S v Motswasele and Another (22/2001) [2001] ZANWHC 22 (12 April 2001)

S v Motswasele and Another (22/2001) [2001] ZANWHC 22 (12 April 2001)

The court found that the doctrine of recent possession did not apply because the goods in question were of a type that could easily and quickly be transferred, and three months had elapsed since the theft. This period was too long to justify the inference that the accused were the original thieves. However, the accused's knowledge that the goods were stolen, as evidenced by their false explanations and conduct, supported a conviction for receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. The original conviction and sentence for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft were set aside and replaced with a conviction and sentence for receiving stolen property.

Citation
[2001] ZANWHC 22
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Simon Modise Motswasele; Respondent: Jacob Tsietsi Motswasele
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2001
Case Number
22/2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review Judgment After Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction and sentence for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft set aside; substituted with conviction and sentence for receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.
Judges
Mogoeng
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Recent Possession, Receiving Stolen Property, Housebreaking and Theft, Inferential Reasoning, Sentencing Adjustment
Criminal Law Doctrine of Recent Possession Receiving Stolen Property Housebreaking and Theft Inferential Reasoning Sentencing Adjustment

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

Applicant

Simon Modise Motswasele

Respondent

Jacob Tsietsi Motswasele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review Judgment After Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doctrine of recent possession applies to the accused's possession of stolen goods three months after the theft.
  2. 2 Whether the accused's conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft was justified on the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the accused should be convicted of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the doctrine of recent possession did not apply because the goods in question were of a type that could easily and quickly be transferred, and three months had elapsed since the theft. This period was too long to justify the inference that the accused were the original thieves. However, the accused's knowledge that the goods were stolen, as evidenced by their false explanations and conduct, supported a conviction for receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. The original conviction and sentence for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft were set aside and replaced with a conviction and sentence for receiving stolen property.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft set aside; substituted with conviction and sentence for receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.

Orders

  • The accused are found guilty of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.
  • The accused are sentenced to R1,200.00 or six months imprisonment, of which half is suspended for three years on condition that they are not convicted of theft or a related offence during the period of suspension and in respect of which an effective term of imprisonment is imposed without an option of a fine.