S v A R; S v R B; S v A C (B5/2019; B78/2019; SHA70/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 146; 2020 (1) SACR 580 (WCC) (1 November 2019)

S v A R; S v R B; S v A C (B5/2019; B78/2019; SHA70/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 146; 2020 (1) SACR 580 (WCC) (1 November 2019)

The court held that section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act did not apply to any of the accused, as none were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Instead, section 103(2) applied, requiring the magistrates to enquire and determine whether the accused were unfit to possess firearms, since each was convicted of a Schedule 2 offence and sentenced otherwise than imprisonment without the option of a fine. The magistrates erred by recording that the accused were 'not unfit to possess firearms' or 'not unfit for a firearm', as the Act only requires a declaration of unfitness where such a determination is made. No declaration of fitness or 'not unfit' is contemplated by the...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 146
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: AR; Respondent: RB; Respondent: AC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2019
Case Number
B5/2019; B78/2019; SHA70/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Automatic Review Under S 302(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Convictions and sentences in all three matters are confirmed as being in accordance with justice. The orders declaring the accused 'not unfit to possess firearms' are set aside and replaced with a record that no order is made in terms of section 103(2)(b) of the Firearms Control Act.
Judges
K M Savage, L J Bozalek
Legal Topics
Firearms Control Act, Child Justice Act, Automatic Review, Fitness to Possess Firearm, Sentencing of Minors
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Firearms Control Act Child Justice Act Automatic Review Fitness to Possess Firearm Sentencing of Minors

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

AR

Respondent

RB

Respondent

AC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Automatic Review Under S 302(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates correctly applied section 103 of the Firearms Control Act in relation to child offenders convicted of crimes involving violence or dishonesty.
  2. 2 Whether the declarations regarding fitness or unfitness to possess firearms were in accordance with the statutory requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed and postponement of sentence were in accordance with justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act did not apply to any of the accused, as none were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Instead, section 103(2) applied, requiring the magistrates to enquire and determine whether the accused were unfit to possess firearms, since each was convicted of a Schedule 2 offence and sentenced otherwise than imprisonment without the option of a fine. The magistrates erred by recording that the accused were 'not unfit to possess firearms' or 'not unfit for a firearm', as the Act only requires a declaration of unfitness where such a determination is made. No declaration of fitness or 'not unfit' is contemplated by the...

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences in all three matters are confirmed as being in accordance with justice. The orders declaring the accused 'not unfit to possess firearms' are set aside and replaced with a record that no order is made in terms of section 103(2)(b) of the Firearms Control Act.

Orders

  • In S v AR: The conviction and sentence are confirmed, except the order that the accused is 'not unfit to possess firearms', which is set aside and replaced with 'No order is made in terms of s 103(2)(b) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000'.
  • In S v RB: The conviction and postponement of sentence are confirmed, except the order that the accused is 'not unfit for a firearm', which is set aside and replaced with 'No order is made in terms of s 103(2)(b) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000'.