S v De Wet (CA&R 67\04) [2005] ZANCHC 103 (29 September 2005)

S v De Wet (CA&R 67\04) [2005] ZANCHC 103 (29 September 2005)

The court found that the device in question, a captive bolt pistol used in abattoirs, is specifically excluded from the definition of 'firearm' under section 5(1)(d) of the Firearms Control Act, 60 of 2000. Therefore, the convictions and sentences on charges 2 and 5, relating to unlawful possession and handling of a firearm, were unsustainable and set aside. The .22 blank cartridges found in the appellant's possession do qualify as 'ammunition' under the Act, and the conviction on charge 3 was upheld. The conviction for murder with dolus eventualis was confirmed, as the appellant foresaw the possibility of death but proceeded to pull the trigger. The court found the cumulative sentence...

Citation
[2005] ZANCHC 103
Parties
Appellant: Jonathan De Wet; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2005
Case Number
CA&R 67\04
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Convictions and sentences on charges 2 and 5 set aside. Sentence on charge 4 reduced and suspended in part. Sentences on charges 3 and 4 to run concurrently. Appellant to be released immediately.
Judges
Majiedt R, Lacock R
Legal Topics
Dolus Eventualis, Firearms Control Act, Sentence Reduction, Captive Bolt Gun Definition, Ammunition Possession
Criminal Law Dolus Eventualis Firearms Control Act Sentence Reduction Captive Bolt Gun Definition Ammunition Possession

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

Parties

Jonathan De Wet

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the device in question constitutes a 'firearm' under the Firearms Control Act, 60 of 2000.
  2. 2 Whether the .22 blank cartridges found in the appellant's possession qualify as 'ammunition' under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions and sentences imposed for charges 2 and 5 are legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the device in question, a captive bolt pistol used in abattoirs, is specifically excluded from the definition of 'firearm' under section 5(1)(d) of the Firearms Control Act, 60 of 2000. Therefore, the convictions and sentences on charges 2 and 5, relating to unlawful possession and handling of a firearm, were unsustainable and set aside. The .22 blank cartridges found in the appellant's possession do qualify as 'ammunition' under the Act, and the conviction on charge 3 was upheld. The conviction for murder with dolus eventualis was confirmed, as the appellant foresaw the possibility of death but proceeded to pull the trigger. The court found the cumulative sentence...

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences on charges 2 and 5 set aside. Sentence on charge 4 reduced and suspended in part. Sentences on charges 3 and 4 to run concurrently. Appellant to be released immediately.

Orders

  • The appellant's convictions on charge 2 (contravention of section 2 of Act 75/1969) and charge 5 (contravention of section 39(1)(m) of Act 75/1969) are set aside.
  • The sentence of five years' imprisonment imposed on charge 4 is set aside and replaced with five years' imprisonment, half of which is suspended for four years on condition that the appellant is not convicted of an offence involving violence during the period of suspension.