S v Malotwane (CA&R 94/2011) [2012] ZANCHC 42 (1 August 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] ZANCHC 42
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C C Williams, W Hughes-Madondo, J G Van Niekerk
- Case number
- CA&R 94/2011
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C C Williams, W Hughes-Madondo, J G Van Niekerk
- Case number
- CA&R 94/2011
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the magistrate was not competent to impose both a fine and a suspended sentence in addition to alternative imprisonment for each charge, as the statutory provisions did not authorise such cumulative sentencing. The sentences imposed were therefore not competent and the court was entitled to reconsider the sentences afresh. The appellant's personal circumstances, including his employment as a police officer, family responsibilities, and status as a first offender, were taken into account. The court found that sentences of R3000 or six months' imprisonment for each charge were appropriate and not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offences. The cancellation of the driver's licence and prohibition on reapplication for five years was scrutinised, and the court emphasised the need for the accused to be properly informed and given an opportunity to address the court regarding the impact of such orders and the implications under the Firearms Control Act.
Court disposition
The appeal succeeded in part; the sentences imposed by the magistrate were set aside and replaced with sentences of R3000 or six months' imprisonment on each charge.
Orders
- The sentences imposed by the magistrate are set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to a fine of R3000 or six months' imprisonment on each charge.
- The order cancelling the appellant's driver's licence and prohibiting reapplication for five years is confirmed, subject to the appellant being properly informed and given an opportunity to address the court on the impact of such order.
- The appellant is to be informed of the implications under the Firearms Control Act and afforded an opportunity to address the court if necessary.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tumelo Emmanuel Malotwane
Appellant Counsel: Adv. P.J. CloeteThe State
Respondent Counsel: Adv. T. BarnardAmounts and remedies
- Fine Per Charge: ZAR 3,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate was competent to impose both a fine and a suspended sentence in addition to the alternative imprisonment for each charge.
- 02
Whether the order cancelling the appellant's driver's licence and prohibiting reapplication for five years was competent and appropriate.
- 03
Whether the appellant was properly informed and given an opportunity to address the court regarding the impact of the licence cancellation and the provisions of the Firearms Control Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the appellant argued that the magistrate was not empowered to impose both a fine and a suspended sentence in addition to alternative imprisonment under the relevant statutory provisions. It was further contended that the cancellation of the driver's licence and prohibition on reapplication for five years was excessive and that the appellant was not afforded a proper opportunity to address the court on the impact of such an order, nor was he adequately informed of the implications under the Firearms Control Act.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the sentences imposed were within the magistrate's discretion and appropriate given the seriousness of the offences, particularly the appellant's conduct in both incidents. The respondent argued that the cancellation of the driver's licence was justified to protect the public and that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to make representations regarding the sentences and orders imposed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Dreyer 1990(2) SASV 445(A)
A court may not impose both a fine (with alternative imprisonment) and a further period of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, unless expressly authorised by statute.
- 02
S v Wilson 2001(1) SACR 253 (TPD)
The cancellation of a driver's licence must be considered in light of the qualifying reference to section 35 in section 34(1) of the National Road Traffic Act, and the accused must be given a proper opportunity to address the court on the impact of such an order.
- 03
S v Lukwe 2005(2) SACR 578(W)
A conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol may render an accused unfit to possess a firearm under section 103(1)(j) of the Firearms Control Act, and the accused must be afforded an opportunity to address the court on this issue.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the magistrate was not competent to impose both a fine and a suspended sentence in addition to alternative imprisonment for each charge, as the statutory provisions did not authorise such cumulative sentencing. The sentences imposed were therefore not competent and the court was entitled to reconsider the sentences afresh. The appellant's personal circumstances, including his employment as a police officer, family responsibilities, and status as a first offender, were taken into account. The court found that sentences of R3000 or six months' imprisonment for each charge were appropriate and not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offences. The cancellation of the driver's licence and prohibition on reapplication for five years was scrutinised, and the court emphasised the need for the accused to be properly informed and given an opportunity to address the court regarding the impact of such orders and the implications under the Firearms Control Act.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that if the legislature intended for both a fine and imprisonment to be imposed cumulatively, it would have expressly provided for this in the relevant statutory provisions.
- The seriousness of driving under the influence and reckless driving, especially by a police officer, warrants strict judicial scrutiny and appropriate sanctions to protect public safety.
- The accused must be afforded procedural fairness and a meaningful opportunity to address the court on any order affecting his rights, including licence cancellation and firearm eligibility.
Court disposition
The appeal succeeded in part; the sentences imposed by the magistrate were set aside and replaced with sentences of R3000 or six months' imprisonment on each charge.
- The sentences imposed by the magistrate are set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to a fine of R3000 or six months' imprisonment on each charge.
- The order cancelling the appellant's driver's licence and prohibiting reapplication for five years is confirmed, subject to the appellant being properly informed and given an opportunity to address the court on the impact of such order.
- The appellant is to be informed of the implications under the Firearms Control Act and afforded an opportunity to address the court if necessary.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
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.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
VERSLAGWAARDIG JA/NEE
SIRKULEER ONDER REGTERS JA/NEE
SIRKULEER ONDER LANDDROSTE JA/NEE
IN DIE HOË HOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(Noord-Kaapse Hoë Hof, Kimberley)
SAAK NO.:CA&R 94/2011
DATUM AANGEHOOR: 16-04-2012
DATUM GELEWER: -08-2012
In die saak tussen:
TUMELO EMMANUEL MALOTWANE .....................................APPELLANT
teen
DIE STAAT ..........................................................................RESPONDENT
CORAM: C C WILLIAMS R et W.HUGHES-MADONDO WnR:
UITSPRAAK
WILLIAMS R:
1.Die beskuldigde is in die Landdroshof te Barkley-Wes skuldig bevind op aanklagte van roekelose bestuur en bestuur onder die invloed van sterk drank. Die skuldigbevindings het voortgespruit uit twee verskillende voorvale. Hy is op elk van die aanklagte gevonnis tot ‘n boete van R3000,00 of ses maande gevangenisstraf, asook ‘n verdere 12 maande gevangenisstraf wat voorwaardelik opgeskort is vir 3 jaar. Dit is verder gelas dat die beskuldigde se bestuurderslisensie ingevolge die bepalings van artikels 34 en 35 van die Nasionale Padverkeerswet, 93 van 1996 gekanselleer word en dat hy verbied word om binne die volgende 5 jaar weer aansoek te doen om ‘n nuwe lisensie.
2.Die saak het aanvanklik op outomatiese hersiening voor Olivier R gedien wat die landdros versoek het om redes vir onder andere die vonnisse te verskaf. Die ietwat ontoereikende antwoord deur die Landdros in die verband is die volgende:
“Beskuldigde het my reeds meegedeel dat hy aansoekgedoen het vir ‘n pos waaroor hy ‘n bestuurderslisensie nodig het. Beskuldige se optrede was nie ‘n eenmalige optrede nie. Dit was vir my duidelik dat soos wat die getuienis aandui dat dit sy bestuurswyse is. So ‘n persoon behoort nie ‘n bestuurderslisensie te hê nie. Gevolglik is sy lisensie gekanseller voordat hy iemand dood. Om die rede het ek die kansellasie bevel gemaak.”
3.Olivier R het hierna ‘n regsopinie versoek vanaf die Kantoor van die DOV met die volgende riglyne:
“1.Is die opgelegde vonnisse en veral dan ook die bykomende 12 maande gevangenisstraf wat ten aansien van elk van die aanklagte opgelê
is gepas in die omstandighede van hierdie saak? (sien onder meer, Kammies v S ‘n ongerapporteerde uitspraak op appél in hierdie afdeling onder saakno CA&R 98/10, gelewer op 1 Julie 2011, S v Tiyo [2010] JOL 24880 (ECG) en S v Serabo 2002(1) SASV 391 (ECD)0.
2.Was die bevel wat die landdros ten aansien van die beskuldigde se bestuurslisensie gemaak het bevoeg? In hierdie geval kan geles word op die kwalifiserende verwysing na artikel 35 wat voorkom in artikel 34(1) van die Wet en ook na die beslissing S v Wilson 2001(1) SACR 253 (TPD).
3.Was die bevel ten aansie van die bestuurslisensie, selfs indien bevoeg, gepas in die omstandighede van hierdie saak? Het die landdros behoorlik ondersoek ingestel na wat die impak van hierdie bevel, of selfs van ‘n tydelike opskorting van die beskuldigde se bestuurslisensie, in hierdie geval sou wees? Het die landdros die beskuldigde ‘n behoorlike geleentheid gegee om hom hieroor toe te spreek en het die landdros in elk geval die beskuldigde behoorlik ingelig van enige van die bepalings na verwys in die betrokke bevel?”
4.Mnr Rosenberg van die Kantoor van die DOV het ten opsigte van die bogenoemde ‘n goeddeurdagte en gebalanseerde opinie verskaf waarvoor ons hom dank verdkuldig is. Dit is egter steeds wys geag om die aangeleentheid vir argument op die rol te plaas ten aansien van die drie punte hierbo in uiteengesit sowel as ‘n bykomende punt wat lees as volg:
(“Het die beskuldigde se skuldigbevinding aan ‘noortreding van article 65(1) van die betrokke Wet (die Nasionale Padverkeerswet), (bestuur ondere die invloed van drank) . . . voor die landdros te plaas?”
“Het die beskuldigde se skuldigbeviniding aan ‘n oortreding van article 65(1) van die betrokke Wet (bestuur onder die invloed van drank) ingevolge die bepalings van artikel 103(1)(j) van die Wet op die Beheer van Vuurwapens, 60 van 2000, gelei daartoe dat die beskuldigde geag moes word onbevoeg te wees om ‘n vuurwapen te besit (sien onder andere State v Mthetho Joseph Khumalo, ‘n ongerapporteerde uitspraak om outomatiese hersiening in die Vrystaatsse Afdeling onder saakno 138/2011, gelewer op 26 Mei 2011,
Stemmet v The State, ‘n ongerapporteerde uitspraak op appél in die Wes-Kaapse Afdelin onder saakno A502/2008, gelewer 13 Februarie 2009, en S v Lukwe 2005(2) SACR 578(W)), maar vergelyk S v Josing 2010 (1) SACR 627 (KZ)) en, indien wel, het die landdros aan die beskuldigde ‘n behoorlike geleentheid gebied om sy saak vir doeleindes van
artikel 103(1) voor die landdros te plaas?”
5.Die strafbepalings van die Wet word vervat in artikel 89 daarvan. Artikel 89(2) handel met dronkbestuur en bepaal dat ‘n skuldigbevinding aansodanige misdryf strafbaar is “met ‘n boete of met gevangenisstraf vir ‘n tydperk van hoogstens 6 jaar.”
6.Die eerste vraag wat dus beantwoord moet word is of die landdros bevoeg was om bykomend tot die boetevonnisse ook die opgeskorte vonnisse kon oplê. In die verband is die sake na verwys in die riglyne vir betoog dit wil sê Labuschagne, Stanley, Slabbert en Randall supra nie van veel relevansie nie aangesien hulle almal handel met die feit dat ‘n opgeskorte gedeelte van gevangenisstraf nogtans ‘n vonnis van gevangenisstraf daarstel en in ag geneem moet word as gevangenisstraf met die oorweging daarvan of ‘n vonnis gepas is al dan nie.
7.Die enigste oorweging is of die landdros beide ‘n boete sowel as gevangenisstraf kan oplê, of dit opgeskort is of nie. Mnr. Van Tonder wat vir die beskuldigde opgetree het het ons verwys na S v Dreyer 1990(2) SASV 445(A), waar die Appélhof bevind het dat die bewoording van artikel 187(2) van die Drankwet 87 van 1977, wat soortgelyk as die geval in casu ‘n boete (of by wanbetaling gevangenisstraf) of gevangenisstraf sonder die keuse van ‘n boete, magtig, nie die oplê van ‘n boete (met alternatief van gevangenisstraf) en daarbenewens ‘n tydperk van gevangenisstraf, hetsy opgeskort of nie, magtig nie. Sien ook in die verband S v Jacobs 1990(1) SASV 637(K) met goedkeuring na vewys in die Dreyer saak. Ek meen nie daar hoef veel meer hieroor gesê word nie. Indien die wetgewer bedoel het dat ‘n boetevonnis sowel as gevangenisstraf opgelê kan word sou dit in soveel woorde vervat vervat gewees het in die strafbepaling soos onder andere in artikel 17 van die wet op Dwelmmiddels en Dwelmsmokkelary 114 van 1992 of selfs die voorganger tot die huidige Padverkeerswet, Wet 29 van 1989, artikels 149(2) en 5(a) daarvan
8.Die vonnisse dien die landdros opgelê is myns insiens nie bevoeg nie en is ons dus geregtig om opnuut vonnis te oorweeg. In die veband is die persoonlike opmstandighede van die beskuldigde as volg:
Hy is ‘n 31 jarige polisiebeampte wat drie kinder het om te onderhou sowel as sy ouers. Hy is ook ‘n eerste oortreder. Die beskuldigde het tydens die vonnisverigtinge aangedui dat hy nie in staat was om ‘n boete te betaal nie maar het egter wel aangedui dat hy die boetes opgelê oor 3 maande souk on betaal. Hy is wel die geleentheid gegee om die boetes dienooreenkomstig aft e betaal.
9.Wat die misdrywe betref het die verhoorhof bevind ten opsigte van die eerste aanklag (roekelose bestuur) dat die beskuldigde teen ‘n hoë spoed deur ‘n beboude gebied gejaag het en ‘n stopteken en rooi verkeerslig verontagsaam het. Gelukkig was hy nie in ‘n ongeluk betrokke nie. Wat die tweede aanklag betref, bestuur onder die invloed van sterk drank, het die beskuldigde versuim om te stop toe ander polisielede hom wou aftrek. Hy het sy hoofligte afgeskakel en weggejaag waarna hy toe in ‘n ongeluk betrokke was.
10.Hierdie tweede aanklag, alhowewel meer ernstig van aard as die eerste aanklag, het plaasgevind ongeveer 7 maande voor die voorval in aanklag 1 en was die landdros ny my mening korrek om nie ‘n onderskeid te tref rakende die vonnisse opgelê nie. Gegewe al die omstandighede sou vonnisse op beide aanklagte van R3000, 00 of 6 maande gevangenisstraf nie onvanpas wees nie
_______
C.C. WILLIAMS
REGTER
Ek stem saam.
J.G. Van Niekerk
Waarnemende Regter
Nms. Appellante: Adv. P.J. Cloete
Regshulpraad
Nms. Respondent: Adv. T. Barnard
Kantoor van die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings, Noord-Kaap
.
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.