S v Ramone (67/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 116; 2013 (2) SACR 596 (FB) (27 June 2013)

S v Ramone (67/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 116; 2013 (2) SACR 596 (FB) (27 June 2013)

The magistrate's sentence was incompetent because it provided for imprisonment with the option of a fine, contrary to section 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, which requires that imprisonment must be imposed without the option of a fine. The court clarified that a fine may be added to the sentence, but not as an alternative to imprisonment. Furthermore, the condition of suspension must be based on the commission of a further offence during the suspension period, not on conviction. The sentence was set aside and replaced with a sentence that complies with the statutory requirements.

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 116
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Moeko Ramone
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2013
Case Number
67/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Sentence
Outcome
Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and replaced with a competent sentence in accordance with section 17(e) of Act 140 of 1992.
Judges
A. Kruger, K. J. Moloi
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, Suspended Sentence, Imprisonment Without Option of Fine
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act Suspended Sentence Imprisonment Without Option of Fine

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Moeko Ramone

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the sentence imposed by the magistrate comply with section 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992?
  2. 2 Is it competent to impose imprisonment with the option of a fine for dealing in drugs under section 17(e)?
  3. 3 Is the condition of suspension correctly formulated in relation to the commission versus conviction of a further offence?

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's sentence was incompetent because it provided for imprisonment with the option of a fine, contrary to section 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, which requires that imprisonment must be imposed without the option of a fine. The court clarified that a fine may be added to the sentence, but not as an alternative to imprisonment. Furthermore, the condition of suspension must be based on the commission of a further offence during the suspension period, not on conviction. The sentence was set aside and replaced with a sentence that complies with the statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and replaced with a competent sentence in accordance with section 17(e) of Act 140 of 1992.

Orders

  • The conviction is confirmed.
  • The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside and replaced with: The accused is sentenced to a fine of R3 000 or 9 months’ imprisonment. In addition, the accused is sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for five years on condition that he is not convicted of a contravention of section 5(b) or...