S v Saeed (R14/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 83 (24 March 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZAFSHC 83
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Opperman, Reinders
- Case number
- R14/2021
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Opperman, Reinders
- Case number
- R14/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the proceedings in the District Court were not in accordance with the law because the accused was a minor and the Child Justice Act was not applied. The guilty plea and conviction under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act were therefore invalid. The matter must be referred back to the District Court for proper application of the Child Justice Act, ensuring that the rights and procedures applicable to minors are observed.
Court disposition
The guilty plea and conviction are set aside. The matter is referred back to the District Court for proper application of the Child Justice Act.
Orders
- The plea of guilty and the conviction in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 are set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the District Court to be dealt with in terms of the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008.
02
Material facts
Parties
THE STATE
ApplicantSHARIFF SAEED
Respondent Counsel: Legal Aid: South Africa03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review in Terms of Section 304 a of the Criminal Procedure Act After Conviction and Sentencing in the District Court.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proceedings against the accused, a minor, were conducted in accordance with the law.
- 02
Whether the plea and conviction under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act should be set aside due to the accused's minority.
- 03
Whether the matter should be referred back for proper application of the Child Justice Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State proceeded with a guilty plea in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, not initially aware that the accused was a minor. Upon discovery of the accused's age, the proceedings were suspended and sent for review. The State did not oppose the setting aside of the conviction, acknowledging the procedural irregularity.
- Respondent
- The accused, represented by Legal Aid South Africa, pleaded guilty to contravening section 49(1)(a) of the Immigration Act. After conviction, it was revealed that the accused was a minor, and the defence supported the review and referral of the matter for proper application of the Child Justice Act.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Child Justice Act 75 of 2008
Proceedings against minors must comply with the Child Justice Act, which provides specific procedures and protections for children in conflict with the law.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
A guilty plea and conviction under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act are invalid if the accused is a minor and the Child Justice Act is not applied.
- 03
Section 304A, Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Review proceedings may set aside convictions not in accordance with the law and refer matters back for proper procedure.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the proceedings in the District Court were not in accordance with the law because the accused was a minor and the Child Justice Act was not applied. The guilty plea and conviction under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act were therefore invalid. The matter must be referred back to the District Court for proper application of the Child Justice Act, ensuring that the rights and procedures applicable to minors are observed.
Obiter and limits
- The delay in the review was due to the transcription of the record, not any fault of the parties.
- The accused was released into the custody of his guardian pending review, but both failed to appear at the subsequent hearing, resulting in warrants of arrest.
Court disposition
The guilty plea and conviction are set aside. The matter is referred back to the District Court for proper application of the Child Justice Act.
- The plea of guilty and the conviction in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 are set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the District Court to be dealt with in terms of the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION
Review No.: R14/2021
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
versus
SHARIFF SAEED
Coram:
Reinders, J et Opperman, J
Date of hearing: 24 March 2021
Delivered: The judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the Head of Office, Harrismith Magistrate’s Court, Harrismith and released to SAFLII on 24 March 2021. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 24 March 2021 at 15h00.
Judgment by: Opperman, J
Summary: Review – minor – application of the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008
JUDGMENT
[1] This is a review in terms of section 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977[1].
[2] The accused was represented by Legal Aid: South Africa during the trial. The Legal Practitioner indicated to the Court that the matter may be finalized in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the CPA in that the Accused wanted to plea guilty.
[3] The Accused was convicted of the contravention of section 49(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 after a plea of guilty in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the CPA. During sentencing it came to light that the accused is a minor.
[4] One Doctor Gonzales examined the accused and reported to the Court that his estimated age is between 16 and 17 years old. The proceedings were immediately suspended and send on review. The accused was released in the custody of his guardian. The matter was postponed for the review to be finalized but on 7 January 2021 both child and guardian failed to appear before the Court and warrants of arrest were authorised.
[5] It goes without saying that the proceedings were not in accordance with the law and that the plea and conviction stand to be set aside.
[6] The application for the review was only received by the Registrar of the High Court, Free State Division on 23 March 2021. The reason for the delay was the transcription of the record.
[7]
ORDER
The plea of guilty and the conviction in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 are set aside and the matter is referred back to the District Court to be dealt with in terms of the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008.
M OPPERMAN, J
I concur
C REINDERS, J
[1] “CPA”.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.