Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

O.I.M v S (A778/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 930 (25 November 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the appellant's admissions in the section 112(2) statement did not establish all the elements of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, particularly the intention to inflict serious injury. The magistrate failed to properly question the appellant and misdirected himself by convicting without sufficient inquiry. As a result, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was referred back for prosecution before another magistrate, with a plea of not guilty to be entered as required by section 113 of Act 51 of 1977.

Court disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred back for prosecution before another magistrate with a plea of not guilty to be entered.

Orders

  • The finding of guilty by the Regional Magistrate of Jouberton is set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the Regional Magistrate Court of Jouberton to be proceeded with before another magistrate.
  • The magistrate hearing the matter must enter a plea of not guilty as provided for in section 113 of Act 51 of 1977.

02

Material facts

Parties

O[...] I[...] M[...]

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Appellant's Daily Earnings: ZAR 300
  • Appellant's Age at Sentence: 40
  • Number of Children: 5
  • Sentence Imposed by Magistrate (years): 10

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued that his plea did not admit all elements of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, as the injuries inflicted were not serious and the intention to cause grievous bodily harm was not established. He contended that the magistrate failed to properly question him and misdirected himself in convicting him as charged.
Respondent
The State maintained that the appellant's plea and admissions were sufficient for conviction and that the sentence imposed was justified by the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances described in the section 112(2) statement.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    S v Ngobe 1978(1) SA 309 (NC)

    A conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm requires proof of intention to inflict serious injury, which must be established by jurisdictional facts.

  2. 02

    Section 113 of Act 51 of 1977

    Where a plea does not admit all elements of the offence, the court must enter a plea of not guilty and require the prosecution to proceed.

  3. 03

    Hiemstra's Criminal Procedure, 17-3

    The court must be satisfied that all elements of the offence are admitted before convicting on a guilty plea under section 112(2).

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the appellant's admissions in the section 112(2) statement did not establish all the elements of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, particularly the intention to inflict serious injury. The magistrate failed to properly question the appellant and misdirected himself by convicting without sufficient inquiry. As a result, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was referred back for prosecution before another magistrate, with a plea of not guilty to be entered as required by section 113 of Act 51 of 1977.

Obiter and limits

  • It is not advisable for the same magistrate to hear the proceedings upon referral.
  • The sentence imposed was totally inappropriate given the facts, but no finding is made on sentence as the conviction itself was flawed.

Court disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred back for prosecution before another magistrate with a plea of not guilty to be entered.

  • The finding of guilty by the Regional Magistrate of Jouberton is set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the Regional Magistrate Court of Jouberton to be proceeded with before another magistrate.
  • The magistrate hearing the matter must enter a plea of not guilty as provided for in section 113 of Act 51 of 1977.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

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.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2014] ZAGPPHC 930

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG NORTH AND SOUTH PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

CASE NO: A 778/2014

DATE: 25 November 2014

In the matter between

O[...] I[...] M[...] …......................................................................................................................APPELLANT

And

THE STATE.............................................................................................................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

BOSMAN (AJ)

[1] The appellant appeared before the Regional Magistrate of Jouberton on a charge of Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, read with Section 51 (2) of Act 105 of 1997. He was legally represented.

[2] The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. A statement in terms of Section 112(2) of Act 51 Of 1977 was read into the record and handed in as an exhibit.

[3] In terms of the said statement the appellant stated that he is guilty of the crime of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and the Magistrate was satisfied that he admitted ail the elements of the offence, and the Magistrate convicted him as charged. The Magistrate sentenced the appellant to 10 (ten) years Imprisonment.

[4] In terms of the section 112(2) statement, the appellant declared that he is guilty of the said crime, in that he, at or near Jouberton, in the Regional Division of the North West, unlawfully and intentionally assaulted P[...] M[...], aged 11 years, with a waist belt, with the intention to cause her grievous bodily harm. On the day of the incident he just arrived at home from his odd jobs and, whilst inside the house his child K[...] cried loud. Upon investigation he found out that she was been assaulted by the complainant. He called the complainant and his two daughters inside the house, ordered them to lie on the ground and assaulted them with a waist belt on their backs. The complainant thereafter went to her parents and the appellants children went to sleep.

[5] In terms of the J 88 medical form, it appears that "tram-line" marks were visible on the back of the "Thighs "of the complainant, which was confirmed in a sketch.

[6] This form was compiled by one Dr Sebudi. The Appellant, was at the time of sentence 40 years of age, is married and had five children aged between fourteen (14), ten (10), (8) Eight, (7) Seven and (3)Three years. He was unemployed but was doing odd jobs. He was earning at the time plus minus R300 .00 per day. His wife was unemployed.

[7] Having read the Section 112 (2) statement in terms of Act 51 of 1977, and having regard to the fact that no serious injuries were inflicted upon the complainant, I am not convinced that ail the elements of the offence of assault with intend to do grievous bodily harm was present, I view that the Magistrate misdirected himself in making such a finding. He did not even question the accused. See: S v Ngobe 1978(1) SA 309 (NC); Hiemstra's Criminal Procedure, 17-3.

[8] Factors indicating that the Appellant had the intention to do grievous bodily harm have to be present and are jurisdictional facts that have to be present to have entitled the magistrate to find the appellant guilty as charged.

[9] The sentence imposed by the magistrate, of 10 (ten) years imprisonment, seems to be totally inappropriate. I state this without making any finding in this regard, for the reasons set out hereinafter.

[10] For the reasons I set out above, I am of the view that the finding of Guilty, as charged, was totally inappropriate and I therefore hold that this finding has to be set aside.

[11] The matter has to be referred back to the Magistrate, and the magistrate should enter a plea of not guilty (as provided for in terms of the provisions of Section 113 of Act 51 of 1977), and require the prosecutor to proceed with prosecution,

[12] I am further of the view that it is not advisable that the same Magistrate hear the proceedings and direct that the proceedings be held before another magistrate.

[13] In the result, I make the following order,

[13.1] The finding of guilty by the Regional Magistrate of Jouberton, is hereby set aside and the this matter is referred back to the Regional Magistrate Court of Jouberton, to be proceeded with before another magistrate and the magistrate that would hear this matter should enter a plea of not guilty, as provided for in the provisions of section 113ofAct51of 1977.

BOSMAN AJH

ACTING JUDGE IN

THE HIGH COURT

I AGREE,

AML PHATUDI

JUDGE OF THE

HIGH COURT

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

S v Ngobe 1978(1) SA 309 (NC)

Case cited

Section 51(2) of Act 105 of 1997

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 112(2) of Act 51 of 1977

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 113 of Act 51 of 1977

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.