S v Mantsho (102/01) [2001] ZANWHC 47 (1 November 2001)

CA NO : 102/01

IN THE

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

THE

STATE

vs

BENJAMIN

MANTSHO

REVIEW:

LEEUW J:

The accused was arraigned of the following counts of the Road Traffic Act No 93 of 1996 (The Road Traffic Act).

(a) Count 1: Contravention of section 63 : Reckless or Negligent Driving in the alternative c/section 64 : Inconsiderate driving;

(b) Count 2 : Contravention of section 61 (1) (a) : Failing to stop immediately after an accident;

(c) Count 3 : Contravention of section 61 (1) (b) : Failing to ascertain the nature and extent of injuries;

(d) Count 4: Contravention of section 12 (a) : Driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s licence.

The accused pleaded guilty to all the charges and was questioned by the Magistrate in terms of section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act No 51 of 1977 (The Act).

The convictions in respect of counts 2 to 4 are in order. With regard to count 1, the Magistrate, after questioning the accused all counts made the following finding:

“You pleaded guilty to all counts when this matter began or when the charges were put to you. You have accepted all the elements of these offences. I am satisfied that you have correctly pleaded guilty. You are therefore found guilty as charged on all counts. The conviction on count 1 is not clear because the accused was charged with main and alternative charges. In response to my query the learned Magistrate avers that the accused pleaded guilty to negligent driving and that he intended to convict the accused as such. I am satisfied that from the answers to the questions put to the accused, he is guilty of negligent driving. The conditions of the suspended sentences in respect of Counts 1, 2 and 3 are also not in order in that they are too vague and wide: Part of the sentence have been suspended “on condition that he (the accused) is not convicted of contravention of the provisions of Act 93/96 committed during the period of suspension. The Magistrate concedes that the suspended part of the sentence is not in order. In the circumstances the convictions on Counts 2, 3 and 4 are confirmed. The conviction on count 1 is set aside and the following is subsitituted therefor: Guilty of negligent driving.

“You pleaded guilty to all counts when this matter began or when the charges were put to you. You have accepted all the elements of these offences. I am satisfied that you have correctly pleaded guilty. You are therefore found guilty as charged on all counts.

The conviction on count 1 is not clear because the accused was charged with main and alternative charges. In response to my query the learned Magistrate avers that the accused pleaded guilty to negligent driving and that he intended to convict the accused as such.

I am satisfied that from the answers to the questions put to the accused, he is guilty of negligent driving.

The conditions of the suspended sentences in respect of Counts 1, 2 and 3 are also not in order in that they are too vague and wide: Part of the sentence have been suspended “on condition that he (the accused) is not convicted of contravention of the provisions of Act 93/96 committed during the period of suspension.

The Magistrate concedes that the suspended part of the sentence is not in order.

In the circumstances the convictions on Counts 2, 3 and 4 are confirmed. The conviction on count 1 is set aside and the following is subsitituted therefor:

Guilty of negligent driving.

The sentences in respect of Counts 1 to 3 are set aside and the following substituted therefore : Count 1 : R1200.00 or 12 months imprisonment half of which is suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravention of section 63 or 64 of Act 93 of 1996 committed during the period of suspension Count 2 and 3 : The two counts taken together for the purpose of sentence : R1200.00 or 12 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravention of section 61 (1) (a) or (b) r.w. section 89 of Act 63 of 1996 committed during the period of suspension; Count 4 : R1000 or 10 months imprisonment. The payment of the fine in respect of counts 1 and 4 is deferred until 28/12/2001.

M

M LEEUW

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT I agree.

B

E NKABINDE

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT 01 NOVEMBER 2001

The sentences in respect of Counts 1 to 3 are set aside and the following substituted therefore :

Count 1 : R1200.00 or 12 months imprisonment half of which is suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravention of section 63 or 64 of Act 93 of 1996 committed during the period of suspension

Count 2 and 3 : The two counts taken together for the purpose of sentence : R1200.00 or 12 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravention of section 61 (1) (a) or (b) r.w. section 89 of Act 63 of 1996 committed during the period of suspension;

Count 4 : R1000 or 10 months imprisonment. The payment of the fine in respect of counts 1 and 4 is deferred until 28/12/2001.

M

M LEEUW

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT

I agree.

B

E NKABINDE

01 NOVEMBER 2001