S v Tau and Another (92/07) [2007] ZANWHC 77 (22 November 2007)

S v Tau and Another (92/07) [2007] ZANWHC 77 (22 November 2007)

The court found that the magistrate erred in applying Section 103(2)(a) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 to both accused, as their offences were not listed in Schedule 2. The correct provision is Section 103(1)(k), which applies only to dealing in drugs. Accused no. 2, convicted of dealing in dagga, is automatically unfit to possess a firearm unless the court orders otherwise. The court, after considering the facts and the accused's statements, decided not to make an order declaring accused no. 2 fit to possess a firearm, thus leaving the automatic unfitness provision in place. The conviction and sentences were confirmed, but the firearm unfitness order was set aside and substituted...

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 77
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Nthabiseng Tau; Respondent: Another
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2007
Case Number
92/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Magistrate's Decision
Outcome
Convictions and sentences for both accused confirmed. The order declaring both accused unfit to possess a firearm under Section 103(2)(a) of Act 60 of 2000 is set aside. No order is made in terms of Section 103(1) of Act 60 of 2000 for accused no. 2.
Judges
O A Pako, M M Leeuw
Legal Topics
Possession of Dagga, Dealing in Dagga, Firearms Control Act, Sentencing, Automatic Review
Criminal Law Possession of Dagga Dealing in Dagga Firearms Control Act Sentencing Automatic Review

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

Parties

The State

Applicant

Nthabiseng Tau

Respondent

Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review of Magistrate's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the accused were appropriate and lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the order declaring both accused unfit to possess a firearm under Section 103(2)(a) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 was correct.
  3. 3 Whether the correct statutory provision was applied regarding fitness to possess a firearm for offences involving dagga.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate erred in applying Section 103(2)(a) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 to both accused, as their offences were not listed in Schedule 2. The correct provision is Section 103(1)(k), which applies only to dealing in drugs. Accused no. 2, convicted of dealing in dagga, is automatically unfit to possess a firearm unless the court orders otherwise. The court, after considering the facts and the accused's statements, decided not to make an order declaring accused no. 2 fit to possess a firearm, thus leaving the automatic unfitness provision in place. The conviction and sentences were confirmed, but the firearm unfitness order was set aside and substituted...

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences for both accused confirmed. The order declaring both accused unfit to possess a firearm under Section 103(2)(a) of Act 60 of 2000 is set aside. No order is made in terms of Section 103(1) of Act 60 of 2000 for accused no. 2.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence in respect of both accused are confirmed.
  • The order made in terms of Section 103(2)(a) of Act 60 of 2000 in respect of both accused is set aside.