S v Hlatswayo (A104/12) [2017] ZAGPPHC 912 (9 March 2017)

S v Hlatswayo (A104/12) [2017] ZAGPPHC 912 (9 March 2017)

The sentence of three years imprisonment imposed for contravention of section 1(1)(a) of the Trespass Act 6 of 1959 exceeded the statutory maximum of two years as provided by section 2 of the Act. This constituted a material irregularity and was admitted as an oversight by the trial magistrate. The review court set aside the sentence and remitted the matter for resentencing. The conviction under section 1(1)(a) was found to be valid, as the statutory provision exists and was correctly cited in the charge sheet.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 912
Parties
Respondent: The State; Appellant: Bafana Joseph Hlatswayo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2017
Case Number
A104/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Sentence
Outcome
Sentence set aside and matter remitted for resentencing.
Judges
S Potterill
Legal Topics
Trespass Act, Sentencing Limits, Review Procedure
Criminal Law Trespass Act Sentencing Limits Review Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Bafana Joseph Hlatswayo

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed for contravention of section 1(1)(a) of the Trespass Act 6 of 1959 exceeded the statutory maximum.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction under section 1(1)(a) of the Trespass Act was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of three years imprisonment imposed for contravention of section 1(1)(a) of the Trespass Act 6 of 1959 exceeded the statutory maximum of two years as provided by section 2 of the Act. This constituted a material irregularity and was admitted as an oversight by the trial magistrate. The review court set aside the sentence and remitted the matter for resentencing. The conviction under section 1(1)(a) was found to be valid, as the statutory provision exists and was correctly cited in the charge sheet.

Court Disposition

Sentence set aside and matter remitted for resentencing.

Orders

  • The sentence of three years imprisonment is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the trial magistrate to impose sentence afresh in the presence of the accused.