S v Liesabon and Another (A 566/09) [2011] ZAGPJHC 216 (27 May 2011)

S v Liesabon and Another (A 566/09) [2011] ZAGPJHC 216 (27 May 2011)

The evidence did not prove all the elements of theft as charged. However, the facts established that both accused were found in possession of goods reasonably suspected to be stolen and were unable to provide a satisfactory account of such possession. Therefore, the proper conviction should have been under section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955, not theft. The sentences imposed by the magistrate were appropriate and need not be interfered with, but must be attributed to the correct offence.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 216
Parties
Applicant: State; Respondent: Sulliman Liesabon; Respondent: Rowan Jansen
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Case Number
A 566/09
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review Judgment
Outcome
Convictions of theft against both accused are set aside and replaced with convictions under section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955. Sentences are confirmed but attributed to the correct offence.
Judges
PA Meyer, WL Wepener
Legal Topics
General Law Amendment Act Section 36, Housebreaking, Theft, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition
Criminal Law General Law Amendment Act Section 36 Housebreaking Theft Unlawful Possession of Ammunition

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State

Applicant

Sulliman Liesabon

Respondent

Rowan Jansen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence proved the elements of theft against the accused.
  2. 2 Whether a conviction under section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955 was competent given the charges and evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed should be interfered with on review.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not prove all the elements of theft as charged. However, the facts established that both accused were found in possession of goods reasonably suspected to be stolen and were unable to provide a satisfactory account of such possession. Therefore, the proper conviction should have been under section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955, not theft. The sentences imposed by the magistrate were appropriate and need not be interfered with, but must be attributed to the correct offence.

Court Disposition

Convictions of theft against both accused are set aside and replaced with convictions under section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955. Sentences are confirmed but attributed to the correct offence.

Orders

  • Accused no 1 is found guilty of contravening section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955.
  • The sentence imposed upon accused no 1 is confirmed, attributed to the conviction under section 36.