S v Venter (129/2006) [2006] ZANCHC 74 (21 December 2006)
- Citation
- [2006] ZANCHC 74
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C.C Williams
- Case number
- 129/2006
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- C.C Williams
- Case number
- 129/2006
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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The court found that the accused's conduct—impersonating a police officer—constituted an offence under both the repealed section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 and the current section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995.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
ApplicantAlistair Venter
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the amendment of the charge from section 25(1)(a) of Act 7 of 1958 to section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995 prejudices the accused.
- 02
Whether the conduct of the accused constitutes an offence under the current applicable statute.
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requested that the conviction be amended to reflect the correct statutory provision, as the original statute had been repealed and replaced by section 68(1) of Act 68 of 1995.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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
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 ân oortreding van artikel 25(1)(a) van Wet 7 van 1985, deurdat hy hom wederregtelik as ân 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 ân skuldigbevinding onder die heersende wetgewing.
4. Die Kantoor van die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings, Noord-Kaap is in hierdie verband versoek om ân 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 ân 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 ân Kaptein in die polisiediens. Hy het navrae gedoen oor haar dogter Rachael wat ân 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 ân lid van die polisiemag is dus na my mening korrek.
6. Die toets met ân 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 ân mate dat dit ân totaal nuwe aanklag daarstel, of sou dit neerkom op dieselfde misdryf wat slegs ân 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;
â25(1)Any person, not being a member of the Force, who â
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.â
Artikel 68(1) van Wet 68 van 1995 lees as volg;
â68.Valse voorstelling
(1) Enige persoon wat voorgee dat hy of sy ân lid is, is aan ân misdryf skuldig en by skuldigbevinding strafbaar met ân boete of met gevangenisstraf vir ân tydperk van hoogstens twee jaar.â
8. Daar kan na my menng geen twyfel wees dat ân 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 ân oortreding van artikel 25(1)(a) van Wet 7 van 1958 te vervang met ân oortreding van artikel 68(1) van Wet 68 van 1995.
b) Die skuldigbevinding word ter syde gestel en word vervang met ân skuldigbevinding aan ân 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
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.