S v Lebeko (A325/2016, B74/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 402 (24 May 2016)

S v Lebeko (A325/2016, B74/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 402 (24 May 2016)

The evidence established that accused number 1 and his accomplices intended to break into the complainant's house and steal property. Their actions progressed beyond preparation, as they entered the premises and attempted to open a window to gain entry. However, they were interrupted by the complainant before the theft could be completed. The law distinguishes between completed offences and attempts, and in this case, the conduct amounted to attempted house breaking with intent to steal and attempted theft, not a completed theft. Therefore, the conviction for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and theft must be set aside and substituted with a conviction for attempted house...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 402
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: Tshepiso Samuel Lebeko
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2016
Case Number
A325/2016, B74/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
The conviction of accused number 1 on count 2 for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and theft is set aside and substituted with a conviction for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and attempted theft. The matter is remitted to the magistrate for appropriate sentencing.
Judges
T. A. Maumela, A. H. Petersen
Legal Topics
Attempted Housebreaking, Attempted Theft, Criminal Procedure Act, Conviction Substitution
Criminal Law Attempted Housebreaking Attempted Theft Criminal Procedure Act Conviction Substitution

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Tshepiso Samuel Lebeko

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of accused number 1 on count 2 for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and theft was correct.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supported a conviction for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and attempted theft rather than theft.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction should be set aside and substituted.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that accused number 1 and his accomplices intended to break into the complainant's house and steal property. Their actions progressed beyond preparation, as they entered the premises and attempted to open a window to gain entry. However, they were interrupted by the complainant before the theft could be completed. The law distinguishes between completed offences and attempts, and in this case, the conduct amounted to attempted house breaking with intent to steal and attempted theft, not a completed theft. Therefore, the conviction for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and theft must be set aside and substituted with a conviction for attempted house...

Court Disposition

The conviction of accused number 1 on count 2 for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and theft is set aside and substituted with a conviction for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and attempted theft. The matter is remitted to the magistrate for appropriate sentencing.

Orders

  • The conviction of accused number 1 on count 2 for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and theft is set aside and substituted with a conviction for attempted house breaking with intent to steal and attempted theft.
  • The case is remitted to the magistrate for the district of Potchefstroom, held at Fochville, for an appropriate sentence to be imposed upon accused number 1 for count 2.