S v Biljoen and Another (75/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 60 (11 October 2007)

S v Biljoen and Another (75/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 60 (11 October 2007)

The sentences imposed by the magistrate in both cases were irregular because they either exceeded the permissible imprisonment period under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act or failed to provide an option of a fine. The review court found that the sentences must be set aside and substituted with sentences that comply with the statutory requirements. In van Biljoen's case, the sentence is substituted with a fine of R800 or three months imprisonment. In Thebe's case, the sentence is substituted with a fine of R500 or two months imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of common assault during the suspension period.

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 60
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: H P S van Biljoen; Respondent: Elisa Thebe
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2007
Case Number
75/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review of Sentences Imposed After Guilty Pleas Under Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Outcome
The sentences imposed by the magistrate are set aside and substituted with sentences that comply with section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges
Motsomane
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Act Section 112, Irregular Sentence, Review of Magistrate Decision
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Act Section 112 Irregular Sentence Review of Magistrate Decision

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

H P S van Biljoen

Respondent

Elisa Thebe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review of Sentences Imposed After Guilty Pleas Under Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act were lawful and appropriate.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences exceeded the statutory limits or failed to provide an option of a fine as required.
  3. 3 Whether the substituted sentences should be imposed to correct the irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed by the magistrate in both cases were irregular because they either exceeded the permissible imprisonment period under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act or failed to provide an option of a fine. The review court found that the sentences must be set aside and substituted with sentences that comply with the statutory requirements. In van Biljoen's case, the sentence is substituted with a fine of R800 or three months imprisonment. In Thebe's case, the sentence is substituted with a fine of R500 or two months imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of common assault during the suspension period.

Court Disposition

The sentences imposed by the magistrate are set aside and substituted with sentences that comply with section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Orders

  • In S v van Biljoen (case no. 104/2007), the sentence is substituted with R800 or three months imprisonment.
  • In S v Thebe (case no. 27/2007), the sentence is substituted with R500 or two months imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of common assault during the suspension period.