S v Tsolo and Others (159/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 140 (15 August 2013)

S v Tsolo and Others (159/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 140 (15 August 2013)

The court found that the convictions and sentences for both attempted theft and conspiracy to commit theft constituted impermissible splitting of charges, as these offences merge and should not be prosecuted or sentenced separately. The magistrate's concession on this point was accepted. Furthermore, the court held that sentencing accused 1 and 2 on count 3 was irregular, as the charge had been withdrawn by the prosecutor. The court also noted the statutory error regarding the Riotous Assemblies Act, as the correct Act is 17 of 1956, not 17 of 1959. The court set aside the sentences on count 3 for accused 1 and 2, cautioned and discharged accused 3 on count 3, and acquitted all accused on...

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 140
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Tsolo Tsolo; Respondent: Bonifas Source; Respondent: Thabisi Tanki
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2013
Case Number
159/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review
Outcome
Convictions and sentences for accused 1 and 2 on count 3 are set aside; accused 3 is cautioned and discharged on count 3; all accused are acquitted on count 4 and their convictions and sentences on that count are set aside.
Judges
Kruger, De Wet
Legal Topics
Splitting of Charges, Conspiracy, Attempted Theft, Trespassing, Riotous Assemblies Act
Criminal Law Splitting of Charges Conspiracy Attempted Theft Trespassing Riotous Assemblies Act

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Tsolo Tsolo

Respondent

Bonifas Source

Respondent

Thabisi Tanki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions and sentences on counts of attempted theft and conspiracy to commit theft constitute impermissible splitting of charges.
  2. 2 Whether the accused were properly convicted and sentenced on count 3 after withdrawal by the prosecutor.
  3. 3 Whether the correct statute was applied in respect of the Riotous Assemblies Act charge.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the convictions and sentences for both attempted theft and conspiracy to commit theft constituted impermissible splitting of charges, as these offences merge and should not be prosecuted or sentenced separately. The magistrate's concession on this point was accepted. Furthermore, the court held that sentencing accused 1 and 2 on count 3 was irregular, as the charge had been withdrawn by the prosecutor. The court also noted the statutory error regarding the Riotous Assemblies Act, as the correct Act is 17 of 1956, not 17 of 1959. The court set aside the sentences on count 3 for accused 1 and 2, cautioned and discharged accused 3 on count 3, and acquitted all accused on...

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences for accused 1 and 2 on count 3 are set aside; accused 3 is cautioned and discharged on count 3; all accused are acquitted on count 4 and their convictions and sentences on that count are set aside.

Orders

  • The sentence of accused number 1 and 2 on count 3 is set aside.
  • On count 3 accused number 3 is cautioned and discharged.