SA Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd v S (398/09) [2010] ZASCA 81; 2010 (2) SACR 413 (S (28 May 2010)

SA Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd v S (398/09) [2010] ZASCA 81; 2010 (2) SACR 413 (S (28 May 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State's case against the appellant was expressly and exclusively based on the conduct of De Klerk and Barnett, as set out in the charge sheet. Since De Klerk was acquitted and Barnett was not involved in the transaction, the appellant could not be held liable for the actions of other employees not mentioned in the charge sheet. The court refused the State's application to amend the charge sheet at the appeal stage, finding that such an amendment would prejudice the appellant and undermine the right to a fair trial. The court found that the appellant had discharged the evidential burden of raising a reasonable doubt regarding reasonable cause for...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 81
Parties
Appellant: SA Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Case Number
398/09
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Navsa, Van Heerden, Bosielo
Legal Topics
Corporate Criminal Liability, Statutory Presumption, Reasonable Cause, Amendment of Charge Sheet
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Corporate Criminal Liability Statutory Presumption Reasonable Cause Amendment of Charge Sheet

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the corporate accused based on the conduct of employees other than those expressly mentioned in the charge-sheet is correct.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant lacked reasonable cause for the belief as required by section 37(1)(b) of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955.
  3. 3 Whether the evidential burden of raising a reasonable doubt in relation to reasonable cause was discharged by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State's case against the appellant was expressly and exclusively based on the conduct of De Klerk and Barnett, as set out in the charge sheet. Since De Klerk was acquitted and Barnett was not involved in the transaction, the appellant could not be held liable for the actions of other employees not mentioned in the charge sheet. The court refused the State's application to amend the charge sheet at the appeal stage, finding that such an amendment would prejudice the appellant and undermine the right to a fair trial. The court found that the appellant had discharged the evidential burden of raising a reasonable doubt regarding reasonable cause for...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and paragraph 71 of the judgment of the court below is set aside in its entirety and substituted as follows: 'The appeal of the second appellant, SA Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd, against conviction is upheld and the conviction and related sentence are set aside.'