S v Motshabi (1109/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 110 (27 October 2005)

S v Motshabi (1109/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 110 (27 October 2005)

The court found that the accused did not enter the house but only broke a window, which constitutes only an attempt at housebreaking. Entry is a necessary element for a conviction of housebreaking, and since this was not proven, the conviction must be altered to attempted housebreaking with intent to steal. Furthermore, the sentence of three years' imprisonment was excessive for an attempt, especially considering that the most recent prior conviction occurred after the present offence. The conviction was amended to attempted housebreaking with intent to steal, and the sentence was reduced to one year imprisonment.

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 110
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: William Motshabi
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2005
Case Number
1109/2005
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction amended to attempted housebreaking with intent to steal; sentence reduced.
Judges
Cillié R, Van der Merwe R
Legal Topics
Housebreaking, Attempt, Sentencing, Elements of Offence
Criminal Law Housebreaking Attempt Sentencing Elements of Offence

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

Parties

The State

Applicant

William Motshabi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was correctly convicted of housebreaking with intent to commit an unknown offence.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supports a conviction for housebreaking or only for attempted housebreaking.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the facts and prior convictions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused did not enter the house but only broke a window, which constitutes only an attempt at housebreaking. Entry is a necessary element for a conviction of housebreaking, and since this was not proven, the conviction must be altered to attempted housebreaking with intent to steal. Furthermore, the sentence of three years' imprisonment was excessive for an attempt, especially considering that the most recent prior conviction occurred after the present offence. The conviction was amended to attempted housebreaking with intent to steal, and the sentence was reduced to one year imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Conviction amended to attempted housebreaking with intent to steal; sentence reduced.

Orders

  • The conviction is amended to attempted housebreaking with intent to steal.
  • The sentence is amended to one year imprisonment.