S v Matlou and Another (D2298/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 299 (2 September 2009)

S v Matlou and Another (D2298/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 299 (2 September 2009)

The court found that the state failed to prove possession of the car breaking implement against the accused. Both inspectors testified that nothing was found in the accused's possession, and no intention to possess was established. The trial court erred by not discharging the accused in terms of section 174 at the close of the state's case and by allowing unfair questions that placed an improper onus on the accused. The accused's explanations regarding the origin of the spanner were not contradicted by any evidence. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice, and the convictions and sentences must be set aside.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 299
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Wilson Matome Matlou; Defendant: Frans Mokhwibitsane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2009
Case Number
D2298/2008
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Criminal Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Convictions and sentences of both accused are set aside; both accused are found not guilty and discharged.
Judges
K. Makhafola, M.W. Msimeki
Legal Topics
Possession of Car Breaking Implement, Onus of Proof, Section 174 Discharge, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Possession of Car Breaking Implement Onus of Proof Section 174 Discharge Fair Trial 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Wilson Matome Matlou

Defendant

Frans Mokhwibitsane

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review of Criminal Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the state proved possession of the car breaking implement against the accused.
  2. 2 Whether the accused should have been discharged in terms of section 174 of Act 51 of 1977 at the close of the state's case.
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution's questions improperly placed an onus on the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the state failed to prove possession of the car breaking implement against the accused. Both inspectors testified that nothing was found in the accused's possession, and no intention to possess was established. The trial court erred by not discharging the accused in terms of section 174 at the close of the state's case and by allowing unfair questions that placed an improper onus on the accused. The accused's explanations regarding the origin of the spanner were not contradicted by any evidence. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice, and the convictions and sentences must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences of both accused are set aside; both accused are found not guilty and discharged.

Orders

  • The convictions and sentences of both accused are set aside.
  • Both accused are found not guilty and discharged.