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.
Parties
The State
Prosecutor
Melvin Geinub
Accused
Dennis Hauseb
Accused
Petrus Goagoseb
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed was correct in law regarding the conditions of suspension
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment