S v Maduna and Another (95/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 125 (4 July 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZAFSHC 125
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A.F. Jordaan, C. Van Zyl
- Case number
- 95/2013
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A.F. Jordaan, C. Van Zyl
- Case number
- 95/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court found that the accused did not admit all the elements required for a conviction of escaping from lawful custody, specifically failing to admit lawful arrest and custody. The convictions were therefore not sustainable and had to be set aside. The sentences imposed were found to be shockingly severe and not justified by the circumstances, particularly as the accused were only awaiting trial on other charges. The magistrate misapplied section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act by ordering that the accused serve their full sentences without parole, disregarding the statutory limitation in subsection (b). Due to these misdirections, both the convictions and sentences were set aside.
Court disposition
Convictions and sentences of both accused set aside.
Orders
- The convictions and sentences of Mojalefa Michael Maduna and Motaung Teboho Walter are set aside.
- This order is to be communicated to the prison authorities as a matter of urgency.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantMojalefa Michael Maduna
RespondentMotaung Teboho Walter
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / High Court Review of Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused admitted all elements required for a conviction of escaping from lawful custody.
- 02
Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and lawful.
- 03
Whether the trial court correctly applied section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding parole eligibility.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State relied on the accused's guilty pleas and their section 112(2) statements, asserting that the elements of escaping from lawful custody were satisfied. The magistrate justified the severe sentences due to the seriousness and prevalence of the offence in the area, and applied section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, arguing both accused were in custody on serious matters.
- Respondent
- The accused admitted to escaping from the police vehicle but did not explicitly admit to being lawfully arrested or in lawful custody at the time, as required by section 51(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The sentences imposed were excessive, and the order regarding parole eligibility was not in accordance with the law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Mafora 2010 (1) SACR 269 (NWM)
A conviction for escaping from lawful custody requires an admission that the accused was lawfully arrested and in lawful custody at the time of escape.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act, section 276B(1)(a) and (b)
Section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows a court to order that an accused serve the full sentence without parole only in limited circumstances, and subsection (b) restricts this discretion to a maximum of two thirds of the term of imprisonment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court found that the accused did not admit all the elements required for a conviction of escaping from lawful custody, specifically failing to admit lawful arrest and custody. The convictions were therefore not sustainable and had to be set aside. The sentences imposed were found to be shockingly severe and not justified by the circumstances, particularly as the accused were only awaiting trial on other charges. The magistrate misapplied section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act by ordering that the accused serve their full sentences without parole, disregarding the statutory limitation in subsection (b). Due to these misdirections, both the convictions and sentences were set aside.
Obiter and limits
- The delay in bringing the matter to the attention of the High Court was unexplained and regrettable.
- There is no sense in remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration due to the time elapsed and the sentences already served.
Court disposition
Convictions and sentences of both accused set aside.
- The convictions and sentences of Mojalefa Michael Maduna and Motaung Teboho Walter are set aside.
- This order is to be communicated to the prison authorities as a matter of urgency.
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
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No. : 95/2013
In the review between:-
THE
STATE
versus
MOJALEFA MICHAEL
MADUNA
MOTAUNG TEBOHO
WALTER
______________
CORAM: VAN ZYL, J et JORDAAN, J
JUDGMENT BY: JORDAAN, J
DELIVERED ON: 4 JULY 2013
[1] This is a review matter in which the two accused were charged with escaping from lawful custody in contravention of section 51(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. They were represented and pleaded guilty to the charge as set out. In their statement in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, they deposed to virtually identical statements which read as follows:
“I am an/ the accused in the matter and make this statement freely and voluntarily in my sober senses without any undue influence.
That on the 04th August 2011, the Police Motor vehicle came to Tseki Police Station, to collect us for being transferred to Kroonstad Prison. While the police van approaching Uniqwa (University) myself and accused 2 broke the police van’s window and immediately went out of the window, while the police motor vehicle was still in motion.
At that moment, I was aware that my actions were unlawful and for the said actions. I am pleading guilty for escaping from the lawful custody.”
[2] Both accused were convicted as charged without any further questions and sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment each, whilst the learned magistrate also ordered that, in terms of section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the accused were to serve their entire sentences without being eligible for parole.
[3] For some unknown reason this matter only came to the attention of the High Court in April 2013 when an Acting Judge requested reasons for sentence, being of the opinion that it is prima facie too severe and also questioned the applicability of section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act as far as the circumstances of this matter is concerned.
[4] From the magistrate’s reasons it appears that the said magistrate has since retired, but the magistrate says that escaping from lawful custody is a very serious offence and prevalent in the area and that therefore it was a serious matter that justified a sentence of four (4) years imprisonment. She also says that she applied the prescripts of section 246B(1)(a) of the CPA because both accused were in custody on serious matters.
[5] After considering the matter and the reasons supplied by the learned retired magistrate, it appears to me that the requisites of section 51(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act has not been proven in terms of the statements made by the two accused. They did not admit that they were lawfully arrested as required in the said section, neither that they were in lawful custody at the time. See S v Mafora 2010 (1) SACR 269 (NWM) at 272 paras [8] – p 273 para [12].
[6] The convictions therefore cannot be confirmed and has to be set aside. Due to the time that has elapsed and the sentence imposed on the two accused, there is no sense in remitting this matter to the trial court for a fresh consideration.
[7] As far as the sentences are concerned, it is obviously shockingly severe in the circumstances. The fact that the two accused were awaiting trial on serious charges, does not justify harsher sentences since the question whether they are guilty of those charges still had to be decided. What is more, the trial court ordered that they have to serve their full sentences, purportedly in terms of section 276B(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court obviously failed to have regard to subsection (b) of the aforesaid section, which limits the court’s discretion to at most two thirds of the term of imprisonment.
[8] In view of the plethora of misdirections by the trial court, the convictions and sentences have to be set aside.
[9] In the result the convictions and sentences of both accused are set aside. This order is to be communicated to the prison authorities as a matter of urgency.
___
A.F. JORDAAN, J
I concur.
____
C. VAN ZYL, J
/spieterse
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.