S v Martin (20556, 28/02, M1835/01) [2002] ZAWCHC 73 (17 December 2002)

S v Martin (20556, 28/02, M1835/01) [2002] ZAWCHC 73 (17 December 2002)

The court held that admissions made by the accused during his plea explanation, recorded as formal admissions under section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act, do not constitute 'evidence' for the purposes of section 118, and therefore the second magistrate was entitled to continue the trial after the first magistrate became unavailable. However, for the purposes of section 174, such admissions do constitute proof, and the court must consider them when determining whether there is a prima facie case against the accused at the close of the State's case. In this matter, the accused's admissions provided sufficient proof of the elements of the offence, including intent, and justified placing...

Citation
[2002] ZAWCHC 73
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Andries Martin
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 December 2002
Case Number
20556, 28/02, M1835/01
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Automatic Review
Outcome
Conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
B M Griesel, B J van Heerden
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Act, Admissions and Plea Explanations, Prima Facie Case, Magistrates Court Procedure
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Act Admissions and Plea Explanations Prima Facie Case Magistrates Court Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Andries Martin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Automatic Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admissions made by the accused during plea explanation constitute 'evidence' for purposes of section 118 and 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the second magistrate was entitled to continue the trial after the first magistrate became unavailable.
  3. 3 Whether the accused was entitled to discharge at the close of the State's case where no witnesses were called.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that admissions made by the accused during his plea explanation, recorded as formal admissions under section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act, do not constitute 'evidence' for the purposes of section 118, and therefore the second magistrate was entitled to continue the trial after the first magistrate became unavailable. However, for the purposes of section 174, such admissions do constitute proof, and the court must consider them when determining whether there is a prima facie case against the accused at the close of the State's case. In this matter, the accused's admissions provided sufficient proof of the elements of the offence, including intent, and justified placing...

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the magistrate are confirmed.