S v Omar (R31/18) [2018] ZAFSHC 63 (6 April 2018)

S v Omar (R31/18) [2018] ZAFSHC 63 (6 April 2018)

The conviction cannot stand because the accused did not admit all the essential elements of the offence, specifically that he drove on a public road and that the speed measuring device was properly calibrated and operated by a trained person. The presiding officer failed to elicit these admissions and did not satisfy the requirements for a valid conviction under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act. The questioning fell short of the standards required by section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court cannot take judicial notice of facts not admitted by the accused. Accordingly, both the conviction and sentence must be set aside.

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 63
Parties
Applicant: THE STATE; Respondent: GOLAM MOHAMMED SHAIK OMAR
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 April 2018
Case Number
R31/18
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review in Terms of Section 304(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Outcome
Conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
P.E. Molitsoane, N.M. Mbhele
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Act, Speeding Offence, Admissions in Plea, Calibration of Speed Device
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Act Speeding Offence Admissions in Plea Calibration of Speed Device

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

Parties

THE STATE

Applicant

GOLAM MOHAMMED SHAIK OMAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Review in Terms of Section 304(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused admitted all elements of the offence, including driving on a public road.
  2. 2 Whether the accused admitted the applicable general speed limit.
  3. 3 Whether the accused admitted that the speed measuring device was properly calibrated and functioning.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction cannot stand because the accused did not admit all the essential elements of the offence, specifically that he drove on a public road and that the speed measuring device was properly calibrated and operated by a trained person. The presiding officer failed to elicit these admissions and did not satisfy the requirements for a valid conviction under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act. The questioning fell short of the standards required by section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court cannot take judicial notice of facts not admitted by the accused. Accordingly, both the conviction and sentence must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.