Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

S v De Kok (186/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 173 (18 September 2012)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The evidence, including the accused's admissions, clearly established that the accused broke into the premises with the intent to steal. Section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits the court to convict on the specific offence proved by the evidence. It is both legally correct and necessary for the conviction to reflect housebreaking with intent to steal, rather than with intent to commit a crime unknown to the state. The conviction is therefore amended accordingly, and the sentence imposed by the magistrate is confirmed.

Court disposition

Conviction amended to housebreaking with intent to steal; sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The accused's previous conviction is set aside and replaced with a conviction of housebreaking with intent to steal.
  • The imposed sentence is confirmed.

02

Material facts

Parties

The State

Applicant

Marshall De Kok

Respondent Counsel: Z Luntinto

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Review / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The prosecution accepted the accused's admissions that he broke into the premises with the intent to steal. The facts as admitted by the accused and confirmed by the prosecutor established the specific intent to steal, making the conviction for housebreaking with intent to commit a crime unknown to the state inappropriate.
Respondent
The accused, through his legal representative, admitted to breaking into the house and intending to steal. He was caught inside the premises and had no lawful reason to be there. The accused did not dispute the factual basis for amending the conviction to housebreaking with intent to steal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    S v Blaauw 1994 (1) SACR 11E

    Where evidence establishes the specific intent to commit a known crime, the conviction should reflect that specific intent rather than an unknown intent.

  2. 02

    Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977

    Section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows for conviction on a specific offence if the evidence proves such, even if the original charge was for an offence with unknown intent.

  3. 03

    Du Toit et al, Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act 26/9

    It is misleading for criminal record purposes to convict for housebreaking with intent to commit a crime unknown to the state when the intent is established as theft.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The evidence, including the accused's admissions, clearly established that the accused broke into the premises with the intent to steal. Section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits the court to convict on the specific offence proved by the evidence. It is both legally correct and necessary for the conviction to reflect housebreaking with intent to steal, rather than with intent to commit a crime unknown to the state. The conviction is therefore amended accordingly, and the sentence imposed by the magistrate is confirmed.

Obiter and limits

  • It would be senseless and misleading for criminal record purposes to convict for housebreaking with intent to commit a crime unknown to the state when the intent to steal is established.
  • The judgment and sentence were originally recorded in Afrikaans, but the legal reasoning and orders are confirmed in English for review purposes.

Court disposition

Conviction amended to housebreaking with intent to steal; sentence confirmed.

  • The accused's previous conviction is set aside and replaced with a conviction of housebreaking with intent to steal.
  • The imposed sentence is confirmed.

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.

Source document

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Judgment

[2012] ZAFSHC 173

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH

AFRICA

Case No. : 186/2012

In the review of:-

THE

STATE

and

MARSHALL

DE KOK

_____________

CORAM: DAFFUE, J et

JUDGMENT BY: DAFFUE, J

DELIVERED ON: 18 SEPTEMBER 2012

[1] This matter was send to the High Court for special review in terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1997 (“CTA”).

[2] The accused was charged with and convicted on 22 May 2012 of housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime unknown to the state. He was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment of which was suspended for a period for 4 years on condition that he is not convicted of housebreaking with the intent to commit any crime or attempt thereto of theft or attempted theft and for which the sentence to unsuspended imprisonment without the option of a fine committed during the period of suspension. The accused was represented by an attorney, Mr Z Luntinto.

[3] A statement in terms of section 112(2) of the CTA was prepared for and on behalf of the accused by his legal representative which statement was read into the record and handed in as exhibit A. The accused confirmed that he signed the statement and the correctness of the allegations contained therein. The prosecutor confirmed that the facts as avert were in accordance with the state’s case and the plea was accepted on that basis.

[4] It appears from the section 112(2) statement that the accused was caught red-handed by the complainant whilst he was already inside his house after obtaining excess through a window, the handle of which had been broken by the accused. The statement inter alia contains the following admissions:

“4.2 On the said date I went to the above address and then I broke the handle of the window. I entered to (sic) the house at about 02am in the morning.

…

5. I admit that after I entering to (sic) the house I checked the items in order to steal it.

6. I admit that the owner of the house came and caught me inside the house.

7. I admit further that I had no reason in law to break into the said premises with intent to steal.”

[5] The presiding magistrate submitted that the conviction was not in accordance with the law and requested the High Court to amend the conviction and to convict the accused of housebreaking with the intent to steal and further, to confirm the sentence. The court a quo relied on the judgments of S v BLAAUW 1994 (1) SACR 11E and S v KESOLOFETSE AND ANOTHER 2004 (2) SACR 166 (NC).

[6] Section 262 of the CPA reads as follows:

“2. If the evidence on a charge of housebreaking with intent to commit an offence to the prosecutor unknown, whether the charge is brought under a statute of the common law, does not proof the offence of housebreaking with intent to commit an offence to the prosecutor unknown, but the offence housebreaking with intent to commit a specific offence, or the offence of malicious injury to property the accused maybe found guilty of the offence so proofed.”

[7] The allegations contained in section 112(2) statement presented the evidence on which the accused was found guilty. That evidence indicated the accused’s intention at the time and that was to steal. It was not necessary amend the charge at that stage, but to convict the accused on the known facts of housebreaking with the intent to steal. As state by Du Toit et el commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act 26/9 it would be senseless and also misleading for criminal record purposes to held otherwise.

[8] In conclusion I confirm that I am in agreement with the judgements referred to by the presiding magistrate as well as his present viewpoint. The judgment and sentence were recorded in Afrikaans and therefore the order therein will be in Afrikaans.

[9] Consequently, the following orders are issue:

Beskuldigde se skuldigbevinding word ter syde gestel en vervang met die volgende:

Beskuldigde word skuldig bevind aan huisbraak met die opset om te steel.

2. Die opgelegde vonnis word bekragtig.

______

J. P. DAFFUE, J

I concur.

_______

/eb

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 Blaauw 1994 (1) SACR 11E

Case cited

S v Kesolofetse and Another 2004 (2) SACR 166 (NC)

Case cited

Criminal Procedure 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.