S v Tembe (A65/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 10 (30 January 2006)

S v Tembe (A65/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 10 (30 January 2006)

The court held that the matter does not qualify as a special review because there was no irregularity committed by the magistrate or prosecutor, nor was a reviewable sentence imposed. The accused's payment of an admission of guilt fine constitutes a conviction and is recorded as a previous conviction. If the accused believes he was misled or is innocent, he must bring a proper review application under rule 53 of the High Court Rules, providing a full background, joining all relevant parties, and explaining why the interests of justice require the conviction to be set aside. Until such steps are taken, the conviction stands and the court has no jurisdiction to interfere.

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 10
Parties
Respondent: The State; Appellant: Mathews Mangaliso Tembe
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 January 2006
Case Number
A65/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review
Outcome
Application for special review dismissed; conviction and admission of guilt fine stand.
Judges
E Bertelsmann, R D Claassen
Legal Topics
Admission of Guilt Fine, Review Procedure, Previous Conviction, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Admission of Guilt Fine Review Procedure Previous Conviction Fair Trial Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Mathews Mangaliso Tembe

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payment of an admission of guilt fine constitutes a conviction and previous conviction for criminal record purposes.
  2. 2 Whether the accused was misled by the prosecutor regarding the consequences of paying the admission of guilt fine.
  3. 3 Whether the matter qualifies for special review in the absence of an irregularity or reviewable sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the matter does not qualify as a special review because there was no irregularity committed by the magistrate or prosecutor, nor was a reviewable sentence imposed. The accused's payment of an admission of guilt fine constitutes a conviction and is recorded as a previous conviction. If the accused believes he was misled or is innocent, he must bring a proper review application under rule 53 of the High Court Rules, providing a full background, joining all relevant parties, and explaining why the interests of justice require the conviction to be set aside. Until such steps are taken, the conviction stands and the court has no jurisdiction to interfere.

Court Disposition

Application for special review dismissed; conviction and admission of guilt fine stand.

Orders

  • A copy of this judgment is to be served upon the accused by the police.
  • Unless and until a proper review application is brought, the conviction stands.