S v Victor and Another (A949/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 24 (7 January 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 24
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- F G Preller, N Ranchod
- Case number
- A949/14
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- F G Preller, N Ranchod
- Case number
- A949/14
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the accused, being over 16 years old at the time of the offence, did not fall within the definition of 'children' for the purposes of section 15(2)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act. Therefore, written authorisation from the National Director of Public Prosecutions was not required for their prosecution. The conviction was valid, and the matter was properly before the magistrate. The court found no irregularity in the proceedings and referred the case back to the magistrate for finalisation.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; matter referred back to the magistrate for finalisation.
Orders
- The conviction is upheld.
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate for sentencing and further proceedings.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
Applicant Counsel: Advocate MarriotWanaya Victor
Respondent Counsel: Advocate Meintjes SCEthan Shaldon Petersen
Respondent Counsel: Advocate Meintjes SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review After Conviction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction for contravening section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act was valid without written authorisation from the National Director of Public Prosecutions when both accused were minors at the time of the offence.
- 02
Whether the accused qualified as 'children' under the Act at the time of the offence, thus requiring such authorisation.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State, represented by Advocate Marriot, argued that according to the definition of 'child' in section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 32 of 2007, a child is either a person under 18 years or, with reference to sections 15 and 16, a person between 12 and 16 years. Since both accused were over 16 years at the time of the offence, they did not qualify as 'children' for the purposes of section 15(2)(a), and therefore authorisation from the National Director of Public Prosecutions was not required.
- Respondent
- The respondents, through Advocate Meintjes SC, agreed with the State's interpretation and submitted that the definition of 'child' in the Act excludes persons over 16 years for the relevant sections. They supported the position that the conviction was valid and that the magistrate's concern regarding the need for authorisation was unfounded.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 15(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007
A prosecution for contravening section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act requires written authorisation from the National Director of Public Prosecutions only if both accused are 'children' as defined by the Act at the time of the offence.
- 02
Section 1 of Act 32 of 2007
The definition of 'child' for purposes of sections 15 and 16 of the Act is a person between the ages of 12 and 16 years.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the accused, being over 16 years old at the time of the offence, did not fall within the definition of 'children' for the purposes of section 15(2)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act. Therefore, written authorisation from the National Director of Public Prosecutions was not required for their prosecution. The conviction was valid, and the matter was properly before the magistrate. The court found no irregularity in the proceedings and referred the case back to the magistrate for finalisation.
Obiter and limits
- It is not improper for a judicial officer to refer a matter for review upon suspecting a procedural error; such conduct is correct and commendable.
- Judicial officers should not be unnecessarily apologetic for perceived mistakes, as the review process exists to address such concerns.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; matter referred back to the magistrate for finalisation.
- The conviction is upheld.
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate for sentencing and further proceedings.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(GAUTENG AFDELING, PRETORIA)
DATUM: 7 JANUARY 2015
CASE NUMBER: A949/14
Landdros
BRAKPAN
Saak No: RC62/2013 Hooggeregshof Verw No: 719/14
DIE STAAT V
WANAYA VICTOR EN ETHAN SHALDON PETERSEN
HERSIENINGSUITSPRAAK
PRELLER. R
Die twee beskuldigdes is skuldig bevind voor die streekhof aan klagte van oortreding van artikel 15(1) gelees met verskeie ander artikels van Wet 32 van 2007 deurdat hulle konsensuele geslagtelike verkeer gehad het met ‘n 14 jarige kind. Hulle het skuldig gepleit en is bygestaan deur ‘n regsverteenwoordiger. Op ‘n navraag deur die landdros het die aanklaer die hof meegedeel dat die magtiging van die Nasionale Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings nie nodig is nie weens die ouderdom van die drie betrokkenes. Die twee beskuldigdes was tydens die verhoor 19 jaar oud maar tydens die voorval was hulle onderskeidelik 16 jaar en een maand en 16 jaar en twee mande oud. Namens hulle is 'n volledige pleit verduidelikings ingehandig.
Na skuldigbevinding het die landdros die verrigtinge gestop en die saak na hierdie hof gestuur vir 'n spesiale hersiening. In ‘n volledige memorandum het die landdros uiteengesit dat hy onder ‘n wanindruk verkeer het maar nou vasgetel het dat die magtiging van die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings wel nodig is in die lig van die ouderdom van die beskuldigdes. Hy het verwys na die definisie van ‘n kind in artikel 1 van Wet 32 van 2007 waarvolgens ‘n persoon onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar ‘n kind is. Artikel 15(2)(a) van die Wet bepaal dat die instelling van 'n vervolging weens ‘n oortreding van artikel 15(1) moet skriftelik gemagtig wees deur die Nasionale Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings as beide die daders kinders is tydens die oortreding. Daardie magtiging mag nie gedelegeer word nie. Die landdros het gevolglik versoek dat die skuldigbevinding tersyde gestel word weens sy siening van die vereistes van die Wet.
Ek het ‘n baie behulpsame memorandum gekry van Staatsadvokaat Marriot waarmee Advokaat Meintjes SC saamgestem het. Hulle wys op die definisie van kind in artikel 1 van die Wet ingevolge waarvan ‘n kind gedefinieer word as (a) ‘n persoon onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar of (b) met verwysing na artikels 15 en 16 jaar ‘n persoon tussen die ouderdom van 12 en 16. Omdat beide beskuldigdes oor die ouderdom van 16 jaar was tydens die voorval was hulle dus nie kinders nie en was die magtiging van die NDOV nie nodig nie. Daar is gevolglik niks verkeerd met die skuldigbevinding nie en die saak word terug verwys na die landdros vir afhandeling.
Ek kan terloops net daarop wys dat die landdros in sy motivering vir die spesiale hersiening onnodig apologeties was weens sy vermeende fout. Daar is niks mee verkeerd as ‘n regterlike amptenaar ‘n fout maak nie en die optrede van die landdros om die saak op hersiening te stuur toe hy gemeen het dat hy ‘n fout gemaak het was heeltemal korrek.
F
G PRELLER
REGTER VAN DIE GAUTENGSE AFDELING. PRETORIA
Ek stem saam
N RANCHOD
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.