justice system, including the bail system, and have already shown that nothing deters them from committing offences,” the judgment noted.
Referring to case law, the High Court noted: “…In response to the iron fist of syndicates and gangs involved in serious violent crime, where life is cheap and is sacrificed at the altar of greed on the snap of the finger by a gang leader, courts cannot be found wavering and irresolute.”
Acting Judge Ntombebongo Gxashe said: “In the end, I am of the view that his release from detention will undermine the objectives and proper functioning of the criminal justice system because the offences in question were committed in broad daylight and in the presence of the community members.
“The State has a strong case against the appellant, and it remains uncontroverted. There is also the likelihood that if he is released on bail, he will evade his trial, and that is based on the evidence which touches the appellant personally because after he committed these offences, he ran away.”
chevon.booysen@inl.co.za
