Attorney-General, Transvaal v Botha (614/91) [1993] ZASCA 159; 1994 (1) SA 306 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 632 (A); [1994] 1 All SA 464 (A) (30 September 1993)

Attorney-General, Transvaal v Botha (614/91) [1993] ZASCA 159; 1994 (1) SA 306 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 632 (A); [1994] 1 All SA 464 (A) (30 September 1993)

Section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not supersede the common law regarding the correction or retraction of a guilty plea. The section does not place an onus on the accused; rather, the test is whether there is a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the plea. Grounds such as duress or undue influence, which arise before the proceedings under section 112, are not excluded by section 113(1) and remain valid under common law. The Britz principle applies both before and after conviction but before sentence, requiring only a reasonable explanation from the accused for withdrawal of a guilty plea. The respondent provided a reasonable explanation for her guilty pleas, which was...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 159
Parties
Appellant: Attorney-General of the Transvaal; Respondent: Martha Helena Botha
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 1993
Case Number
614/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against the appellant.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Smalberger, Kumleben, Van Den Heever
Legal Topics
Plea Withdrawal, Onus of Proof, Duress, Criminal Procedure Act, Reasonable Doubt
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Plea Withdrawal Onus of Proof Duress Criminal Procedure Act Reasonable Doubt

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney-General of the Transvaal

Appellant

Martha Helena Botha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act supersede the common law regarding the correction or retraction of a plea of guilty?
  2. 2 Does section 113(1) place an onus on an accused seeking to correct a plea of guilty, and if so, what is its nature?
  3. 3 Is the common law principle regarding withdrawal of a guilty plea applicable after conviction but before sentence?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not supersede the common law regarding the correction or retraction of a guilty plea. The section does not place an onus on the accused; rather, the test is whether there is a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the plea. Grounds such as duress or undue influence, which arise before the proceedings under section 112, are not excluded by section 113(1) and remain valid under common law. The Britz principle applies both before and after conviction but before sentence, requiring only a reasonable explanation from the accused for withdrawal of a guilty plea. The respondent provided a reasonable explanation for her guilty pleas, which was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered, in terms of section 311(2) of Act 51 of 1977, to pay the respondent's costs of appeal.