S v Selowe (A62/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 9 (30 January 2006)
- Citation
- [2006] ZAGPHC 9
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- E Bertelsmann, R D Claassen
- Case number
- A62/06
More details
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- E Bertelsmann, R D Claassen
- Case number
- A62/06
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the acceptance of an admission of guilt after the accused had pleaded guilty and been convicted was not authorized by the Criminal Procedure Act. The statute clearly provides that such admissions must be accepted prior to a plea in court. The prosecution was improperly terminated after the unauthorized acceptance of the admission of guilt. To correct the error, the court ordered that the admission of guilt and its acceptance be set aside, the amount paid refunded to the accused, and the accused be notified to appear in court again for proper sentencing. The court recommended that the accused be granted an appropriate discount on any fine imposed due to the inconvenience caused by the procedural error, for which the accused was not at fault.
Court disposition
Admission of guilt and its acceptance set aside; amount paid to be refunded; accused to be notified to appear for sentencing.
Orders
- The admission of guilt and its acceptance are set aside.
- The sum of R1,500.00 paid by the accused is to be refunded.
- The accused is to be notified to appear in court again for sentencing.
- The accused should be granted an appropriate discount on any fine imposed during continuation of proceedings.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantSolly Selowe
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Admission of Guilt Fine Paid: ZAR 1,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an admission of guilt can be accepted after a plea and conviction in court.
- 02
Whether the procedure followed in accepting the admission of guilt post-conviction was authorized by the Criminal Procedure Act.
- 03
What corrective measures should be taken when an unauthorized admission of guilt is accepted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State contended that the acceptance of the admission of guilt after the accused had pleaded and been convicted was not authorized by the Criminal Procedure Act. The State suggested that the admission of guilt and its acceptance should be set aside and the amount paid should be refunded to the accused. The State further recommended that the accused be notified to appear in court again for sentencing and be granted a discount on any fine imposed due to the inconvenience caused.
- Respondent
- The accused did not present formal arguments, having pleaded guilty and paid the admission of guilt fine post-conviction. The accused was unaware that the procedure was unauthorized and is considered innocent regarding the procedural error.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, sections 57 and 57A
An admission of guilt in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act may only be accepted prior to a plea in court. Acceptance after conviction is invalid.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the acceptance of an admission of guilt after the accused had pleaded guilty and been convicted was not authorized by the Criminal Procedure Act. The statute clearly provides that such admissions must be accepted prior to a plea in court. The prosecution was improperly terminated after the unauthorized acceptance of the admission of guilt. To correct the error, the court ordered that the admission of guilt and its acceptance be set aside, the amount paid refunded to the accused, and the accused be notified to appear in court again for proper sentencing. The court recommended that the accused be granted an appropriate discount on any fine imposed due to the inconvenience caused by the procedural error, for which the accused was not at fault.
Obiter and limits
- The accused is truly innocent of the procedural error and should not be prejudiced by the administrative mistake.
- The inconvenience caused to the accused by the unauthorized procedure warrants a discount on any future fine imposed.
Court disposition
Admission of guilt and its acceptance set aside; amount paid to be refunded; accused to be notified to appear for sentencing.
- The admission of guilt and its acceptance are set aside.
- The sum of R1,500.00 paid by the accused is to be refunded.
- The accused is to be notified to appear in court again for sentencing.
- The accused should be granted an appropriate discount on any fine imposed during continuation of proceedings.
Source and reliance status
High Courts - Gauteng
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.
High Courts - Gauteng
Judgment
A62/2006/ESIN THE HIGH COURT OFSOUTH AFRICA(TRANSVAALPROVINCIAL DIVISION)DATE: 30/1/06reportableMagistrateAMERSFOORTCase no: 279/2005High court ref no: 5260THE STATE v SOLLY 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 JUDGMENTBERTELSMANN, JThe accused allegedly ignored two stop streets in the town of Amersfoort.A sharp police officer spotted this misdeed and served a notice to appear in court upon the accused in terms of the provisions of section 56 of Act 51 of 1977.The accused duly appeared in court on 1 August 2005. He pleaded guilty on both charges and was convicted.After the accused failed to appear on the postponed date to be sentenced, it was discovered that he had,
after having been convicted, paid an amount of R1 500,00 as an admission of guilt.This admission of guilt was accepted.Unfortunately, the prosecution was thereafter terminated and it was only after a quality inspection toward the end of the year that it was discovered that this procedure is not authorized by theCriminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.Section 57, read withsection 57Aof theCriminal Procedure Act clearlydetermines that an admission of guilt can only be accepted prior to a plea in court.Even if the accused tendered the plea of guilty, as in this case, the admission of guilt has to be accepted prior to the accused’s appearance in court to be valid in terms of the authorised arising provision of the statute.Under the circumstances, the state has suggested that the admission of guilt and its acceptance should be set aside and the sum of R1 500,00 be repaid to the accused. This is the only way to correct this unfortunate error.The accused must be informed and notified that he has to appear in court again to be duly sentenced in finalisation of the prosecution that was put in train when he first appeared before the trial magistrate.It is recommended that he be granted an appropriate discount on the fine that will have to be imposed upon him during the continuation of the proceedings, in view of the totally unnecessary inconvenience to which the accused is being put, and in respect of which he is truly innocent.E BERTELSMANNJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTI agreeR D CLAASSENJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT279-2005IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF EVENTS
A
62/2006
/ES
IN THE HIGH COURT OFSOUTH AFRICA(TRANSVAALPROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(
TRANSVAAL
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
THE STATE v SOLLY SELOWE
REVIEW JUDGMENT
BERTELSMANN, J
The accused allegedly ignored two stop streets in the town of Amersfoort.A sharp police officer spotted this misdeed and served a notice to appear in court upon the accused in terms of the provisions of section 56 of Act 51 of 1977.The accused duly appeared in court on 1 August 2005. He pleaded guilty on both charges and was convicted.After the accused failed to appear on the postponed date to be sentenced, it was discovered that he had, after having been convicted, paid an amount of R1 500,00 as an admission of guilt.This admission of guilt was accepted.Unfortunately, the prosecution was thereafter terminated and it was only after a quality inspection toward the end of the year that it was discovered that this procedure is not authorized by theCriminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.Section 57, read withsection 57Aof theCriminal Procedure Act clearlydetermines that an admission of guilt can only be accepted prior to a plea in court.Even if the accused tendered the plea of guilty, as in this case, the admission of guilt has to be accepted prior to the accused’s appearance in court to be valid in terms of the authorised arising provision of the statute.Under the circumstances, the state has suggested that the admission of guilt and its acceptance should be set aside and the sum of R1 500,00 be repaid to the accused. This is the only way to correct this unfortunate error.The accused
must be informed and notified that he has to appear in court again to be duly sentenced in finalisation of the prosecution that was put in train when he first appeared before the trial magistrate.It is recommended that he be granted an appropriate discount on the fine that will have to be imposed upon him during the continuation of the proceedings, in view of the totally unnecessary inconvenience to which the accused is being put, and in respect of which he is truly innocent.
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Section 57
section 57A
Criminal Procedure Act clearly
E BERTELSMANNJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTI agreeR D CLAASSENJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT279-2005IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF EVENTS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
279-2005
IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF EVENTS
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.