Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v Motlokwa (R11/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 15 (6 February 2020)
High Court review confirming a conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, holding that the accused’s section 112(2) statement admitted the essential elements.
S v Thakanyane (R29/2019, 882/18) [2019] ZAFSHC 99 (28 June 2019)
The magistrate failed to ensure that the accused admitted the competence of the traffic officer who operated the speed recording device, as required by the guidelines in S v Phuzi. Furthermore, the accused did not admit that his conduct was unlawful or punishable by law. The questioning focused on irrelevant matters and did not cover all essential elements of the offence. As a result, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
S v Moela (R241/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 151 (11 October 2018)
On special review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction and sentence for speeding because the accused was not properly questioned under section 112.
S v Reditsebe (R180/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 209 (15 December 2016)
On review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction for driving under the influence because the accused was not properly questioned on impairment.
S v Mangula (A688/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 703 (11 September 2014)
On review, the High Court set aside a drunk-driving conviction because the magistrate failed to ensure the accused admitted the blood analysis result under s 112(1)(b).
S v Machimana (A541/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 236 (22 June 2009)
The High Court set aside a conviction entered after a guilty plea because the accused did not admit all elements of the offence under section 112(1)(b).
S v Ndondo (971/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 158 (19 October 2006)
The accused did not unequivocally admit that his driving faculties were impaired by alcohol, which is an essential element of the offence under section 65(1) of Act No. 93/1996. The magistrate's reliance on the accused's ambiguous answer and the mere fact of alcohol consumption and smell was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that inferential reasoning is not permitted under section 112(1)(b) and that the accused's admissions did not sustain the conviction. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted for further questioning to p…
Source excerpt
Explore more
