S v Mokotjo (336/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 70 (29 July 2010)

S v Mokotjo (336/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 70 (29 July 2010)

The court found that the magistrate had made an administrative error on the charge sheet by indicating that count 1 was withdrawn and the accused was convicted on count 2. In reality, the accused pleaded guilty to the alternative charge on count 1 (driving with excessive blood alcohol concentration) and count 2 (assault) was withdrawn. The accused admitted all elements of the alternative charge in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and was properly convicted and sentenced. The court ordered rectification of the record to reflect the correct conviction and withdrawal of charges, confirming the sentence imposed.

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 70
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Nkopeleng Joel Mokotjo
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Case Number
336/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review
Outcome
Conviction and sentence on the alternative charge to count 1 confirmed; record rectified to reflect withdrawal of count 2.
Judges
A. F. Jordaan, C. B. Cillié
Legal Topics
Driving Under Influence, Criminal Procedure Act Section 112, Rectification of Record
Criminal Law Driving Under Influence Criminal Procedure Act Section 112 Rectification of Record

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Nkopeleng Joel Mokotjo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction and withdrawal of charges were correctly recorded on the charge sheet.
  2. 2 Whether the record should be rectified to reflect the correct conviction and withdrawal of charges.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate had made an administrative error on the charge sheet by indicating that count 1 was withdrawn and the accused was convicted on count 2. In reality, the accused pleaded guilty to the alternative charge on count 1 (driving with excessive blood alcohol concentration) and count 2 (assault) was withdrawn. The accused admitted all elements of the alternative charge in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and was properly convicted and sentenced. The court ordered rectification of the record to reflect the correct conviction and withdrawal of charges, confirming the sentence imposed.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence on the alternative charge to count 1 confirmed; record rectified to reflect withdrawal of count 2.

Orders

  • Count 2 is withdrawn.
  • The accused is convicted of the alternative charge to count 1, contravention of section 65(2)(b) of Act 93 of 1996, driving a motor vehicle whilst the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed maximum.