S v Lelala (64/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 48 (28 March 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZAFSHC 48
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- R Jordaan, SPB Hancke
- Case number
- 64/2013
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- R Jordaan, SPB Hancke
- Case number
- 64/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the accused was charged and convicted under Act 74 of 1983, which had been repealed and replaced by the Children's Act 38 of 2005. The conviction under the repealed statute was therefore invalid. The court held that it was unnecessary to refer the matter back for a new trial under the existing charge sheet, as it was based on the incorrect statute. Instead, the conviction was set aside, and the State was granted liberty to recharge the accused under the correct provision of the Children's Act if it so chose.
Court disposition
Conviction set aside due to being based on repealed legislation.
Orders
- The conviction of Nutricia Lelala is set aside.
- The State is at liberty to recharge the accused under the correct provision of the Children's Act 38 of 2005.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantNutricia Lelala
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction of the accused under the incorrect statute is valid.
- 02
Whether the conviction should be set aside due to the charge being brought under repealed legislation.
- 03
Whether the matter should be referred back for a new trial under the correct statute.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The magistrate requested that the conviction be set aside because the accused was charged and convicted under the wrong statute, which had been repealed and replaced by the Children's Act 38 of 2005. The State seeks to have the conviction set aside and the matter referred back for a new trial under the correct law.
- Respondent
- The accused pleaded guilty to child abuse under Act 74 of 1983, unaware that the statute had been replaced. There is no indication of opposition to the magistrate's request; the respondent's position is not separately articulated.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 304(4)
A conviction under a repealed statute is invalid and must be set aside.
- 02
Children's Act 38 of 2005
Where an accused is charged under incorrect legislation, the conviction cannot stand and the State may recharge under the correct law.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the accused was charged and convicted under Act 74 of 1983, which had been repealed and replaced by the Children's Act 38 of 2005. The conviction under the repealed statute was therefore invalid. The court held that it was unnecessary to refer the matter back for a new trial under the existing charge sheet, as it was based on the incorrect statute. Instead, the conviction was set aside, and the State was granted liberty to recharge the accused under the correct provision of the Children's Act if it so chose.
Obiter and limits
- The current charge sheet is defective as it refers to a repealed statute; any further proceedings must be based on the correct legislation.
- The State is not precluded from instituting fresh proceedings under the Children's Act.
Court disposition
Conviction set aside due to being based on repealed legislation.
- The conviction of Nutricia Lelala is set aside.
- The State is at liberty to recharge the accused under the correct provision of the Children's Act 38 of 2005.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
VRYSTAATSE HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA
Hersiening Nr. : 64/2013
In die hersiening tussen:-
DIE
STAAT
en
NUTRICIA
LELALA
_____________
CORAM: HANCKE, WND RP et JORDAAN, R
UITSPRAAK DEUR: JORDAAN, R
GELEWER OP: 28 MAART 2013
____________
[1] Die beskuldigde is aangekla van kindermishandeling ter oortreding van Wet 74 van 1983. Sy het skuldig gepleit en is ooreenkomstig haar pleitverduideliking skuldig bevind.
[2] Voordat sy gevonnis is, het die verhoorlanddros besef dat die betrokke Wet vervang is deur die Kinderwet Nr 38 van 2005 en dat sy derhalwe in terme van die verkeerde Wet aangekla en skuldig bevind is.
[3] Die saak is gestuur vir ‘n spesiale hersiening in terme van Artikel 304(4) van die Strafproseswet Nr 51 van 1977. Die landdros versoek dat die skuldigbevinding uit die hoofde van die voorgaande fout tersyde gestel word en dat die saak terug verwys word ten einde de novo te begin.
[4] Daar is geen twyfel dat die skuldigbevinding uit hoofde van die voormelde omstandighede nie korrek is nie en dat gevolg gegee moet word aan die versoek van die landdros.
[5] Soos wat die klagstaat tans lui, is die beskuldigde steeds aangekla onder die verkeerde Wet en sou ‘n terugverwysing vir doeleindes van ‘n de novo verhoor in terme van die bestaande klagstaat geen doel dien nie. Dit is derhalwe slegs nodig dat die skuldigbevinding tersyde gestel word en sal dit die Staat vry staan om haar opnuut aan te kla, onder die korrekte Artikel van die nuwe Wet.
[6] Gevolglik word die skuldigbevinding tersyde gestel.
___
A.F. JORDAAN, R
Ek stem saam.
______
S.P.B. HANCKE, WND RP
/sp
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.