S v Seleke and Another (455/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 235 (13 December 2012)

S v Seleke and Another (455/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 235 (13 December 2012)

The reviewing court found that the magistrate had made a technical error by citing section 297(1)(i) instead of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act when sentencing the accused. Since section 297(1)(i) does not exist and the intended sentence was clearly under section 276(1)(i), the court held that correcting the error would not prejudice the accused. The court exercised its power under section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act to amend the sentence, confirming both the conviction and the corrected sentence.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 235
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Kabelo Abel Seleke; Respondent: Norman Nchere Matjiane
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Case Number
455/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Sentence
Outcome
Conviction and sentence confirmed; sentence corrected to reference the proper statutory section.
Judges
D.I. Matlapeng, K.J. Moloi
Legal Topics
Sentencing Error, Criminal Procedure Act, Correction of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Error Criminal Procedure Act Correction of Sentence

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Kabelo Abel Seleke

Respondent

Norman Nchere Matjiane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was technically incorrect due to reference to the wrong statutory section.
  2. 2 Whether the court may correct a sentencing error after the sentence has been imposed.

Ratio Decidendi

The reviewing court found that the magistrate had made a technical error by citing section 297(1)(i) instead of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act when sentencing the accused. Since section 297(1)(i) does not exist and the intended sentence was clearly under section 276(1)(i), the court held that correcting the error would not prejudice the accused. The court exercised its power under section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act to amend the sentence, confirming both the conviction and the corrected sentence.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence confirmed; sentence corrected to reference the proper statutory section.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are confirmed.
  • The sentence imposed by the magistrate is corrected to read: Each accused is sentenced in terms of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 to 18 months imprisonment.