S v Mangaliso (A792/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1199 (15 November 2016)

S v Mangaliso (A792/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1199 (15 November 2016)

The court found that the charge against the accused was for common robbery, not robbery with aggravating circumstances. As such, prescribed sentences under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997, did not apply. There was no obligation to explain rights regarding prescribed sentences to the accused. The reference to prescribed sentences in the charge sheet was erroneous and should be deleted. The court declined to intervene by way of special review in an uncompleted criminal trial, as there was no risk of injustice and the accused would only be sentenced within the court's normal jurisdiction if convicted.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1199
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Leboang Isaac Mangaliso
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Case Number
A792/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review Prior to Completion of Criminal Trial
Outcome
Special review declined; case remitted for continuation and completion of trial.
Judges
Tuchten, DS Fourie
Legal Topics
Prescribed Sentences, Aggravating Circumstances, Special Review, Explanation of Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Prescribed Sentences Aggravating Circumstances Special Review Explanation of Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Leboang Isaac Mangaliso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review Prior to Completion of Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's rights regarding prescribed sentences were adequately explained.
  2. 2 Whether the reference to prescribed sentences in the charge sheet placed the accused at risk of a harsher sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the court should intervene by way of special review in an uncompleted criminal trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the charge against the accused was for common robbery, not robbery with aggravating circumstances. As such, prescribed sentences under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997, did not apply. There was no obligation to explain rights regarding prescribed sentences to the accused. The reference to prescribed sentences in the charge sheet was erroneous and should be deleted. The court declined to intervene by way of special review in an uncompleted criminal trial, as there was no risk of injustice and the accused would only be sentenced within the court's normal jurisdiction if convicted.

Court Disposition

Special review declined; case remitted for continuation and completion of trial.

Orders

  • The court declines to exercise its special review jurisdiction at this stage.
  • The case is remitted to the regional court, Oberholzer for the continuation and completion of the trial of the accused.