S v Matras (1986/2004) [2005] ZAFSHC 72 (10 February 2005)

S v Matras (1986/2004) [2005] ZAFSHC 72 (10 February 2005)

The court found that the accused should not have been convicted under Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1 of 1988, as there was no evidence that his faculties were so impaired by intoxication that he lacked criminal capacity. The accused admitted to breaking into the shop and stealing, and did not claim his faculties were impaired during his testimony. The evidence established that he acted deliberately and was aware of his actions. Therefore, the conviction under Section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 was set aside and substituted with a conviction of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. The sentence of one year imprisonment was deemed appropriate and confirmed, considering the...

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 72
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Jafta Matras
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2005
Case Number
1986/2004
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction under Section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 set aside and substituted with conviction of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft; sentence of one year imprisonment confirmed.
Judges
Wright, Van Der Merwe
Legal Topics
Housebreaking With Intent to Steal, Theft, Intoxication, Criminal Capacity, Substitution of Conviction
Criminal Law Housebreaking With Intent to Steal Theft Intoxication Criminal Capacity Substitution of Conviction

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Jafta Matras

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was correctly convicted of contravening Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1 of 1988, instead of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
  2. 2 Whether the accused's alleged intoxication negated criminal capacity at the time of the offence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed is appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused should not have been convicted under Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1 of 1988, as there was no evidence that his faculties were so impaired by intoxication that he lacked criminal capacity. The accused admitted to breaking into the shop and stealing, and did not claim his faculties were impaired during his testimony. The evidence established that he acted deliberately and was aware of his actions. Therefore, the conviction under Section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 was set aside and substituted with a conviction of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. The sentence of one year imprisonment was deemed appropriate and confirmed, considering the...

Court Disposition

Conviction under Section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 set aside and substituted with conviction of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft; sentence of one year imprisonment confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction of contravention of Section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 is set aside.
  • The conviction is substituted with housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.