S v Mavela (CA&R 11/08) [2008] ZAECHC 100; 2008 (2) SACR 608 (Ck) (25 June 2008)

S v Mavela (CA&R 11/08) [2008] ZAECHC 100; 2008 (2) SACR 608 (Ck) (25 June 2008)

The accused's admissions did not clearly establish that he had entered the premises, as there was no evidence that any part of his body or an instrument had been inserted into the house. The magistrate's assumption that entry had occurred was not supported by the facts admitted. Therefore, the conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal was not justified and must be substituted with attempted housebreaking with intent to steal. The sentence imposed was appropriate for the substituted conviction and was confirmed.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 100
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: Menzi Mavela
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2008
Case Number
CA&R 11/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under S 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal set aside and substituted with attempted housebreaking with intent to steal. Sentence confirmed.
Judges
Y Ebrahim, D Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Housebreaking, Attempted Housebreaking, Elements of Entry, Criminal Procedure Act, Conviction Substitution
Criminal Law Housebreaking Attempted Housebreaking Elements of Entry Criminal Procedure Act Conviction Substitution

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

Parties

The State

Respondent

Menzi Mavela

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review Under S 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's admissions established the element of 'entry' required for housebreaking with intent to steal.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal was appropriate on the facts admitted.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate for attempted housebreaking with intent to steal.

Ratio Decidendi

The accused's admissions did not clearly establish that he had entered the premises, as there was no evidence that any part of his body or an instrument had been inserted into the house. The magistrate's assumption that entry had occurred was not supported by the facts admitted. Therefore, the conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal was not justified and must be substituted with attempted housebreaking with intent to steal. The sentence imposed was appropriate for the substituted conviction and was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal set aside and substituted with attempted housebreaking with intent to steal. Sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal is set aside and substituted with attempted housebreaking with intent to steal.
  • The sentence of R2 000,00 or one year imprisonment suspended for five years on condition the accused is not convicted of housebreaking with intent to steal during the suspension period is confirmed.