S v Tau (52/03) [2003] ZANWHC 20 (10 April 2003)

S v Tau (52/03) [2003] ZANWHC 20 (10 April 2003)

The court found that the original verdict of 'guilty as charged' was inappropriate because the evidence established a contravention of section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992, specifically dealing in dagga. The magistrate acknowledged the error and confirmed that the accused should have been convicted under section 5(b). The conviction was accordingly set aside and replaced with a conviction under section 5(b), while the sentence imposed was confirmed as appropriate.

Citation
[2003] ZANWHC 20
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Jan Tau
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 April 2003
Case Number
52/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review Judgment
Outcome
Conviction under section 5(a) or (b) set aside and replaced with conviction under section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992. Sentence confirmed.
Judges
PAKO, PISTOR
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Contravention of Section 5b Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, Verdict Correction
Criminal Law Drug Offences Contravention of Section 5b Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act Verdict Correction

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Jan Tau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of 'guilty as charged' was appropriate given the evidence and charge under section 5(a) or (b) of Act 140 of 1992.
  2. 2 Whether the accused should have been convicted under section 5(b) specifically for dealing in dagga.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original verdict of 'guilty as charged' was inappropriate because the evidence established a contravention of section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992, specifically dealing in dagga. The magistrate acknowledged the error and confirmed that the accused should have been convicted under section 5(b). The conviction was accordingly set aside and replaced with a conviction under section 5(b), while the sentence imposed was confirmed as appropriate.

Court Disposition

Conviction under section 5(a) or (b) set aside and replaced with conviction under section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992. Sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction of 'guilty as charged' is set aside and replaced with 'guilty of contravening section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992 (Dealing in Dagga)'.
  • The sentence imposed by the trial court is confirmed.