S v Aixas and Another (CRIMINAL 96 of 2006) [2006] NAHC 42 (23 October 2006)

S v Aixas and Another (CRIMINAL 96 of 2006) [2006] NAHC 42 (23 October 2006)

The magistrate erred in law by convicting the accused of an offence not charged and not a competent verdict to theft; however, on the evidence, both accused could properly be convicted under s. 7(1) of Ordinance 12 of 1956 for receiving or acquiring stolen property without reasonable cause, and their defence would not have differed if so charged.

Citation
[2006] NAHC 42
Parties
Prosecution: The State; 1st Accused: Lena Aixas; 2nd Accused: Gabriel Wimmert
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
23 October 2006
Case Number
CRIMINAL 96 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / High Court Automatic Review of Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction for theft set aside and substituted with conviction for contravening s. 7(1) of Ordinance 12 of 1956; sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, Competent Verdicts, Alternative Charges, Criminal Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Theft Receiving Stolen Property Competent Verdicts Alternative Charges Criminal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Prosecution

Lena Aixas

1st Accused

Gabriel Wimmert

2nd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / High Court Automatic Review of Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in convicting the accused of an offence not charged or not a competent verdict to theft
  2. 2 Whether the accused could properly be convicted under s. 7(1) of Ordinance 12 of 1956

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred in law by convicting the accused of an offence not charged and not a competent verdict to theft; however, on the evidence, both accused could properly be convicted under s. 7(1) of Ordinance 12 of 1956 for receiving or acquiring stolen property without reasonable cause, and their defence would not have differed if so charged.

Court Disposition

Conviction for theft set aside and substituted with conviction for contravening s. 7(1) of Ordinance 12 of 1956; sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction is set aside and substituted with 'Guilty for contravening s. 7(1) of Ordinance 12 of 1956'.
  • The sentence is confirmed.