Bilsbury v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (Stannic Division) (ECJ 064/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 30 (8 September 2005)

Bilsbury v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (Stannic Division) (ECJ 064/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 30 (8 September 2005)

The court found that the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had actually entered the premises, and thus a conviction for trespass could not be sustained. However, the accused's conduct in raising the roller door was sufficiently proximate to the act of unlawful entry to constitute an attempt to trespass. The court reasoned that the act went beyond mere preparation and was the final necessary step before entry, interrupted only by the barking of the dog. Applying established principles, the court held that the accused's actions amounted to attempted trespass and substituted the conviction accordingly. The sentence was reduced to reflect the lesser seriousness...

Citation
[2005] ZAECHC 30
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Mandla Dyantyi
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2005
Case Number
CA&R 213/05
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Special Review After Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction for trespass set aside and replaced with conviction for attempted trespass. Sentence reduced and antedated for record purposes.
Judges
RJW Jones, B Sandi
Legal Topics
Trespass, Attempted Crime, Actus Reus, Criminal Intent
Criminal Law Trespass Attempted Crime Actus Reus Criminal Intent

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mandla Dyantyi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Special Review After Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's conduct amounted to trespass or only attempted trespass.
  2. 2 Whether raising the roller door constituted an act of preparation or an attempt to trespass.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entered the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had actually entered the premises, and thus a conviction for trespass could not be sustained. However, the accused's conduct in raising the roller door was sufficiently proximate to the act of unlawful entry to constitute an attempt to trespass. The court reasoned that the act went beyond mere preparation and was the final necessary step before entry, interrupted only by the barking of the dog. Applying established principles, the court held that the accused's actions amounted to attempted trespass and substituted the conviction accordingly. The sentence was reduced to reflect the lesser seriousness...

Court Disposition

Conviction for trespass set aside and replaced with conviction for attempted trespass. Sentence reduced and antedated for record purposes.

Orders

  • The verdict of guilty of trespass is set aside and replaced with a verdict of guilty of attempted trespass.
  • The sentence is set aside and replaced with a sentence of R800 or 2 months' imprisonment, antedated to 15 February 2005.