Moshata and Another v S (A2/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 119 (21 June 2012)

Moshata and Another v S (A2/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 119 (21 June 2012)

The court held that section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not require the presiding magistrate to obtain oral confirmation from a legally represented accused regarding the written statement. The applicant was legally represented, the statement was read into the record and interpreted for him, and he did not object to its contents. The magistrate was entitled to be satisfied of the applicant's guilt based on the written statement. Even if the failure to obtain oral confirmation constituted a procedural irregularity, it was not material and did not result in the applicant being deprived of a fair trial. The application for review was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 119
Parties
Applicant: Lebohang Moshata; Respondent: Mr. J. Visagie; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2012
Case Number
A2/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of Criminal Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Daffue, R, Snellenburg, WND R
Legal Topics
Section 112 2 Statement, Fair Trial Rights, Procedural Irregularity, Review of Conviction, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Section 112 2 Statement Fair Trial Rights Procedural Irregularity Review of Conviction Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebohang Moshata

Applicant

Mr. J. Visagie

Respondent

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of Criminal Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure of the presiding magistrate to obtain oral confirmation from the applicant regarding the section 112(2) statement constitutes a procedural irregularity.
  2. 2 Whether such irregularity, if present, resulted in the applicant not receiving a fair trial.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside due to alleged procedural irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not require the presiding magistrate to obtain oral confirmation from a legally represented accused regarding the written statement. The applicant was legally represented, the statement was read into the record and interpreted for him, and he did not object to its contents. The magistrate was entitled to be satisfied of the applicant's guilt based on the written statement. Even if the failure to obtain oral confirmation constituted a procedural irregularity, it was not material and did not result in the applicant being deprived of a fair trial. The application for review was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.