Tau v S (A210/16) [2017] ZAFSHC 42 (23 March 2017)

Tau v S (A210/16) [2017] ZAFSHC 42 (23 March 2017)

The court found that the appellant was correctly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as defined by the Firearms Control Act, based on the evidence of the police officers and Captain Maputle. The appellant's version was rejected as untrue, and there was no contention during trial that the object found was not a firearm. The magistrate did not misdirect himself in assessing sentence, and the sentence imposed was appropriate. However, the prosecution failed to present any evidence relating to the ammunition, and thus the conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of ammunition could not stand and were set aside.

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 42
Parties
Appellant: Thapelo Tau; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Case Number
A210/16
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal partially succeeds: conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of ammunition set aside; appeal against conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of firearm dismissed.
Judges
P.J. Loubser, C. Reinders
Legal Topics
Firearms Control Act, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Minimum Sentencing, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Firearms Control Act Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Minimum Sentencing Fair Trial Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thapelo Tau

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was lawfully in possession of the firearm found in his possession.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in unlawful possession of ammunition.
  3. 3 Whether the trial was fair and whether the magistrate misdirected himself in the conviction and sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was correctly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as defined by the Firearms Control Act, based on the evidence of the police officers and Captain Maputle. The appellant's version was rejected as untrue, and there was no contention during trial that the object found was not a firearm. The magistrate did not misdirect himself in assessing sentence, and the sentence imposed was appropriate. However, the prosecution failed to present any evidence relating to the ammunition, and thus the conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of ammunition could not stand and were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal partially succeeds: conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of ammunition set aside; appeal against conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of firearm dismissed.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence on count 2, illegal possession of ammunition, are set aside.
  • The appeal against conviction and sentence on count 1, illegal possession of a firearm, is dismissed.