S v Ntshonyane and Another (99/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 124; 2015 (2) SACR 70 (FB) (21 August 2014)

S v Ntshonyane and Another (99/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 124; 2015 (2) SACR 70 (FB) (21 August 2014)

The court held that although the accused were convicted and sentenced under the repealed Aliens Control Act, the essential elements of the offence are substantially the same as those under Section 9(4) read with Section 49 of the Immigration Act. Section 54 of the Immigration Act deems acts done under the repealed Act as having been done under the new Act if the conduct is covered. The sentence imposed was more lenient than the maximum under the Immigration Act, and no prejudice to the accused was found. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are confirmed and deemed to have been imposed under the Immigration Act.

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 124
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Rethabile Ntshonyane; Respondent: Thabang Ntshonyane
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2014
Case Number
99/2014
Procedural Posture
Special Review / Review of Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction and sentence confirmed and deemed to have been imposed under Section 9(4) read with Sections 49 and 54 of the Immigration Act, Act 13 of 2002.
Judges
Daffue, Murray
Legal Topics
Conviction Under Repealed Statute, Competent Verdict, Immigration Permit, Section 270 Criminal Procedure Act, Section 9 Immigration Act, Section 49 Immigration Act
Criminal Law Conviction Under Repealed Statute Competent Verdict Immigration Permit Section 270 Criminal Procedure Act Section 9 Immigration Act Section 49 Immigration Act

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Rethabile Ntshonyane

Respondent

Thabang Ntshonyane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Review / Review of Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conviction and sentence imposed under a repealed statute can be deemed to have been imposed under the new statute.
  2. 2 Whether the essential elements of the offence under the repealed Aliens Control Act are encompassed by the Immigration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the accused suffer any prejudice from the alteration or deeming of the conviction under the new Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the accused were convicted and sentenced under the repealed Aliens Control Act, the essential elements of the offence are substantially the same as those under Section 9(4) read with Section 49 of the Immigration Act. Section 54 of the Immigration Act deems acts done under the repealed Act as having been done under the new Act if the conduct is covered. The sentence imposed was more lenient than the maximum under the Immigration Act, and no prejudice to the accused was found. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are confirmed and deemed to have been imposed under the Immigration Act.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence confirmed and deemed to have been imposed under Section 9(4) read with Sections 49 and 54 of the Immigration Act, Act 13 of 2002.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence by the court a quo is confirmed and is deemed to have been imposed in terms of Section 9(4) read with Section 49 and 54 of the Immigration Act, Act 13 of 2002.