S v Mabe (A32/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 6 (21 January 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZAGPPHC 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- S Potterill, A J Bam
- Case number
- A32/2016
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- S Potterill, A J Bam
- Case number
- A32/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court held that the accused did not admit the required element of intention to permanently deprive the complainant of the property, which is essential for a conviction of theft on a guilty plea. The Magistrate erred in convicting the accused under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The correct procedure, as set out in section 113(1), is to record a plea of not guilty and allow the prosecution to proceed. The conviction and sentence were not in accordance with justice and must be set aside.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred back to Magistrate for further proceedings under section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantBriaan Mabe
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed by Magistrate: ZAR 4,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / High Court Review of Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's plea of guilty was valid in light of his denial of intention to permanently deprive the complainant.
- 02
Whether the Magistrate was correct in convicting the accused of theft under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- 03
Whether the Magistrate should have recorded a plea of not guilty and proceeded in terms of section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the accused did not admit the required element of intent for theft and that the conviction was not in accordance with justice. The Magistrate was obliged under section 113(1) to record a plea of not guilty and require the prosecution to proceed. The conviction and sentence should be set aside and the matter referred back for proper procedure.
- Respondent
- The accused explained in his guilty plea that he was only borrowing the goods and did not intend to permanently deprive the complainant, thus denying the necessary intention for theft. The Magistrate argued that the accused's conduct demonstrated intent to steal, but this was disputed by the DPP.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 112(1)(b)
For a plea of guilty to theft to stand, the accused must admit the intention to permanently deprive the complainant of the property.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 113(1)
If the accused does not admit all elements of the offence, the Magistrate must record a plea of not guilty and require the prosecution to proceed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court held that the accused did not admit the required element of intention to permanently deprive the complainant of the property, which is essential for a conviction of theft on a guilty plea. The Magistrate erred in convicting the accused under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The correct procedure, as set out in section 113(1), is to record a plea of not guilty and allow the prosecution to proceed. The conviction and sentence were not in accordance with justice and must be set aside.
Obiter and limits
- It is trite in South African law that intention must be admitted for a plea of guilty to be valid.
- Magistrates must take cognisance of the requirement that all elements of the offence, including intention, must be admitted before convicting on a guilty plea.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred back to Magistrate for further proceedings under section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
A32/2016
Date: 21/01/2016
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
High Court Reference No: 553/15
Magistrates Serial No: 33 / 2015
Case No: 6584 / 2015
MAGISTRATE
TSHWANE NORTH (held at PRETORIA NORTH)
THE
STATE V BRIAAN MABE
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
POTTERILL J
[1] The accused was convicted of theft in the Pretoria North Magistrates Court on his plea of guilty in terms of section 112 ( 1) ( b) of Act 51 of 19 77. He was sentenced to a fine of R4 000 or 12 months imprisonment of which half was suspended for a period of three years on certain conditions.
[2] In the accused·s guilty plea he explained that he was in actual fact only borrowing the goods and did not have the intention
to permanently deprive the complainant thereof.
[3] I was of the view that the accused had not pleaded guilty as he had pleaded that he had no intention and therefore I referred the matter back to the Magistrate. The Magistrate however persisted that the finding of guilty was correct in that the accused had admitted that he would normally take the clothes in the absence of the complainant and when the complainant came back from Johannesburg unexpectedly found that his clothes were not where they were and that some were missing. This according to the Magistrate proves the intention to steal.
[4] I referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for their comment. The Director of Public Prosecutions by means of Senior State Advocate A.P. Wilsenach and Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions G.D. Baloyi commented as follows:
"The magistrate. unfortunately. both makes and then misses the point completely when he states in his reasons and judgment that the accused did not admit the required element of intent and then nevertheless convicted him of theft. The conviction is clearly not in accordance with justice and must be set aside. The magistrate was obliged in terms of section 113(1) to have recorded a plea of not guilty and required the prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution. "
It is then submitted by that officials of the DPP that the conviction and sentence be set aside and the matter referred to the Magistrate
to be further dealt with in terms of section 113 ( 1 ) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Act 51 of 19 77.
[5] I agree with this view as it is trite that intention must be admitted for a plea of guilty to stand. The Magistrate must take cognisance hereof as it is trite in our law.
[6] I accordingly make the following order:
6.1. The conviction and sentence are set aside.
_____
S.
POTTERILL
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree
A. J. BAM
A.J.
BAM JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
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.