State v Kooper (4) [2016] NAHCMD 107 (11 April 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] NAHCMD 107
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Court
- High Court Main Division
- Posture
- Criminal Review / Review Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court Main Division
- Posture
- Criminal Review / Review Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Typographical errors in the record do not render the proceedings reviewable where the correct sentences were pronounced in court; the records should be corrected to reflect the correct sentences.
Court disposition
records to be corrected and returned to trial court
Orders
- The records of the proceedings be returned to the trial court with the direction to ensure that each record reflects the correct sentence imposed in respect of each of the accused.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ProsecutorBianca Kooper
AccusedHans Taseb
AccusedGerhard Rooi
Accused03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Review Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether typographical errors in the record regarding conditions of suspension render the proceedings reviewable
- 02
Whether the sentences as pronounced in court were correct
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The records of proceedings reflect incorrect conditions of suspension due to typographical errors.
- Respondent
- The magistrate explained that the correct conditions of suspension were communicated to each accused in the ex tempore judgments.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, s 304(4)
Where the record contains typographical errors but the sentence as pronounced in court is correct, the record should be corrected to reflect the true state of affairs.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Typographical errors in the record do not render the proceedings reviewable where the correct sentences were pronounced in court; the records should be corrected to reflect the correct sentences.
Court disposition
records to be corrected and returned to trial court
- The records of the proceedings be returned to the trial court with the direction to ensure that each record reflects the correct sentence imposed in respect of each of the accused.
Source and reliance status
High Court Main Division
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court Main Division
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION
JUDGMENT CR No: 36/2016 In the matter between (1) THE STATE And
BIANCA KOOPER HIGH COURT MD REVIEW CASE NO 413/2014 (2) THE STATE And
HANS TASEB HIGH COURT MD REVIEW CASE NO 414/2015 (3) THE STATE And
GERHARD ROOI HIGH COURT MD REVIEW CASE NO 415/2015 Neutral citation: State v Kooper (CR 36/2016) [2016] NAHCMD 107 (11 April 2016) CORAM: NDAUENDAPO J et LIEBENBERG J DELIVERED: 11 April 2016 Flynote: Criminal procedure – Review in terms of s 304 (4) of Act 51 of 1977 – Court in sentencing accused pronounced the correct sentences – Records of proceedings reflect incorrect conditions of suspension due to typographical error – Records to be corrected – Proceedings not reviewable.
ORDER It is ordered that the records of the proceedings be returned to the trial court with the direction to ensure that each record reflects the correct sentence imposed in respect of each of the accused.
JUDGMENT LIEBENBERG J: (Concurring NDAUENDAPO J) [1] The above-captioned cases were sent on review in terms of s 304 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 for reasons that the conditions of suspension, in respect of each case, are reflected incorrectly due to typographical errors made. In the accompanying statement the magistrate concerned explained that in the ex tempore judgments the correct conditions of suspension were communicated to each of the accused. [2] Whereas the accused persons were correctly sentenced (in court) and the incorrect sentences, as reflected on the records of the proceedings, having been brought about by typographical mistakes made during court proceedings, the records should simply have been corrected to reflect the true state of affairs. There is accordingly no need to ‘correct’ any of the sentences pronounced by the court as they are in accordance with justice. The sentences imposed are neither reviewable. [3] In the result, it is ordered that the records of the proceedings be returned to the trial court with the direction to ensure that each record reflects the correct sentence imposed in respect of each of the accused. _______
J C LIEBENBERG
JUDGE _______
N NDAUENDAPO
JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.