Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

S v Venter (129/2006) [2006] ZANCHC 74 (21 December 2006)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the accused's conduct—impersonating a police officer—constituted an offence under both the repealed section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 and the current section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995. The amendment of the charge did not introduce a new offence, nor did it prejudice the accused, as the factual allegations and the accused's defence remained unchanged. The court exercised its inherent review powers to amend the charge and conviction to reflect the correct statutory provision and remitted the matter for sentencing.

Court disposition

The charge and conviction were amended to reflect the correct statutory provision, and the matter was remitted to the magistrate for sentencing.

Orders

  • The charge sheet is amended to substitute the reference to section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 with section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995.
  • The conviction under section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 is set aside and replaced with a conviction under section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995.
  • The amended conviction is confirmed.
  • The matter is referred back to the magistrate for finalisation of sentencing proceedings.

02

Material facts

Parties

The State

Applicant

Alistair Venter

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Special Review

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The prosecution requested that the conviction be amended to reflect the correct statutory provision, as the original statute had been repealed and replaced by section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995. The evidence supports the finding that the accused impersonated a police officer, and the amendment would not prejudice the accused.
Respondent
The accused claimed he visited the complainant's home only to apologise on behalf of his brother, who was implicated in a rape case, and denied impersonating a police officer. He argued that the amendment of the charge could potentially prejudice his defence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    S v Kruger and Others 1989(1) SA 785(A) at 796I-J

    An amendment to the charge is permissible if it does not constitute a new offence and does not prejudice the accused's defence.

  2. 02

    S v Mahlangu 1997(1) SACR 338(T) at 343 f-i

    The essential elements of the offence under both the repealed and current statutes are substantially the same, and thus the accused is not prejudiced by the amendment.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the accused's conduct—impersonating a police officer—constituted an offence under both the repealed section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 and the current section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995. The amendment of the charge did not introduce a new offence, nor did it prejudice the accused, as the factual allegations and the accused's defence remained unchanged. The court exercised its inherent review powers to amend the charge and conviction to reflect the correct statutory provision and remitted the matter for sentencing.

Obiter and limits

  • The court expressed gratitude to Adv. T. Birch for her thorough and helpful legal opinion, which was endorsed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  • The evidence of the single witness, the complainant, was accepted as credible and sufficient to support the conviction.

Court disposition

The charge and conviction were amended to reflect the correct statutory provision, and the matter was remitted to the magistrate for sentencing.

  • The charge sheet is amended to substitute the reference to section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 with section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995.
  • The conviction under section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 is set aside and replaced with a conviction under section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995.
  • The amended conviction is confirmed.
  • The matter is referred back to the magistrate for finalisation of sentencing proceedings.

Source and reliance status

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

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.

Source document

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Judgment

[2006] ZANCHC 74

IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA

(NOORD-KAAPSE AFDELING)

KIMBERLEY

SAAK NO.: 129/2006

DATUM: 21-12-2006

In die Hersieningsuitspraak van:

DIE

STAAT

teen

ALISTAIR

VENTER

CORAM: WILLIAMS

R

U

I T S P R A A K

WILLIAMS R:

1. Die beskuldigde is op 6 Februarie 2006 in die landdroshof, Kimberley onder andere skuldig bevind aan ‘n oortreding van artikel 25(1)(a) van Wet 7 van 1985, deurdat hy hom wederregtelik as ‘n lid van die polisiemag voorgedoen het. Die beskuldigde was regsverteenwoordig.

2. Voordat vonnis opgelê is het die landdros besef dat die wetgewing waaronder die beskuldigde aangekla en skuldig bevind is herroep is. Die nuwe wetgewing tans van toepassing is artikel 68(1) van Wet 68 van 1995.

3. Die saak is deur die landdros op spesiale hersiening voorgelê met die versoek om die skuldigbevinding reg te stel deur dit te verander na ‘n skuldigbevinding onder die heersende wetgewing.

4. Die Kantoor van die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings, Noord-Kaap is in hierdie verband versoek om ‘n regsmening te verskaf. Ek is dank verskuldig aan adv. T. Birch vir haar deeglike en behulpsame regsmening waarmee die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings saamstem.

5. Die getuienis aanvaar deur die verhoorhof en waarop die skuldigbevinding berus, is dit van ‘n enkelgetuie, die klaagster, me M. Mabote. Me Babote se getuienis is dat die beskuldigde op twee geleenthede by haar woonhuis aangekom het en hom voorgestel het as ‘n Kaptein in die polisiediens. Hy het navrae gedoen oor haar dogter Rachael wat ‘n verkragtingsaak aanhangig gemaak het. Die landdros het tereg, na my mening die beskuldigde se weergawe dat hy slegs na me Mabote se woonhuis was om namens sy familie (hy is die broer van een van die verdagtes in die verkragtingsaak) verskoning te vra vir sy broer se dade, as onwaarskynlik verwerp.

Die bevinding dat die beskuldigde hom voorgedoen het as ‘n lid van die polisiemag is dus na my mening korrek.

6. Die toets met ‘n wysiging van die aanklag blyk te wees om vas te stel of die wysiging die beskuldigde in sy verdediging sal benadeel. Anders gestel, verskil die voorgenome gewysigde aanklag van die oorspronklike aanklag tot so ‘n mate dat dit ‘n totaal nuwe aanklag daarstel, of sou dit neerkom op dieselfde misdryf wat slegs ‘n naamverandering ondergaan het? Indien die laasgenoemde geld, kan daar geen benadeling wees vir die beskuldigde nie, die bewerings teen hom sal dieselfde bly asook sy verweer.

Sien S v Kruger en Andere 1989(1) SA 785(A) te 796I-J; S v Mahlangu 1997(1) SASV 338(T) te 343 f-i.

7. Artikel 25(1)(a) van Wet 7 van 1958 lees as volg;

“25(1)Any person, not being a member of the Force, who –

a) by words, conduct or demeanour pretends that he is a member . . .shall be guilty of an offence and liable on convction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or in default of payment imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.”

Artikel 68(1) van Wet 68 van 1995 lees as volg;

“68.Valse voorstelling

(1) Enige persoon wat voorgee dat hy of sy ‘n lid is, is aan ‘n misdryf skuldig en by skuldigbevinding strafbaar met ‘n boete of met gevangenisstraf vir ‘n tydperk van hoogstens twee jaar.”

8. Daar kan na my menng geen twyfel wees dat ‘n oortreding van enige van die twee betrokke artikels in wese dieselfde misdryf daarstel nie. Daar kan dus geen benadeling wees vir die beskuldigde indien die Hof sy inherente hersieningsmagte uitoefen en die aanklag in die klagstaat en die gepaardgaande skuldigbevinding wysig nie.

Bygevolg word die volgende bevele gemaak:

a) Die klagstaat word gewysig deur die verwysing na ‘n oortreding van artikel 25(1)(a) van Wet 7 van 1958 te vervang met ‘n oortreding van artikel 68(1) van Wet 68 van 1995.

b) Die skuldigbevinding word ter syde gestel en word vervang met ‘n skuldigbevinding aan ‘n oortreding van artikel 68(1) van Wet 68 van 1995.

c) Die skuldigbevinding soos gewysig in (b) hierbo word bekragtig.

d) Die saak word terug verwys na die landdros vir afhandeling van die vonnisverrigtinge.

______

C.C

WILLIAMS

REGTER

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

S v Kruger and Others 1989(1) SA 785(A)

Case cited

S v Mahlangu 1997(1) SACR 338(T)

Case cited

section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.