S v Shau (97/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 98 (27 June 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZAFSHC 98
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P. Zietsman, Kruger
- Case number
- 97/2013
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P. Zietsman, Kruger
- Case number
- 97/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the magistrate erred by referencing section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, when imposing a compensation order as a condition of suspension. The correct statutory provision for such an order is section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa), which allows for compensation to be paid as a condition of a suspended sentence. The review court agreed with the regional magistrate's request and amended the sentence accordingly, ensuring that the compensation order was properly grounded in law and enforceable under the correct section.
Court disposition
Sentence amended to reference section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) for compensation order; reference to section 300 deleted.
Orders
- The sentence imposed is altered with specific reference to condition (ii), which is now to read: '(ii) That the accused compensate the complainant in terms of section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 in the amount of R10 000,00 (ten thousand rand). Such amount is payable in monthly instalments of R600,00 (six hundred rand) per month at the clerk of the court, Magistrate’s Court Bloemfontein. The first instalment is payable on or before the 1st March 2013 with the remaining instalments on or before the 1st day of each succeeding month until such amount is paid in full.'
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantDavid Shau
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Compensation Amount Ordered: ZAR 10,000
- Monthly Instalment: ZAR 600
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate erred by incorporating section 300 (compensation order) as a condition of suspension in the sentence.
- 02
Whether the sentence should be amended to reference section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 instead of section 300.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State did not formally oppose the review but the regional magistrate requested that the sentence be amended by deleting the reference to section 300 of Act 51 of 1977, as this was not the correct statutory provision for compensation orders in suspended sentences.
- Respondent
- David Shau did not submit formal arguments in the review proceedings. The review was initiated by the magistrate's request for correction of the sentencing order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
Compensation orders as a condition of suspension must be made under section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) of the Criminal Procedure Act, not section 300.
- 02
S v Huhu (96/2012), Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
A review court may amend a sentence where the incorrect statutory provision is referenced in the order.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the magistrate erred by referencing section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, when imposing a compensation order as a condition of suspension. The correct statutory provision for such an order is section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa), which allows for compensation to be paid as a condition of a suspended sentence. The review court agreed with the regional magistrate's request and amended the sentence accordingly, ensuring that the compensation order was properly grounded in law and enforceable under the correct section.
Obiter and limits
- The only difference between this matter and S v Huhu was the amount of compensation ordered.
- The review process ensures that sentencing orders comply with statutory requirements and are enforceable.
Court disposition
Sentence amended to reference section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) for compensation order; reference to section 300 deleted.
- The sentence imposed is altered with specific reference to condition (ii), which is now to read: '(ii) That the accused compensate the complainant in terms of section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 in the amount of R10 000,00 (ten thousand rand). Such amount is payable in monthly instalments of R600,00 (six hundred rand) per month at the clerk of the court, Magistrate’s Court Bloemfontein. The first instalment is payable on or before the 1st March 2013 with the remaining instalments on or before the 1st day of each succeeding month until such amount is paid in full.'
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
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No.: 97/2013
In the review between:
THE
STATE
and
DAVID
SHAU
_____________
CORAM: KRUGER, J et ZIETSMAN, AJ
JUDGMENT BY: ZIETSMAN, AJ
DELIVERED ON: 27 JUNE 2013
[1] This case came before us as a special review in terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977. It was sent together with review number 96/2012, the State v Huhu as the aforementioned matters dealt with the same issue, namely that the magistrate worded a condition of suspension by incorporation of section 300 (compensation order), which should not have been done.
[2] In review 96/2012, Jordaan J and Fischer AJ delivered a judgment on 16 May 2013 which altered condition (ii) of the sentence in that the reference to section 300 of Act 51 of 1977 was substituted by section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977. The only difference between the two matters was the amount of compensation ordered. In the present matter, S v David Shau, the magistrate ordered payment of compensation in the amount of R10 000,00 in instalments of R600,00 a month, the first instalment to be on the 1st of March 2013.
[3] The regional magistrate requests that the sentence be amended by the deletion of the reference to section 300 of Act 51 of 1977. I am in agreement with the acting regional magistrate.
[4] The following order is made:
The sentence imposed is altered with specific reference to condition (ii) which is now to read as follows:
“(ii) That the accused compensate the complainant in terms of section 297(1)(a)(i)(aa) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 in the amount of R10 000,00 (ten thousand rand). Such amount is payable in monthly instalments of R600,00 (six hundred rand) per month at the clerk of the court, Magistrate’s Court Bloemfontein. The first instalment is payable on or before the 1st March 2013 with the remaining instalments on or before the 1st day of each succeeding month until such amount is paid in full.”
____
P. ZIETSMAN, AJ
I concur.
_____
KRUGER, J
/eb
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.