S v Rheeder (173/97) [2000] ZASCA 39; 2001 (1) SA 348 (SCA) ; [2000] 4 All SA 300 (A) (8 September 2000)

S v Rheeder (173/97) [2000] ZASCA 39; 2001 (1) SA 348 (SCA) ; [2000] 4 All SA 300 (A) (8 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's use of impounded vehicles for personal purposes constituted unlawful removal from the control of the police, who held the vehicles as evidence and for safekeeping. The respondent's administrative position did not confer full control or lawful authority to use the vehicles outside the scope of police duties. The court interpreted 'control' in section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956 as requiring not only physical possession but also lawful authority to use or permit use of the property. Any unauthorised use by a police officer, even if in administrative charge, amounts to removal from the control of the lawful custodian...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 39
Parties
Applicant: Die Staat; Respondent: Leonard André Rheeder
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2000
Case Number
173/97
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences on counts 1 to 4 reinstated.
Judges
Hefer, Smalberger, Zulman
Legal Topics
Unlawful Removal of Property, Statutory Interpretation, Police Powers, Control and Possession, Criminal Liability
Criminal Law Unlawful Removal of Property Statutory Interpretation Police Powers Control and Possession Criminal Liability

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Die Staat

Applicant

Leonard André Rheeder

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's use of impounded vehicles constituted an offence under section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956.
  2. 2 What is the meaning of 'control' for purposes of section 1(1) of Act 50 of 1956.
  3. 3 Whether a police officer in administrative charge of impounded vehicles can lawfully use such vehicles for personal purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's use of impounded vehicles for personal purposes constituted unlawful removal from the control of the police, who held the vehicles as evidence and for safekeeping. The respondent's administrative position did not confer full control or lawful authority to use the vehicles outside the scope of police duties. The court interpreted 'control' in section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956 as requiring not only physical possession but also lawful authority to use or permit use of the property. Any unauthorised use by a police officer, even if in administrative charge, amounts to removal from the control of the lawful custodian...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences on counts 1 to 4 reinstated.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The convictions on counts 1 to 4 and the sentences imposed by the regional magistrate are restored.