S v Reditsebe (R180/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 209 (15 December 2016)

S v Reditsebe (R180/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 209 (15 December 2016)

The reviewing court found that the magistrate failed to sufficiently question the accused regarding the effect of alcohol on his driving ability, a necessary element of the offence. The accused did not admit that his driving ability was impaired, and the magistrate did not enquire into the degree of impairment or the possibility of a necessity defence. Furthermore, the magistrate did not inform the unrepresented accused of his rights under section 35(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, nor did the court hold an enquiry regarding the suspension of the accused's driver's licence. As a result, the conviction and sentence could not stand and were set aside.

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 209
Parties
Applicant: THE STATE; Respondent: MAJORO JOHN REDITSEBE
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
R180/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review Under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Conviction and sentence set aside; matter remitted for trial before another magistrate.
Judges
E.K TSATSI, S. NAIDOO
Legal Topics
Driving Under Influence, Criminal Procedure Act Section 302, Plea of Guilty, Admission of Elements, Suspension of Drivers Licence
Criminal Law Driving Under Influence Criminal Procedure Act Section 302 Plea of Guilty Admission of Elements Suspension of Drivers Licence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE STATE

Applicant

MAJORO JOHN REDITSEBE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review Under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused admitted all elements of the offence of driving under the influence of liquor or drugs.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate sufficiently questioned the accused regarding impairment of driving ability due to alcohol.
  3. 3 Whether the accused raised a defence of emergency or necessity.

Ratio Decidendi

The reviewing court found that the magistrate failed to sufficiently question the accused regarding the effect of alcohol on his driving ability, a necessary element of the offence. The accused did not admit that his driving ability was impaired, and the magistrate did not enquire into the degree of impairment or the possibility of a necessity defence. Furthermore, the magistrate did not inform the unrepresented accused of his rights under section 35(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, nor did the court hold an enquiry regarding the suspension of the accused's driver's licence. As a result, the conviction and sentence could not stand and were set aside.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside; matter remitted for trial before another magistrate.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are hereby set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the District for trial before another Magistrate.