S v Lechesa [2007] ZAFSHC 104 (10 August 2007)

S v Lechesa [2007] ZAFSHC 104 (10 August 2007)

The court found that the accused were not properly convicted on charge 2 because the charge was never put to them and they did not plead to it. This constitutes a procedural irregularity that vitiates the convictions and sentences on charge 2. The convictions and sentences on charges 1 and 3 were properly entered after the accused pleaded and were questioned in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the convictions and sentences on charge 2 must be set aside, while those on charges 1 and 3 are confirmed.

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 104
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Lechesa Lechesa & 16 Others
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2007
Case Number
505/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review of Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Convictions and sentences on charge 2 for all accused are set aside. Convictions and sentences on charge 1 for all accused and charge 3 for accused 1 are confirmed.
Judges
G. H. Bloem, A. P. Beckley
Legal Topics
Plea Procedure, Conviction Without Plea, Irregularity in Criminal Procedure, Review of Magistrate Decision
Criminal Law Plea Procedure Conviction Without Plea Irregularity in Criminal Procedure Review of Magistrate Decision

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Lechesa Lechesa & 16 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Review of Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were properly convicted on charge 2 without having pleaded to it.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentences on charge 2 should be set aside due to procedural irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions and sentences on charges 1 and 3 were properly entered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused were not properly convicted on charge 2 because the charge was never put to them and they did not plead to it. This constitutes a procedural irregularity that vitiates the convictions and sentences on charge 2. The convictions and sentences on charges 1 and 3 were properly entered after the accused pleaded and were questioned in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the convictions and sentences on charge 2 must be set aside, while those on charges 1 and 3 are confirmed.

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences on charge 2 for all accused are set aside. Convictions and sentences on charge 1 for all accused and charge 3 for accused 1 are confirmed.

Orders

  • The convictions and sentences of all accused on charge 1 are confirmed.
  • The convictions and sentences of all accused on charge 2 are set aside.