S v Matee (R08/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 130 (28 May 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZAFSHC 130
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- N.M MBHELE, P.E. MOLITSOANE
- Case number
- R08/2020
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- N.M MBHELE, P.E. MOLITSOANE
- Case number
- R08/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The conviction was set aside because the trial court failed to establish the competency of the traffic operator who set up the speed measuring device and did not confirm that the calibration certificate was shown to the accused. These omissions constitute irregularities that undermine the reliability of the evidence and the fairness of the proceedings. The court emphasized that all elements of the offence must be admitted and proven, including the proper functioning and setup of the speed measuring device by a qualified person.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence reviewed and set aside.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are reviewed and set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
THE STATE
RespondentWELLINGTON TSHEPO MATEE
ApplicantAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 600
- Measured Speed: 144
- Distance Measured: 448.6
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial court satisfied itself that the accused admitted all elements of the offence.
- 02
Whether the competency of the traffic operator to set up the speed measuring device was established.
- 03
Whether the calibration certificate of the speed measuring device was shown to the accused.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The accused pleaded guilty to exceeding the speed limit but the trial court did not establish whether the traffic operator was competent to set up the speed measuring device or whether the calibration certificate was presented. These omissions raise doubts about the reliability of the evidence and the fairness of the conviction.
- Respondent
- The State relied on the accused's guilty plea and the recorded speed, but did not address the procedural requirements regarding the operator's competency or the calibration certificate. No further arguments were advanced in the review.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
STATE v PHUZI 2019 (SACR 648 FB)
The trial court must ensure that the accused admits all elements of the offence, including the reliability and proper setup of the speed measuring device by a competent operator.
- 02
Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977
A conviction based on a guilty plea must be supported by evidence that all statutory requirements and procedural safeguards have been met.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction was set aside because the trial court failed to establish the competency of the traffic operator who set up the speed measuring device and did not confirm that the calibration certificate was shown to the accused. These omissions constitute irregularities that undermine the reliability of the evidence and the fairness of the proceedings. The court emphasized that all elements of the offence must be admitted and proven, including the proper functioning and setup of the speed measuring device by a qualified person.
Obiter and limits
- It is axiomatic that a properly trained person would be able to set up the device in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
- The reliability of speed measuring devices depends on both proper calibration and operator competency.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence reviewed and set aside.
- The conviction and sentence are reviewed and set aside.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review number: R08/2020
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
WELLINGTON
TSHEPO MATEE
CORAM: MBHELE, ADJP et MOLITSOANE, J
JUDGEMENT BY: MBHELE, ADJP
DELIVERED ON: 28 MAY 2020
[1] The matter came before us by way of special review, in terms of Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977, at the instance of Senior
Magistrate, SF Ferreira during the routine check of finalised files.
[2] The accused, who was conducting his own defence, was charged with contravening Section 59(4)(c) read with section 59(1)(b), 69(1), 73 and 89(1) of Act 96 of 1996. He pleaded guilty to the charge and he was sentenced to a fine of six hundred rands (R600) or two (2) months imprisonment. His driver’s license was not suspended. The accused was recorded driving a motor vehicle on the R730 public road near Odendaalsrus at 144 kilometres per hour in excess of the general speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour for the particular area. This was measured over a distance of 448.6 metres.
[3] The learned magistrate omitted to deal with the aspect relating to the competency of the traffic operator to set up the speed measuring device. The questions asked by the court also do not indicate that the calibration certificate of the device was shown to the accused.
[4] The trial court must satisfy itself that the accused admits all the elements of the offence as set out in STATE v PHUZI 2019 (SACR 648 FB where the full court of this division held as follows when dealing with the competency of the traffic operator setting up the speed measuring device:
“In order to prove that the speed limit was exceeded the state would have to prove that the speed-measuring device was reliable for the purpose; that it determined and registered the speed accurately; and that it was properly set up in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications. It is axiomatic that a properly trained person would be able to set up the device in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications”.
The conviction is marred with irregularities and it falls to be set aside.
[4] I make the following order: -
4.1 The conviction and sentence are reviewed and set aside.
______
N.M MBHELE, ADJP
I concur
______
P. E. MOLITSOANE, J
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.