S v Mashali (2376/2002) [2002] ZAFSHC 23 (12 December 2002)

S v Mashali (2376/2002) [2002] ZAFSHC 23 (12 December 2002)

The court found that the accused was originally convicted under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959 for escaping from prison, but this provision had been replaced by section 117 of Act 111 of 1998 prior to the commission of the offence. Both provisions create the same offence and require the same evidence. The accused suffered no prejudice from the amendment, as the facts and defence would have remained unchanged under the new provision. The court therefore amended the conviction to reflect the correct statutory provision and confirmed the proceedings in all other respects.

Citation
[2002] ZAFSHC 23
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: William Teleko Mashali
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2002
Case Number
2376/2002
Procedural Posture
Review Application / High Court Review of Magistrate's Conviction
Outcome
Conviction amended to reflect contravention of section 117 of Act 111 of 1998; proceedings otherwise confirmed.
Judges
CB Cillié, GF Wright
Legal Topics
Escape From Custody, Statutory Offence, Retrospective Application, Conviction Review
Criminal Law Escape From Custody Statutory Offence Retrospective Application Conviction Review

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

William Teleko Mashali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / High Court Review of Magistrate's Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was correctly convicted under the applicable statutory provision for escaping from prison.
  2. 2 Whether the change in statutory provision prejudiced the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused was originally convicted under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959 for escaping from prison, but this provision had been replaced by section 117 of Act 111 of 1998 prior to the commission of the offence. Both provisions create the same offence and require the same evidence. The accused suffered no prejudice from the amendment, as the facts and defence would have remained unchanged under the new provision. The court therefore amended the conviction to reflect the correct statutory provision and confirmed the proceedings in all other respects.

Court Disposition

Conviction amended to reflect contravention of section 117 of Act 111 of 1998; proceedings otherwise confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction is amended to one of contravening section 117 of Act 111 of 1998.
  • The proceedings are otherwise confirmed.