South Africa Case Law

Lelaka v The State (409/2015)

Lelaka v The State (409/2015) [2015] ZASCA 169 (26 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

409/2015

Judges

Ponnan, Shongwe, Petse, Mathopo, Van der Merwe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plea of double jeopardy (autrefois convict) does not apply where the accused was convicted of assault and the victim subsequently died, as the death constitutes a new fact altering the nature of the crime. The conviction for assault is not a bar to subsequent prosecution for murder or culpable homicide, since at the time of the original conviction, the more serious charge could not have been preferred. Both the magistrate and the full court erred in setting aside the conviction and ordering a de novo trial. The matter should be remitted to another mag…

Source excerpt

• Double Jeopardy
• Autrefois Convict
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Murder Charge After Conviction
• Section 304a Criminal Procedure Act

S v Mogoba and Another (RCM123)

S v Mogoba and Another (RCM123) [2013] ZAGPPHC 338 (25 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

RCM123

Judges

K. Manamela, E.M Makgoba

The High Court found that a gross irregularity occurred when the accused was subjected to a second trial for the same offence after having already pleaded guilty and been convicted in the first trial. The second trial violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy and the accused's right to a fair trial. The court held that the second trial was void ab initio, lacked jurisdiction, and must be set aside. The first trial and conviction remain valid and should proceed to sentencing in accordance with the law.

Source excerpt

• Double Jeopardy
• Autrefois Convict
• Irregular Proceedings
• Section 174 Discharge
• Fair Trial Rights

S v Thipe and Another (RCM123/2008)

S v Thipe and Another (RCM123/2008) [2013] ZAGPPHC 551 (25 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

RCM123/2008

Judges

K Manamela, E Mmakgoba

High Court review set aside a second trial begun after an earlier conviction for the same offence, holding the proceedings grossly irregular and contrary to double jeopardy.

• Double Jeopardy
• Autrefois Convict
• Irregular Proceedings
• Section 174 Discharge
• Fair Trial Rights
• Double-jeopardy

S v Khoza en Andere (61/89)

S v Khoza en Andere (61/89) [1990] ZASCA 142; 1991 (1) SA 793 (AD); [1991] 3 All SA 971 (AD) (26 November 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

61/89

Judges

Hoexter, Van Heerden, Smalberger, Nienaber, Preiss

Appeal postponed sine die and remitted for proper reservation of a legal question under section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

• Autrefois Convict
• Section 319 Criminal Procedure Act
• Judicial Discretion
• Abuse Of Process
• Autrefois-convict
• Section-319-criminal-procedure-act

S v Tieties (620/88)

S v Tieties (620/88) [1990] ZASCA 4; 1990 (2) SA 461 (AD); (1 March 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

620/88

Judges

Hoexter, Botha, Smalberger, Milne, F H Grosskopf

The court held that section 123(b) did not allow a trial to be converted into a preparatory examination after conviction, and set aside the later murder conviction.

• Statutory Interpretation
• Autrefois Convict
• Preparatory Examination
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Double Jeopardy
• Statutory-interpretation