S v Matshe (A450/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 859 (4 September 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 859
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Makgoka, Maumela
- Case number
- A450/17
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Makgoka, Maumela
- Case number
- A450/17
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court reviewed the proceedings of the magistrate's court, confirming that the accused's plea of guilty was properly entered and accepted under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The postponement for a pre-sentencing report was appropriate given the accused's age and the nature of the offence. The review confirmed that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with justice.
Court disposition
The conviction and proceedings in the magistrate's court are confirmed as being in accordance with justice.
Orders
- The conviction of Emily Dipou Salome Matshe for theft is confirmed.
- The proceedings in the magistrate's court are declared to be in accordance with justice.
02
Material facts
Parties
THE STATE
RespondentEMILY DIPOU SALOME MATSHE
Applicant03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction and proceedings in the magistrate's court were conducted in accordance with justice.
- 02
Whether the accused's plea of guilty under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act was properly entered and accepted.
- 03
Whether the postponement for a pre-sentencing report was appropriate.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The accused, Emily Dipou Salome Matshe, pleaded guilty to theft under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. She was 18 years old at the time of conviction. The proceedings were conducted in open court, and the matter was postponed for a pre-sentencing report.
- Respondent
- The State accepted the plea of guilty and proceeded with conviction. The postponement for a pre-sentencing report was requested to ensure proper sentencing procedures were followed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 304
A special review may be conducted under section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act to ensure proceedings are in accordance with justice.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 112(1)(b)
A plea of guilty under section 112(1)(b) must be properly entered and accepted by the court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court reviewed the proceedings of the magistrate's court, confirming that the accused's plea of guilty was properly entered and accepted under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The postponement for a pre-sentencing report was appropriate given the accused's age and the nature of the offence. The review confirmed that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with justice.
Obiter and limits
- The review process under section 304 serves as a safeguard to ensure that justice is done in lower courts.
- The age of the accused and the open court proceedings were properly considered in the sentencing process.
Court disposition
The conviction and proceedings in the magistrate's court are confirmed as being in accordance with justice.
- The conviction of Emily Dipou Salome Matshe for theft is confirmed.
- The proceedings in the magistrate's court are declared to be in accordance with justice.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: K258/2017
High Court ref. no. 220/2017
Magistrate Serial No: 22/2017
Not reportable
Not of interest to other judges
Revised.
2017-09-04
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
EMILY
DIPOU SALOME MATSHE
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
MAKGOKA, J:
[1] This is a special review in terms of section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the Act). It comes before us at the
instance of the senior magistrate of the Oberholzer magistrate court, under the following circumstances.
[2] On 20 April 2017 the accused, who was stated to be 18 years old in the charge sheet, was convicted of theft, following her plea of guilty in terms of s 112 (1)(b) of the Act. The matter was postponed to 31 May 2017 for a pre sentencing report. The proceedings had been conducted in an open court.
I agree
_____
T. A. MAUMELA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
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.