Stow v Regional Magistrate, PE N.O. and Others, Meyer v Cooney N.O. and Others (2320/2013, 3986/2009) [2017] ZAECGHC 12; [2017] 2 All SA 300 (ECG); 2017 (2) SACR 96 (ECG) (9 February 2017)

Stow v Regional Magistrate, PE N.O. and Others, Meyer v Cooney N.O. and Others (2320/2013, 3986/2009) [2017] ZAECGHC 12; [2017] 2 All SA 300 (ECG); 2017 (2) SACR 96 (ECG) (9 February 2017)

The court found that both magistrates exercised their discretion judicially and considered all relevant circumstances, including the applicants' financial positions and reasons for non-payment. In Stow's case, the magistrate accepted that Stow could no longer afford to pay SARS but was not satisfied that the failure to pay was entirely due to circumstances beyond his control, especially given periods where no specific financial problems were cited. In Meyer's case, the magistrate found that Meyer had acted recklessly in selling his business on risky terms, thereby abdicating control and undermining the foundation of the suspended sentence. The court held that compensation as a condition...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 12
Parties
Applicant: Andrew Walter Stow; Respondent: Regional Magistrate, PE N.O.; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Applicant: Jacobus Stephanus Meyer; Respondent: Kenny Cooney N.O.; Respondent: Eastern Cape
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2017
Case Number
2320/2013, 3986/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Constitutional Challenge
Outcome
Applications for review and constitutional challenge dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
M Roberson, M Makaula
Legal Topics
Suspended Sentence, Compensation as Condition, Judicial Discretion, Constitutional Rights, Review of Magistrates Court, Restorative Justice
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Suspended Sentence Compensation as Condition Judicial Discretion Constitutional Rights Review of Magistrates Court +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Walter Stow

Applicant

Regional Magistrate, PE N.O.

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Jacobus Stephanus Meyer

Applicant

Kenny Cooney N.O.

Respondent

Eastern Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Constitutional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates exercised their discretion judicially in ordering the suspended sentences to be put into operation.
  2. 2 Whether the imposition of compensation as a condition of suspension under s 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional.
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with compensation conditions was due to circumstances beyond the applicants' control.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both magistrates exercised their discretion judicially and considered all relevant circumstances, including the applicants' financial positions and reasons for non-payment. In Stow's case, the magistrate accepted that Stow could no longer afford to pay SARS but was not satisfied that the failure to pay was entirely due to circumstances beyond his control, especially given periods where no specific financial problems were cited. In Meyer's case, the magistrate found that Meyer had acted recklessly in selling his business on risky terms, thereby abdicating control and undermining the foundation of the suspended sentence. The court held that compensation as a condition...

Court Disposition

Applications for review and constitutional challenge dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application by Stow is dismissed.
  • The application by Meyer is dismissed.