S v Tono (R1/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 13 (29 January 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZAFSHC 13
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Opperman, Naidoo
- Case number
- R1/2020
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Opperman, Naidoo
- Case number
- R1/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The conviction was based on the Child Care Act 74 of 1983, which was repealed in its entirety on 1 April 2010 by the Children’s Act 39 of 2005. As a result, the accused could not lawfully be convicted under a non-existent statute. The only remedy is to set aside the conviction and remit the matter for trial de novo under the applicable law.
Court disposition
Conviction set aside and matter remitted for trial de novo.
Orders
- The conviction is set aside.
- The matter is remitted for trial de novo.
02
Material facts
Parties
THE STATE
ApplicantMONICA TONO
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Special Review / Post Conviction, Pre Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Was the conviction under a repealed statute valid.
- 02
Should the conviction be set aside and the matter remitted for trial de novo.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State did not advance arguments as the matter was referred for special review due to a statutory error.
- Respondent
- The accused pleaded guilty to contravening the Child Care Act 74 of 1983, but the presiding officer realised post-conviction that the Act had been repealed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 313 of the Children’s Act 39 of 2005
A conviction under a statute that has been repealed is invalid and must be set aside.
- 02
Section 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Special review is appropriate where a material irregularity or illegality has occurred in the proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction was based on the Child Care Act 74 of 1983, which was repealed in its entirety on 1 April 2010 by the Children’s Act 39 of 2005. As a result, the accused could not lawfully be convicted under a non-existent statute. The only remedy is to set aside the conviction and remit the matter for trial de novo under the applicable law.
Obiter and limits
- Delays in the referral and review process are unacceptable and must be avoided to ensure expeditious justice.
Court disposition
Conviction set aside and matter remitted for trial de novo.
- The conviction is set aside.
- The matter is remitted for trial de novo.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION
Case No: R1/2020
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
And
MONICA
TONO
Coram: NAIDOO, J et OPPERMAN, J
Delivered: 29 January 2020
Judgment: Opperman, J
JUDGMENT
[1] The matter was submitted to this court in terms section 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 for special review. The accused pleaded guilty in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. She was convicted of the contravention of section 50(1) read with sections 1 and 50(3) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983. The court, after conviction but before sentence, realised that the Child Care Act of 1983 was repealed in terms of section 313 of the Children’s Act 39 of 2005.
[2] The realisation of the presiding officer is indeed correct since the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 was repealed as a whole on 1 April 2010 as per the fourth item in Schedule 4:
“313. Amendment of laws - The laws referred to in the second column of Schedule 4 are hereby amended to the extent indicated in the third column of the Schedule.
(Date of commencement of s. 313: 1 July, 2007. Date of commencement of the laws referred to in the second column of Schedule 4 are as follows: The second, third, fifth, seventh and ninth items: 1 July, 2007 and the first, fourth, sixth and eighth items: 1 April, 2010.)”
[3] Reading of the record convinces that the only remedy for the dilemma is to set the conviction aside and remit the matter for trial de novo.
[4] Peripherally and related to the law that reviews must be dealt with expeditiously, it was noticed that the conviction was on 23 September 2019, the referral letter dated 28 October 2019 and the matter only delivered to the Registrar of the High Court: Free State on 8 January 2020. Meticulous care must be taken to avoid delays of this kind.
[5] Order
The conviction is set aside and the matter is remitted for trial de novo.
______
M OPPERMAN, J
I concur
S NAIDOO, J
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.