State v Geinub [2016] NAHCMD 94 (4 June 2016)

State v Geinub [2016] NAHCMD 94 (4 June 2016)

The sentence was amended to include the condition that the accused must not be convicted of a contravention of Section 30(1)(a) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 during the period of suspension, correcting the magistrate's omission.

Citation
[2016] NAHCMD 94
Parties
Prosecutor: The State; Accused: Melvin Geinub; Accused: Dennis Hauseb; Accused: Petrus Goagoseb
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
4 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Outcome
convictions and sentences confirmed; sentences amended
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Suspended Sentence, Nature Conservation, Review Procedure
Source Language
English

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Prosecutor

Melvin Geinub

Accused

Dennis Hauseb

Accused

Petrus Goagoseb

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was correct in law regarding the conditions of suspension
  2. 2 Whether the omission of the condition regarding future conviction of the prohibited offence required correction

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was amended to include the condition that the accused must not be convicted of a contravention of Section 30(1)(a) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 during the period of suspension, correcting the magistrate's omission.

Court Disposition

convictions and sentences confirmed; sentences amended

Orders

  • The conviction of each accused is confirmed.
  • The sentences imposed are confirmed, but amended to include the condition that the accused is not convicted of a contravention of Section 30(1)(a) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 during the period of suspension.