S v Longdistance (Natal) (Pty) Ltd. and Others (125/89) [1989] ZASCA 124; [1990] 1 All SA 390 (A) (28 September 1989)

S v Longdistance (Natal) (Pty) Ltd. and Others (125/89) [1989] ZASCA 124; [1990] 1 All SA 390 (A) (28 September 1989)

The court found that the accused, as experienced transport operators, failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the scope of their permits and that reliance on Stephens's advice was unreasonable given its manifest absurdity. Mens rea in the form of negligence was sufficient for conviction. The transportation in two separate vehicles, for separate rewards and under separate permits, constituted two distinct offences, not an unlawful splitting of charges. The convictions should have been under s.31(1)(b) rather than s.31(1)(a), as the accused were permit holders. Previous convictions based on admissions of guilt were not properly proved, and only admitted convictions could be...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 124
Parties
Appellant: Longdistance (Natal) (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Longdistance (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Lorraine Truck Hire (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Marius Hendrik Ockert Els; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 1989
Case Number
125/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Magistrate's Court, Confirmed by Provincial Division, Now Before Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Convictions substituted under s.31(1)(b) of the Road Transportation Act. Sentences reduced. Declaration of forfeiture set aside.
Judges
Botha, Hefer, Kumleben, Nicholas, Friedman
Legal Topics
Mens Rea, Road Transportation Act, Admission of Guilt, Splitting of Charges, Forfeiture of Property
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Mens Rea Road Transportation Act Admission of Guilt Splitting of Charges Forfeiture of Property

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Longdistance (Natal) (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Longdistance (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Lorraine Truck Hire (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Marius Hendrik Ockert Els

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Magistrate's Court, Confirmed by Provincial Division, Now Before Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had the necessary mens rea for contraventions under s.31(1) of the Road Transportation Act.
  2. 2 Whether there was unlawful splitting of charges in charging two counts.
  3. 3 Whether convictions should have been under s.31(1)(b) rather than s.31(1)(a) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused, as experienced transport operators, failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the scope of their permits and that reliance on Stephens's advice was unreasonable given its manifest absurdity. Mens rea in the form of negligence was sufficient for conviction. The transportation in two separate vehicles, for separate rewards and under separate permits, constituted two distinct offences, not an unlawful splitting of charges. The convictions should have been under s.31(1)(b) rather than s.31(1)(a), as the accused were permit holders. Previous convictions based on admissions of guilt were not properly proved, and only admitted convictions could be...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Convictions substituted under s.31(1)(b) of the Road Transportation Act. Sentences reduced. Declaration of forfeiture set aside.

Orders

  • Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are found guilty on the alternative charges in counts 1 and 2 (contraventions of s.31(1)(b) of Act 74 of 1977).
  • Accused No. 3 is found guilty on the alternative charge in count 2 (contravention of s.31(1)(b) of Act 74 of 1977).