S v Kock (CA&R 90/04) [2004] ZANCHC 108 (30 August 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] ZANCHC 108
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C C Williams, S A Majiedt
- Case number
- CA&R 90/04
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C C Williams, S A Majiedt
- Case number
- CA&R 90/04
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal court found that the trial court failed to comply with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by convicting the appellant solely on a written plea that merely repeated the charge sheet, without establishing a factual basis for the plea. No clarifying questions were asked, and the admissions did not sufficiently support the convictions, particularly for culpable homicide, which in fact amounted to murder. Furthermore, the sentences were imposed without adequate factual information regarding the circumstances of the offences. The appeal court held that the convictions and sentences were not properly imposed and must be set aside. Condonation for the late filing of the notice of appeal was granted as the appellant provided sufficient reasons for the delay and demonstrated reasonable prospects of success.
Court disposition
Condonation for late filing of the notice of appeal is granted. The convictions and sentences on all three counts are set aside. The matter is remitted to the magistrate's court for retrial.
Orders
- Condonation for the late filing of the appellant's notice of appeal is granted.
- The convictions and sentences on all three counts are set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the magistrate's court at Barkly-West for retrial.
02
Material facts
Parties
Hans Kock
Appellant Counsel: F Van HeerdenThe State
Respondent Counsel: R Calitz03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Notice of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the appellant's notice of appeal.
- 02
Whether the trial court complied with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act when convicting the appellant on his plea.
- 03
Whether the convictions and sentences were properly imposed based on the facts before the trial court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial court failed to comply with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by convicting him solely on a written plea that merely repeated the charge sheet, without establishing a factual basis for the plea. He contended that no clarifying questions were asked and that the facts admitted did not support the convictions, especially for culpable homicide, which amounted to murder. He also provided reasons for the late filing of the notice of appeal, citing lack of funds.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the written plea was sufficient for conviction under section 112(2) and that the trial court was entitled to convict on the basis of the admissions made. The respondent opposed the condonation application, arguing that the appellant had not shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal or sufficient reasons for the delay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Mokoena 1982(3) SA 967
Condonation for late filing of an appeal will only be granted if there are reasonable prospects of success and sufficient reasons for the delay.
- 02
Section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
A conviction under section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that the accused's written statement sets out the factual basis for the plea, and the court must be satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence pleaded to.
- 03
S v B 1991(1) SASV 405(N)
The mere repetition of the charge sheet in a written plea is insufficient for conviction under section 112(2); the court must ensure the accused admits the essential factual elements of the offence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal court found that the trial court failed to comply with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by convicting the appellant solely on a written plea that merely repeated the charge sheet, without establishing a factual basis for the plea. No clarifying questions were asked, and the admissions did not sufficiently support the convictions, particularly for culpable homicide, which in fact amounted to murder. Furthermore, the sentences were imposed without adequate factual information regarding the circumstances of the offences. The appeal court held that the convictions and sentences were not properly imposed and must be set aside. Condonation for the late filing of the notice of appeal was granted as the appellant provided sufficient reasons for the delay and demonstrated reasonable prospects of success.
Obiter and limits
- The trial court should have taken steps to clarify the factual basis for the plea, especially where the written plea merely repeated the charge sheet.
- Proper sentencing requires that the court be fully informed of the circumstances in which the offences occurred, which was lacking in this case.
Court disposition
Condonation for late filing of the notice of appeal is granted. The convictions and sentences on all three counts are set aside. The matter is remitted to the magistrate's court for retrial.
- Condonation for the late filing of the appellant's notice of appeal is granted.
- The convictions and sentences on all three counts are set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the magistrate's court at Barkly-West for retrial.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
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.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(NOORD-KAAPSE AFDELING)
KIMBERLEY
SAAK NO.: CA&R 90/04
DATUM: 30-08-2004
In die Appèl van:
HANS KOCK …..........................................................................................................APPELLANT
teen
DIE STAAT …..........................................................................RESPONDENT
CORAM: MAJIEDT R et WILLIAMS R :
KONSEP-UITSPRAAK
WILLIAMS R:
Die Appellant is op 14 November 2001 in die Landdroshof te Barkly-Wes skuldig bevind op een aanklag van strafbare manslag en twee aanklagte van aanranding met die opset om ernstig te beseer nadat hy skuldig gepleit het daarop. Hy is gevonnis tot drie jaar gevangenisstraf op die aanklag van strafbare manslag en twee jaar gevangenisstraf op elk van de ander aanklagte.
Die Appellant kom nou in hoër beroep teen die skuldigbevindings op al drie die aanklagte sowel as teen die vonnisse hom opgelê.
Voor ons dien hier ook ‘n aansoek van kondonasie vir die laat liassering van die Appellant se Kennisgewing van Appèl.
Dit is geykte reg dat kondonasie slegs toegestaan sal word indien daar ‘n redelike vooruitsig van sukses op appèl is en die Appellant voldoende redes aanvoer vir die versuim verskaf.
Die Appellant het in ‘n beëdigde verklaring tot die aansoek die redes vir die versuim om die Kennisgewing van Appèl betyds te liaseer uiteengesit en is ek tevrede dat die versuim te wyte is aan aanvanklike gebrek aan fondse - -- -
Die enigste grond waarop die Appellant sy skuldigbevindings aanval is dat die verhoorhof nie die bepalings van artikel 112(2) van Wet 51 van 1997 nagekom het nie deur “sonder dat daar enige feitebasis voor die Hof geplaas was te bevind dat hy oortuig is dat die Appellant skuldig is aan die misdrywe waraan hy skuldig gepleit het.”
Die Appellant wat regsverteenwoordig was het ‘n skriftelike pleit in terme van artikel 112(2) aan die verhoorhof voorgelê.
Hiervolgens pleit hy ten opsigte van die aanklag van strafbare manslag as volg:
“On or about the 29th day of January 2000, and at or near 3471 Spitskop Road at De Beers Hoogte in die district of Barkly-West I wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted Maria Madela by kicking her three times on the stomach and trampling upon her.
As a result of the kicking, Maria Madela thereby sustained a mortal injury which mortal injury thereby caused the death of the said Maria Mdela and as a result she died on the 15th day of February 2000.
I admit that I had the intention to assault Maria Madela and to cause a mortal injury to her body.”
Ten opsigte van die tweede aanklag word die volgende gepleit.
“On or about the 26th day of August 2000, and at or near Bojelo Tavern in the district of Barkly-West, I wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted Freddie Olebogeng
Koopman by stabbing him with bottle.
As a result of the stab, Freddie Olebogeng Koopman sustained injuries which I did with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm.
I admit that I had the intention to stab Freddie Olebogeng Koopman with a bottle and thereby to cause him grievous bodily harm.”
Die pleit ten opsigte van die derde aanklag volg presies dieselfde bewoording van die pleit ten opsigte van die tweede aanklag met slegs gepaste verskille ten opsigte van slagoffer, datum en wapen.
Die artikel 112(2) verklaring is inderdaad slegs ‘n herhaling van die klagstaat sonder dat enige dringende feite daarin bevat word.
Artikel 112(2) van Wet 51 van 1977 bepaal as volg:
“Indien ‘n beskuldigde of sy regsadviseur ‘n skriftelike verklaring deur die beskuldigde by die hof inhandig waarind ie beskuldigde die feite uiteensit wat hy erekn en waarop hy skuldig gepleit het, kan die hof, in plaas van ‘n ondervraging ooreenkomstig subartikel (1)(b), die beskuldigde op grond van bedoelde verklaring skuldig bevind en vonnis soos in genoemde subartikel bepaal indien hy oortuig is dat die beskuldigde skuldig is aan die misdryf waaraan hy skuldig gepleit het: Met dien verstande dat die hof na goeddunke enige vraag aan die beskuldigde kan stel ten einde ‘n aangeleentheid op te helder wat in die verklaring geopper is.”
Dit blyk duidelik vanuit artikel 112(2) dat die blote erkenning of herhaling van die bewerings in die klagstaat nie voldoende is nie en dat die verhoorhof homself moet oortuig dat die betrokke beskuldigde inderdaad skuldig is aan die misdryf waarop skuldig gepleit is. Sien S v B 1991(1) SASV 405(N).
Geen vrae ter opheldering is deur die verhoorhof aan die Appellant gestel nie en is hy op sterkte van die verklaring skuldig bevind, selfs waar die Appellant se skriftelike pleit op die aanklag van strafbare manslag eintlik op moord neerkom.
Na my mening kan die verhoorhof hom in hierdie omstandighede nie vergewis of die Appellant inderdaad skuldig is aan die misdrywe waarop hy skuldig gepleit het nie, en is die skuldigbevindings gebasseer op hierdie verklaring alleen ongeoorloof.
Dieselfde geld ten opsgite van die vonnisse opgelê. Alhoewel die Appellant se persoonlike omstandighede voorgelê is aan die verhoorhof en die twee klaers in aanklagte 2 en 3 getuig het oor hul beserings is daar geen getuienis voor die hof geplaas oor die omstandighede waarin die misdrywe plaasgevind het nie. Die verhoorhof het ook geen moeite gedoen om self hierdie inligting te bekom nie. Daar kan dus geen sprake daarvan wees dat die Appellant behoorlik gevonnis is op die ware feite van die saak nie. Sein S v Mokoena 1982(3) SA 967 – te bl 968.
In die omstandighede is ek van mening dat die Appellant se aansoek om kondonasie vir die laat liassering van sy Kennisgewing van Appèl toegestaan moet word en dat die skuldigbevindings en vonnisse ten opsigte van al drie aanklagte tersyde gestel moet word en dat die saak terugverwys moet word na die Landdroshof vir herverhoor.
Ek sou dus die volgende bevel maak:
a) Aansoek om kondonasie vir die laat liassering van die Appellant se Kennisgewing van Appèl word toegestaan.
b) Die skuldigbevindings en vonnisse ten opsigte van al drie aanklagte word tersyde gestel.
c) Die saak word terugverwys na die Landdroshof te Barkly-Wes vir herverhoor.
_______
C C WILLIAMS
REGTER
Ek stem saam
S A MAJIEDT
Nms. Appellant: Adv. F Van Heerden
Nms. Respondent: Adv. R Calitz
Datum aangehoor: 11 Augustus 2003
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.