Mshengu v S (446/08) [2009] ZASCA 65; 2009 (2) SACR 316 (SCA); [2009] 4 All SA 242 (SCA) (29 May 2009)

Mshengu v S (446/08) [2009] ZASCA 65; 2009 (2) SACR 316 (SCA); [2009] 4 All SA 242 (SCA) (29 May 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the written statement tendered by the appellant, a 13-year-old child, did not comply with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The statement failed to address the presumption of criminal non-responsibility and did not provide sufficient factual admissions to justify a conviction on the plea of guilty. The court held that the conviction and sentence must be set aside. Regarding remittal under section 312(1), the court determined that the provision is not peremptory and that remittal is discretionary. Given that the appellant had already served a substantial portion of the sentence and had received a wholly suspended sentence upon...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 65
Parties
Appellant: Siphesihle Protas Mshengu; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Case Number
446/08
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Jafta, Ponnan, Mhlantla
Legal Topics
Plea of Guilty, Criminal Capacity of Child, Fair Trial Rights, Remittal Under Section 312
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Plea of Guilty Criminal Capacity of Child Fair Trial Rights Remittal Under Section 312

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siphesihle Protas Mshengu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written statement tendered by the appellant, a child, complied with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside due to non-compliance with section 112(2).
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remitted to the trial court under section 312 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the written statement tendered by the appellant, a 13-year-old child, did not comply with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The statement failed to address the presumption of criminal non-responsibility and did not provide sufficient factual admissions to justify a conviction on the plea of guilty. The court held that the conviction and sentence must be set aside. Regarding remittal under section 312(1), the court determined that the provision is not peremptory and that remittal is discretionary. Given that the appellant had already served a substantial portion of the sentence and had received a wholly suspended sentence upon...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.