S v Van Wyk and Another (A258/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 308 (25 September 2009)

S v Van Wyk and Another (A258/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 308 (25 September 2009)

The court found that the magistrate treated count 1 as a duplication of count 2 and, although only a technical omission, it was appropriate to record a finding of not guilty on count 1. Regarding section 103 of the Firearms Act, the court was satisfied that the magistrate was addressed on the issue, as the prosecutor requested that the accused be declared unfit to possess firearms and the accused's attorney addressed the court, albeit inaudibly. The convictions and sentences on count 2 were confirmed, and it was recorded that the accused were discharged on count 1.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 308
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Joey Leroy Van Wyk; Respondent: Nico Hermans
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Case Number
A258/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review From Magistrate
Outcome
Convictions and sentences on count 2 confirmed; accused found not guilty and discharged on count 1.
Judges
C Botha, CJ Eksteen
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Robbery, Firearms Act Section 103, Duplication of Charges
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Robbery Firearms Act Section 103 Duplication of Charges

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Joey Leroy Van Wyk

Respondent

Nico Hermans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review From Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred by omitting a finding on count 1.
  2. 2 Whether the accused were given an opportunity to address the court regarding section 103 of the Firearms Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate treated count 1 as a duplication of count 2 and, although only a technical omission, it was appropriate to record a finding of not guilty on count 1. Regarding section 103 of the Firearms Act, the court was satisfied that the magistrate was addressed on the issue, as the prosecutor requested that the accused be declared unfit to possess firearms and the accused's attorney addressed the court, albeit inaudibly. The convictions and sentences on count 2 were confirmed, and it was recorded that the accused were discharged on count 1.

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences on count 2 confirmed; accused found not guilty and discharged on count 1.

Orders

  • The convictions and sentences of the accused on count 2 are confirmed.
  • It is recorded that the accused were by implication found not guilty and discharged on count 1.