S v Stimele (20160108, 264/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 94 (27 September 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZAECGHC 94
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Panel
- J.D. Pickering, J.M. Roberson
- Case number
- 20160108, 264/2016
More details
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Panel
- J.D. Pickering, J.M. Roberson
- Case number
- 20160108, 264/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The magistrate imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years in open court. The record erroneously reflected 18 years imprisonment due to a transcription error. As the accused was sentenced correctly in open court and suffered no prejudice, the court ordered that the record be amended to reflect the correct sentence.
Court disposition
The recorded sentence is set aside and substituted with the correct sentence of 18 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years.
Orders
- The sentence recorded on annexure B to the charge sheet is set aside and substituted by the following sentence: 18 months imprisonment the whole of which is suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 4 or 5 of Act 140 of 1992 committed during the period of suspension.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantSizwe Stimele
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Suspended Imprisonment Period: ZAR 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence as recorded was correct and reflected the sentence imposed in open court.
- 02
Whether the error in transcription of the sentence should be rectified.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The magistrate requests correction of the recorded sentence, as the sentence imposed in open court was 18 months imprisonment suspended, but the record erroneously reflects 18 years imprisonment.
- Respondent
- The accused did not suffer prejudice as the error was in the transcription and not in the sentence imposed in open court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Stimele (20160108, 264/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 94
A court may correct clerical errors in the record to reflect the true sentence imposed.
- 02
Section 4(a) of Act 140 of 1992
Suspended sentences must be clearly and accurately recorded to avoid prejudice or confusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The magistrate imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years in open court. The record erroneously reflected 18 years imprisonment due to a transcription error. As the accused was sentenced correctly in open court and suffered no prejudice, the court ordered that the record be amended to reflect the correct sentence.
Obiter and limits
- Clerical errors in sentencing records should be promptly corrected to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.
- The absence of prejudice to the accused is a relevant consideration when correcting such errors.
Court disposition
The recorded sentence is set aside and substituted with the correct sentence of 18 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years.
- The sentence recorded on annexure B to the charge sheet is set aside and substituted by the following sentence: 18 months imprisonment the whole of which is suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 4 or 5 of Act 140 of 1992 committed during the period of suspension.
Source and reliance status
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
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.
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Judgment
REPORTABLE/NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN)
Review case no: 20160108
CA&R no: 264/2016
Date delivered: 27/09/2016
In the matter between
THE
STATE
vs
SIZWE
STIMELE
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
PICKERING J:
[1] In this matter, which comes before me on special review, it appears that in recording the suspended sentence which he imposed upon the accused after correctly convicting him of a contravention of section 4(a) of Act 140 of 1992 the magistrate inadvertently reflected that such sentence was one of 18 years imprisonment instead of 18 months. Fortunately this sentence did not engender undue consternation in the bosom of the accused as the error occurred in the transcription thereof after the accused had been sentenced in open court to the aforementioned suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment.
[2] The magistrate now requests that the sentence as recorded on annexure “B” to the charge sheet be amended to reflect the correct sentence.
[3] Accordingly the following order will issue:
“The sentence recorded on annexure B to the charge sheet is set aside and substituted by the following sentence:
18 months imprisonment the whole of which is suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 4 or 5 of Act 140 of 1992 committed during the period of suspension.”
_____
J.D.
PICKERING
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree,
J.M.
ROBERSON
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.