S v Sellem (6/91) [1992] ZASCA 48; 1992 (2) SA 795 (AD); (30 March 1992)

S v Sellem (6/91) [1992] ZASCA 48; 1992 (2) SA 795 (AD); (30 March 1992)

The court held that the definition of 'purchase' in the Diamonds Act is broad and includes dealing in diamonds, whether as a single transaction or as part of a business. The respondent's conduct, acting as an agent or middleman to sell diamonds for a commission, fell squarely within the statutory prohibition. The court rejected the argument that 'deal in' requires a course of business, finding that the context and associated terms in the Act support the inclusion of isolated transactions. The involvement of a police trap did not negate the offence, as the respondent voluntarily participated and agreed to sell the diamonds. However, the court found that there was some element of...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 48
Parties
Appellant: The State; Respondent: S Sellem
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 1992
Case Number
6/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division; Leave Granted on Two Questions of Law
Outcome
Appeal succeeds; conviction and sentence reinstated with a lighter sentence substituted.
Judges
Corbett, Smalberger, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Illicit Diamond Dealing, Statutory Interpretation, Agency and Mandate, Entrapment, Sentence Mitigation
Criminal Law Illicit Diamond Dealing Statutory Interpretation Agency and Mandate Entrapment Sentence Mitigation

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Appellant

S Sellem

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division; Leave Granted on Two Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent 'purchased' unpolished diamonds within the meaning of s 20 of the Diamonds Act, No 56 of 1986.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unlawfully possessed the diamonds under s 18 of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether 'deal in' under the Act refers only to a course of business or includes isolated transactions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the definition of 'purchase' in the Diamonds Act is broad and includes dealing in diamonds, whether as a single transaction or as part of a business. The respondent's conduct, acting as an agent or middleman to sell diamonds for a commission, fell squarely within the statutory prohibition. The court rejected the argument that 'deal in' requires a course of business, finding that the context and associated terms in the Act support the inclusion of isolated transactions. The involvement of a police trap did not negate the offence, as the respondent voluntarily participated and agreed to sell the diamonds. However, the court found that there was some element of...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds; conviction and sentence reinstated with a lighter sentence substituted.

Orders

  • The conviction of the respondent in the regional court of a contravention of s 20 of the Diamonds Act, No 56 of 1986, is confirmed and reinstated.
  • The following sentence is substituted: 15 months' imprisonment of which 9 are suspended for five years on condition that the accused is not convicted of a contravention of s 19 or s 20 of the Diamonds Act, No 56 of 1986, committed during the period of suspension.