S v Nonkasu - Review Judgment (CA&R 150/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 103 (19 September 2023)

S v Nonkasu - Review Judgment (CA&R 150/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 103 (19 September 2023)

The conviction on count 2 was not supported by sufficient factual admissions demonstrating either an assault or the requisite intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The accused's plea statement merely repeated the charges without providing facts to substantiate the elements of the offence. Furthermore, the same conduct formed the basis for both counts, resulting in an impermissible splitting of charges. On the authority of S v Mgcineni, the facts did not justify a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the conviction and sentence on count 2 must be set aside. The conviction and sentence on count 1 (contravention of protection order) were appropriate and confirmed.

Citation
[2023] ZAECMKHC 103
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Amanda Nonkasu
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2023
Case Number
CA&R 150/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review Judgment Following Conviction and Sentence in the Magistrate's Court.
Outcome
Conviction and sentence on count 1 confirmed; conviction and sentence on count 2 set aside.
Judges
Bloem, Tokota
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence Act, Splitting of Charges, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Conviction on Admissions
Criminal Law Domestic Violence Act Splitting of Charges Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Conviction on Admissions

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

Parties

The State

Applicant

Amanda Nonkasu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review Judgment Following Conviction and Sentence in the Magistrate's Court.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction on count 2 (assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm) amounted to an improper splitting of charges with count 1 (contravention of protection order).
  2. 2 Whether there were sufficient factual admissions to sustain a conviction on count 2.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed on count 1 was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count 2 was not supported by sufficient factual admissions demonstrating either an assault or the requisite intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The accused's plea statement merely repeated the charges without providing facts to substantiate the elements of the offence. Furthermore, the same conduct formed the basis for both counts, resulting in an impermissible splitting of charges. On the authority of S v Mgcineni, the facts did not justify a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the conviction and sentence on count 2 must be set aside. The conviction and sentence on count 1 (contravention of protection order) were appropriate and confirmed.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence on count 1 confirmed; conviction and sentence on count 2 set aside.

Orders

  • The accused’s conviction on count 1 is confirmed.
  • The accused is sentenced on count 1 to pay a fine of R1 000 or to undergo four months’ imprisonment. Half of the fine is suspended for three years and, in the event of failing to pay R500, half of the term of imprisonment is suspended. The sentence is suspended for three years on condition that the accused shall not...