Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

High Courts - Eastern Cape

S v Stuurman (80060) [2008] ZAECHC 119 (7 May 2008)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the accused intended to plead guilty to the alternative charge of possession or use of cannabis, not to the main charge of dealing in cannabis. The magistrate's record incorrectly reflected conviction on the main charge due to oversight. The magistrate provided reasons confirming the conviction should have been on the alternative charge and requested correction of the record. The court held that it was appropriate to amend the record to reflect conviction on the alternative charge and confirmed that the sentence imposed was in accordance with the law for the alternative charge. The conviction and sentence were thus regular and the record was ordered to be corrected.

Court disposition

Conviction amended to reflect the alternative charge; sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The words 'soos aangekla' following the entry of 'guilty' on the record are deleted and replaced with 'on the alternative charge'.
  • The sentence is confirmed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Johannes Stuurman

Appellant

Staat

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence (imprisonment): ZAR 12

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The accused pleaded guilty and intended to plead guilty to the alternative charge of possession or use of cannabis, not to the main charge of dealing in cannabis. The record incorrectly reflects conviction on the main charge due to a clerical error.
Respondent
The magistrate acknowledged the error and requested that the record be corrected to reflect conviction on the alternative charge. The sentence imposed was appropriate for the alternative charge.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 5(b) and Section 4(b) of Act 140 of 1992

    A conviction must accurately reflect the charge to which the accused pleaded guilty and was found guilty.

  2. 02

    S v Mshengu 2009 (2) SACR 316 (SCA)

    The court may correct the record to reflect the true nature of the conviction where a clerical error has occurred.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the accused intended to plead guilty to the alternative charge of possession or use of cannabis, not to the main charge of dealing in cannabis. The magistrate's record incorrectly reflected conviction on the main charge due to oversight. The magistrate provided reasons confirming the conviction should have been on the alternative charge and requested correction of the record. The court held that it was appropriate to amend the record to reflect conviction on the alternative charge and confirmed that the sentence imposed was in accordance with the law for the alternative charge. The conviction and sentence were thus regular and the record was ordered to be corrected.

Obiter and limits

  • It is important that court records accurately reflect the proceedings and findings to avoid prejudice to the accused.
  • Clerical errors in recording convictions should be promptly corrected to ensure justice is served.

Court disposition

Conviction amended to reflect the alternative charge; sentence confirmed.

  • The words 'soos aangekla' following the entry of 'guilty' on the record are deleted and replaced with 'on the alternative charge'.
  • The sentence is confirmed.

Source and reliance status

High Courts - Eastern Cape

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.

Source document

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Judgment

[2008] ZAECHC 119

FORM

A

FILING

SHEET FOR SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION JUDGMENT

PARTIES:

STAAT

TEEN

JOHANNES

STUURMAN

Case Number: 080060 High Court: SUID-OOS KAAPSE PLAASLIKE AFDELING

DATE HEARD: 7 May 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 7 May 2008

JUDGE(S): LIEBENBERG R, JANSEN R

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES –

Appearances:

For the Appellants(s):

for the Respondent(s):

Instructing attorneys:

Appellant(s) Respondent(s):

CASE INFORMATION -

Nature of proceedings : Review

Topic:

Key Words:

IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA

(SUID-OOS KAAPSE PLAASLIKE AFDELING)

HERSIENINGSNR: 080060

DATUM GELEWER:

IN DIE SAAK TUSSEN:

JOHANNES STUURMAN

HERSIENINGSUITSPRAAK

LIEBENBERG, R:

Die beskuldigde in hierdie saak was voor die landdros Uitenhage aangekla van ʼn oortreding van artikel 5 (b) van Wet 140 van 1992 (die “Wet”) naamlik dat hy handel gedryf het in dagga. In die alternatief was hy aangekla van ʼn oortreding van artikel 4 (b) van die Wet naamlik die besit of gebruik van dagga. Die beskuldigde het skuldig gepleit en volgens sy antwoorde op ondervraging van die landdros was dit duidelik dat hy op die alternatief wou skuldig pleit. Volgens die aantekening wat die landdros daarna op die rekord gemaak het, hy by die beskuldigde skuldig gevind “soos aangekla”. Dit het die uitwerking dat die beskuldigde skuldig bevind sou wees aan die hoofklagte naamlik handel in dagga.

Op grond van ʼn navraag deur my het die landdros redes verstrek. Dit blyk uit die redes dat hy inderdaad die beskuldigde aan die alternatief skuldig bevind het maar weens ʼn oorsig aan sy kant aangeteken het dat die beskuldigde skuldig bevind word “soos aangekla”. Hy vra dan dat die rekord reggestel word deur die woorde “soos aangekla” te vervang met “skuldig : alternatiewe klagte”. Na my oordeel sou dit voldoende wees om die woorde “soos aangekla” te vervang met die woorde “op die alternatiwe klagte” .

Ek het ook redes van die landdros gevra vir die vonnis van 12 maande gevangenisstraf indien die skuldigbevinding op die alternatiewe klagte sou wees. Die landdros het hierdie redes verstrek vir vonnis in die lig daarvan dat sy skuldigbevinding inderdaad bedoel was om op die alternatiewe klagtes te wees. Ek is tevrede dat die oplegging van die vonnis ooreenkomstig die reg was en dat die regstelling van die rekord soos deur die landdros versoek, moet geskied.

BEVEL:

Die woorde “soos aangekla” wat volg na die aantekening van die woord skuldig woord op die rekord deurgehaal en vervang met die woorde “op die alternatiewe klagte.” Die vonnis word bekragtig.

________

H.J.

LIEBENBERG

REGTER VAN

DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF

JANSEN R:

EK STEM SAAM.

_________

J.C.H.

JANSEN

REGTER

VAN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

S v Mshengu 2009 (2) SACR 316 (SCA)

Case cited

Act 140 of 1992

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.