S v Machitje (763/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 7 (29 January 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- C. H. G. Van der Merwe, A. F. Jordaan
- Case number
- 763/2008
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- C. H. G. Van der Merwe, A. F. Jordaan
- Case number
- 763/2008
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The accused did not admit the intention to steal, as he stated he took the items to make a point to the complainant and returned them the same day. The magistrate failed to establish whether the accused intended to permanently deprive the complainant of her property or appropriate the items for himself. This created considerable doubt as to the accused's guilt. Accordingly, the plea of guilty was not properly recorded, and the conviction and sentence must be set aside. The matter is remitted to the magistrate to act in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside; matter remitted to magistrate for further proceedings under section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the magistrate, who is directed to act in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantSankwela Stanford Machitje
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence After Guilty Plea
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused admitted the intention to steal required for a conviction of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
- 02
Whether the plea of guilty was properly recorded in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- 03
Whether the magistrate should have recorded a plea of not guilty under section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State relied on the accused's admission that he removed the items from the complainant's house and took them to his own residence, asserting this constituted housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
- Respondent
- The accused stated he took the items to make a statement to the complainant about her failure to lock her house and because he was angry that his girlfriend was not home. He claimed he did not intend to permanently deprive the complainant of her property and returned the items the same day.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 112(1)(b)
A conviction for theft requires proof of intention to permanently deprive the owner of property.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 113(1)
If the accused's answers during questioning do not establish all elements of the offence, a plea of not guilty must be entered.
- 03
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 312(1)
Where there is doubt about the accused's guilt after a guilty plea, the matter must be remitted for further proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The accused did not admit the intention to steal, as he stated he took the items to make a point to the complainant and returned them the same day. The magistrate failed to establish whether the accused intended to permanently deprive the complainant of her property or appropriate the items for himself. This created considerable doubt as to the accused's guilt. Accordingly, the plea of guilty was not properly recorded, and the conviction and sentence must be set aside. The matter is remitted to the magistrate to act in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Obiter and limits
- The questioning under section 112(1)(b) must be thorough enough to establish all elements of the offence, including intention.
- Magistrates should be cautious when accepting guilty pleas where the accused's explanation raises doubt about criminal intent.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside; matter remitted to magistrate for further proceedings under section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the magistrate, who is directed to act in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review Case No.: 763/2008
In the review between:
THE STATE
and
SANKWELA
STANFORD MACHITJE
CORAM: VAN DER MERWE, J et JORDAAN, J
JUDGEMENT: VAN DER MERWE, J
_____________
DELIVERED ON: 29 JANUARY 2009
[1] The accused in this matter was charged with housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft of a television set and three blankets. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and after questioning he was convicted as charged and sentenced to six months imprisonment that was wholly suspended.
[2] During questioning in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 51 of 1977 (âthe Actâ), the accused admitted that he had removed the items in question from the house of the complainant and that he took them to his own place of residence. The question here however, is whether the accused admitted the intention to steal. The accused said that at the time he had a relationship with the complainant. He said that he intended to keep the goods at his place in order to make a statement to the complainant that she should refrain from leaving her house without properly locking it and also because he was angry because his girlfriend was not at home at the time. The accused also said that he returned all the items to the complainantâs house on
the very same day. The accused was not asked whether he intended to permanently deprive the complainant of her property nor whether he intended to appropriate the items for himself.
[3] In these circumstances there is in my judgment at least considerable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty of the offence to which he has pleaded guilty. In the result a plea of not guilty should have been recorded in terms of section 113(1) of the Act. In the result also, the matter must be remitted in terms of section 312(1) of the Act.
[4] The conviction and sentence are set aside and the matter is remitted to the magistrate who is directed to act in terms of section 113 of the Act.
_____
C. H. G. VAN DER MERWE, J
I concur.
____
A. F. JORDAAN, J
/em
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.