Khan v S (A546/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 37 (5 March 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAWCHC 37
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Cleaver, Burger
- Case number
- A546/2009
More details
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Cleaver, Burger
- Case number
- A546/2009
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the regional magistrate failed to properly apply section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The majority of the appellant's previous convictions occurred when he was under 18 years old, and only two were committed after reaching adulthood. The last relevant conviction was six years prior to the current offence. The magistrate did not investigate the circumstances of the previous convictions, nor did he warn the appellant of the risk of being declared a habitual criminal. Given these failures and the lapse of time, the court held that the requirements for declaring the appellant a habitual criminal were not met. The habitual criminal declaration was set aside and replaced with a sentence of three years' imprisonment, effective from 5 May 2006. The appellant was warned that future offences may result in habitual criminal status.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; habitual criminal declaration set aside and replaced with three years' imprisonment.
Orders
- The sentence declaring the appellant a habitual criminal is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to three years' imprisonment, effective from 5 May 2006.
- The appellant is warned that future offences may result in habitual criminal status.
- The appellant's legal representative is to provide the appellant with a copy of this judgment and proof thereof to the court.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mustapha Khan
AppellantThe State
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Term: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Habitual Criminal Declaration
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was correctly declared a habitual criminal under section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- 02
Whether previous convictions committed under the age of 18 may be considered for habitual criminal status.
- 03
Whether the sentencing magistrate properly investigated the circumstances of previous convictions.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the appellant argued that the regional magistrate erred in applying section 286, as the majority of the appellant's previous convictions occurred when he was under 18 years old. The section prohibits declaring a person a habitual criminal if they were under 18 at the time of the offences. It was further submitted that the magistrate failed to investigate the circumstances of the previous convictions and did not warn the appellant of the risk of being declared a habitual criminal.
- Respondent
- The State maintained that the appellant's criminal history justified the habitual criminal declaration. It was argued that the appellant's repeated offences demonstrated a pattern of criminal behaviour, and that the magistrate was entitled to consider all previous convictions, regardless of the appellant's age at the time. The State contended that the sentence was appropriate given the appellant's record.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Mdliva 1981 (2) SA 475B; S v Stenge 2008 (2) SACR 27
A court must investigate the circumstances under which previous convictions were committed before declaring an accused a habitual criminal.
- 02
S v Masisi 1996 (1) SACR 147 (O)
Failure to warn an accused of the risk of being declared a habitual criminal and to investigate the circumstances of previous offences constitutes an improper exercise of discretion.
- 03
S v Makolila 1978 (4) SA 763 (SWA)
There should not be a long lapse of time between previous convictions and the current offence for habitual criminal status to apply.
- 04
S v Stenge 2008 (2) SACR 27
Habitual criminal status should generally be preceded by a warning to the accused that further offences may result in such a declaration.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the regional magistrate failed to properly apply section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The majority of the appellant's previous convictions occurred when he was under 18 years old, and only two were committed after reaching adulthood. The last relevant conviction was six years prior to the current offence. The magistrate did not investigate the circumstances of the previous convictions, nor did he warn the appellant of the risk of being declared a habitual criminal. Given these failures and the lapse of time, the court held that the requirements for declaring the appellant a habitual criminal were not met. The habitual criminal declaration was set aside and replaced with a sentence of three years' imprisonment, effective from 5 May 2006. The appellant was warned that future offences may result in habitual criminal status.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that in most cases, habitual criminal status should be preceded by a warning to the accused.
- The appellant's legal representative was requested to provide the appellant with a copy of the judgment and proof thereof to the court.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; habitual criminal declaration set aside and replaced with three years' imprisonment.
- The sentence declaring the appellant a habitual criminal is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to three years' imprisonment, effective from 5 May 2006.
- The appellant is warned that future offences may result in habitual criminal status.
- The appellant's legal representative is to provide the appellant with a copy of this judgment and proof thereof to the court.
Source and reliance status
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
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.
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(WES-KAAP HOE-HOF, KAAPSTAD)
SAAKNOMMER: A546/2009
DATUM: 5 MAART 2010
In die saak tussen:
MUSTAPHA KHAN Appellant
en
DIE STAAT Respondent
UITSPRAAK
CLEAVER. R:
Die beskuldigde is op 'n pleit van skuldig in die Bellville landdroshof skuldig bevind aan huisbraak en diefstal en is as gevolg van sy lys van vorige veroordelings verwys na die streekhof vir vonnis. Daar is hy op 5 Mei 2006 tot "h gewoontemisdadiger verklaar volgens die bepalings van artikel 286 van die Strafproseswet. Hy kom nou in hoer beroep, met verlof van hierdie Hof, na hierdie Hof teen sy verklaring as gewoontemisdadiger.
Hy het 'n lang lys van vorige veroordelings wat strek vanaf 1993 toe hy 14 jaar oud was tot die jaar 2000, toe hy 21 jaar oud was. Dit is nie duidelik uit die stukke voor ons wat sy geboortedatum is nie en as ek verwys na sy ouderdom, dan maak ek staat op die aantekening in die klagstaat dat hy in Junie 2006 27 jaar oud was.
Ek het verwys na die jongste skuldigbevinding as een in die jaar 2000. Daar is 'n latere skuldigbevinding in 2005, maar dit blyk uit die SAP69 dat dit verband gehou het met 'n misdaad wat in 1995 gepleeg is.
Namens die appellant is aangevoer dat die streeklanddros fouteer het om die bepalings van artikel 286 te gebruik, aangesien die oorgrote meerderheid van sy vorige veroordelings geskied het toe hy onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar oud was. Die artikel bepaal dat 'n persoon onder die ouderdom van 18 nie tot 'n gewoontemisdadiger verklaar kan word nie. Met die eerste oogopslag wil dit vir my voorkom asof 'n hof wel skuldigbevindings wat uitgebring is teen 'n beskuldigde onder die ouderdom van 18, in ag geneem kan word by die toepassing van artikel 286, indien die beskuldigde op die datum van toepassing bo die ouderdom van 18 jaar is. Dit is egter vir my duidelik dat die Hof a quo glad nie die gesag met betrekking tot die toepassing van artikel 286 in ag geneem het en onder normale omstandighede sou die saak na die Hof terugverwys moes word.
Voor ek egter daarmee handel, wil ek kortliks uitwys in watter opsigte die Hof, na my mening, nie korrek opgetree het nie. Ek noem vyf bekende en gesonde beginsels:
1. Om te bepaal of'n beskuldigde uit gewoonte steel of'n misdryf pleeg, word dit van die voorsittende beampte verwag om navraag te doen met betrekking tot die omstandighede waaronder die vorige veroordelings gepleeg is. (Sien in hierdie verband S v MDLIVA 1981(2) SA 475B asook die Volbank beslissing van hierdie Hof S v STENGE 2008(2) SASV 27.)
2. In S v MASISI 1996(1) SASV 147 (O) het LOMBARD, R bevind dat waar 'n beskuldigde nie voorheen gewaarsku is dat hy in gevaar staan om onder die artikel gevonnis te word nie, die nalate om ondersoek in te stel na die omstandighede waaronder die vorige misdade gepleeg is, op 'n onbehoorlike uitoefening van sy diskresie neerkom.
3. Daar behoort nie 'n lang verloop van tyd te wees tussen die vorige veroordeling en die huidige misdaad nie. In hierdie verband sien S v MAKOLILA 1978(4) SA 763 (SWA).
4. 'n Gewoonte om te steel is nie die enigste afleiding wat van 'n lang lys van vorige veroordelings vir diefstal gemaak kan word nie. (Sien in hierdie verband S v STENGE (supra) te para [14].
5. Gewoonlik is dit nodig dat die verklaring onder artikel 286 vooraf gegaan moet word deur h waarskuwing aan die beskuldigde dat 'n verdere oortreding tot so 'n verklaring kan lei.
In die onderhawige val is dit in die eerste plek duidelik dat die voorsittende beampte glad nie die omstandighede van die vorige
veroordelings ondersoek het nie, tweedens, dat daar 'n verloop van ongeveer ses jaar was vanaf die laaste vorige veroordeling wat in die jaar 2000 geskied het en, derdens, dat die beskuldigde in die huidige aangeleentheid glad nie gewaarsku is van die gevaar waarin hy gestaan het nie.
Onder normale omstandighede sou ek hierdie saak terugverwys na die streeklanddros sodat hy aandag kan skenk aan die beginsels wat ek hierso uitgewys het, maar na oorweging, is ek van mening dat dit in hierdie besondere geval nie die gepaste uitweg sou wees nie. Ek se dit vir twee redes. Die eerste is dat behalwe vir twee vorige veroordelings, al die vorige veroordelings plaasgevind het toe die beskuldigde onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar oud was en, tweedens, die laaste tersaaklike skuldigbevinding wat op 24 Oktober 2000 opgele is en ten opsigte waarvan die beskuldigde drie jaar gevangenisstraf opgele is, het geskied ses jaar voordat die saak voor die streeklanddros gedien het.
Vir hierdie redes is ek van mening dat die bepalings van die artikel nie van toepassing was nie en in die omstandighede is ek van mening dat dit gepas sal wees vir hierdie Hof om self 'n vonnis op te le.
In die omstandighede word die vonnis, waarkragtens die beskuldigde tot 'n gewoontemisdadiger verklaar is, tersyde gestel en vervang met 'n vonnis van DRIE (3) JAAR GEVANGENISSTRAF wat vanaf 5 Mei 2006 effektief sal wees.
Die appellant word egter op hierdie geleentheid gewaarsku dat die bepalings van artikel 286 op horn van toepassing mag wees indien
hy verdere oortredings begaan en die appellant se regsverteenwoordiger word versoek om 'n afskrif van hierdie uitspraak aan die appellant te oorhandig en bewys daarvan aan hierdie Hof te voorsien.
CLEAVER, R
BURGER. WnR: Ek stem saam.
BURGER, WnR
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.