S v Daribo [2009] ZAFSHC 60 (21 May 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 60
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A.F. Jordaan, C.H.G. van der Merwe
- Case number
- 285/2009
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A.F. Jordaan, C.H.G. van der Merwe
- Case number
- 285/2009
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial court imposed a sentence that included a suspended term of imprisonment in addition to a fine or alternative imprisonment, following a guilty plea under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The reviewing court held that section 112(1)(a) does not permit the imposition of any sentence of imprisonment other than the prescribed maximum, and a suspended sentence of imprisonment remains a sentence of imprisonment for the purposes of the section. Accordingly, the sentence imposed was impermissible and had to be set aside. The conviction was confirmed, but the matter was remitted to the trial court for the imposition of a lawful sentence.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside; matter remitted to trial court for imposition of appropriate sentence.
Orders
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The sentence is set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the trial court for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantYolannayse Daribo
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed by Trial Court: ZAR 500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Review of Sentence After Conviction on Guilty Plea
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was permissible under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
- 02
Whether the additional suspended sentence of imprisonment was lawful in the circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Acting Senior Magistrate submitted that the sentence imposed was inappropriate and contrary to section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, requesting the reviewing judge to set aside the sentence and remit the record for imposition of an appropriate sentence.
- Respondent
- No argument was advanced by the respondent; the matter was brought for review by the magistrate on the basis of procedural irregularity.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 112(1)(a)
Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 limits the sentencing powers of a magistrate following a guilty plea to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding a prescribed threshold, and does not permit additional suspended imprisonment.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 112(1)(a)(i)
A suspended sentence of imprisonment constitutes a sentence of imprisonment and thus falls outside the scope of section 112(1)(a).
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial court imposed a sentence that included a suspended term of imprisonment in addition to a fine or alternative imprisonment, following a guilty plea under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The reviewing court held that section 112(1)(a) does not permit the imposition of any sentence of imprisonment other than the prescribed maximum, and a suspended sentence of imprisonment remains a sentence of imprisonment for the purposes of the section. Accordingly, the sentence imposed was impermissible and had to be set aside. The conviction was confirmed, but the matter was remitted to the trial court for the imposition of a lawful sentence.
Obiter and limits
- The remarks of the Acting Senior Magistrate were correct in identifying the procedural irregularity in sentencing.
- The reviewing court emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to the sentencing limits set out in section 112(1)(a) when dealing with guilty pleas.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside; matter remitted to trial court for imposition of appropriate sentence.
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The sentence is set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the trial court for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Review No. : 285/2009
In the review between:-
THE
STATE
and
YOLANNAYSE
DARIBO
______________
CORAM: VAN DER MERWE, J et JORDAAN,
J
JUDGMENT BY: JORDAAN
J
DELIVERED ON: 21 MAY 2009
[1] In this matter the accused was charged of contravention of section 37(b) read with sections 1, 21, 22 and 38 of the Refugees Act no 130 of 1998 and further read with section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act no 51 of 1977.
[2] The accused pleaded guilty and the trial court, in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 convicted the accused accordingly.
[3] The accused was sentenced to a fine of R500 (five hundred rand) or 30 (thirty) days imprisonment plus a further 5 (five) months imprisonment suspended for 2 (two) years on certain conditions.
[4] The matter was brought to the attention of this court by an Acting Senior Magistrate in terms of the provisions of 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The honourable Magistrate comments as follows:
âIt is my humble submission that the sentence is not appropriate and runs counter the provisions of Section 112(1)(a) Act 51 of 1977. Under the given circumstance, I request the Honourable Reviewing Judge to set aside the sentence and remit the record back to the Magistrate to impose an appropriate sentence.â
[5] The remarks of the said Magistrate is clearly correct in that the additional suspended sentence of imprisonment remains a sentence of imprisonment and therefore falls outside the ambit of Section 112(1)(a) and in particular contrary to subsection (i) thereof. The sentence is therefore not permissible in the circumstances and has to be set aside.
In the premises the conviction is confirmed but the sentence is set aside and the matter referred back to the trial court for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
___
A.F. JORDAAN, J
I agree.
_______
C.H.G. VAN DER MERWE, J
/AM
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.