S v Machimana (A541/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 236 (22 June 2009)

S v Machimana (A541/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 236 (22 June 2009)

The court found that the accused did not admit all the elements of the offence of driving under the influence of liquor, nor the alternative charge relating to the concentration of alcohol in his breath. The admissions made during questioning were insufficient to justify a conviction under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the matter was referred back to the trial court for further questioning to establish whether the accused admits all the elements of either the main or alternative charge. If not, the plea must be changed to not guilty in terms of section 113.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 236
Parties
Applicant: State; Respondent: Stubbs Machimana
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2009
Case Number
A541/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review Judgment Following Queries to the Magistrate Regarding Conviction.
Outcome
Conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Judges
M F Legodi, W L Seriti
Legal Topics
Driving Under Influence, Section 112 Criminal Procedure Act, Plea and Conviction, Admission of Elements
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Driving Under Influence Section 112 Criminal Procedure Act Plea and Conviction Admission of Elements

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State

Applicant

Stubbs Machimana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review Judgment Following Queries to the Magistrate Regarding Conviction.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused admitted all the elements of the offence of driving under the influence of liquor.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction based on the plea and questioning under section 112(1)(b) was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused did not admit all the elements of the offence of driving under the influence of liquor, nor the alternative charge relating to the concentration of alcohol in his breath. The admissions made during questioning were insufficient to justify a conviction under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the matter was referred back to the trial court for further questioning to establish whether the accused admits all the elements of either the main or alternative charge. If not, the plea must be changed to not guilty in terms of section 113.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside; matter referred back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence are set aside.
  • The matter is referred to the trial court to further question the accused in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act to establish if all elements of the offence are admitted.