S v Barketts Transport (Edms) Bpk. t/a Trans SA and Another (122/86) [1987] ZASCA 111; [1988] 1 All SA 339 (A) (29 September 1987)

S v Barketts Transport (Edms) Bpk. t/a Trans SA and Another (122/86) [1987] ZASCA 111; [1988] 1 All SA 339 (A) (29 September 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 86(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not permit the substitution of one offence for another by way of amendment to the charge sheet. The provision is intended to allow correction of defects, omissions, or errors in the existing charge, not to create a new charge or substitute a different offence. The charge against the appellants was for contravening section 31(1)(a) of the Road Transportation Act, but as permit holders, they could only be charged under section 31(1)(b). The attempt by the State to amend the charge sheet amounted to substituting a new offence, which is not authorized by section 86(1). The convictions and sentences were...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 111
Parties
Appellant: Barketts Transport (Edms) Bpk. t/a Trans SA; Appellant: William Roland Burke; Respondent: Die Staat
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 1987
Case Number
122/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Corbett, Botha, Jacobs, Smalberger, Vivier
Legal Topics
Amendment of Charge Sheet, Interpretation of Criminal Procedure Act, Substitution of Offences, Road Transport Permit, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Charge Sheet Interpretation of Criminal Procedure Act Substitution of Offences Road Transport Permit Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barketts Transport (Edms) Bpk. t/a Trans SA

Appellant

William Roland Burke

Appellant

Die Staat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment of the charge sheet to substitute a new offence is permissible under section 86(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted under section 31(1)(a) of the Road Transportation Act when they held a valid permit.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in refusing the amendment and upholding the convictions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 86(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not permit the substitution of one offence for another by way of amendment to the charge sheet. The provision is intended to allow correction of defects, omissions, or errors in the existing charge, not to create a new charge or substitute a different offence. The charge against the appellants was for contravening section 31(1)(a) of the Road Transportation Act, but as permit holders, they could only be charged under section 31(1)(b). The attempt by the State to amend the charge sheet amounted to substituting a new offence, which is not authorized by section 86(1). The convictions and sentences were...

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The application to amend the charge sheet is refused.
  • The convictions and sentences of both appellants are set aside.