South Africa Case Law

S v Botha (29/2015, 7/2015)

S v Botha (29/2015, 7/2015) [2016] ZANCHC 61 (29 January 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

29/2015

Judges

Mamosebo, Erasmus

The review court found that the accused was not properly informed of his right to legal representation and was discouraged from exercising it. The questioning under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act was inadequate, as the accused did not admit all elements of the offence, including the prescribed blood alcohol limit and timing of the blood sample. The magistrate's conduct constituted a procedural irregularity, as admissions were elicited from an unrepresented accused without proper safeguards. The prosecutor also expressed doubts about the sufficiency of the admissions. As the o…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Legal Representation
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Blood Alcohol Evidence
• Magistrate Irregularity

Zulu v S (189/2011)

Zulu v S (189/2011) [2012] ZAKZPHC 26 (4 May 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

189/2011

Judges

Koen, Mjoli

High Court appeal dismissed in a fatal road accident case; the court upheld convictions, finding the owner-driver presumption unrebutted and the blood sample proved.

• Culpable Homicide
• Reckless Driving
• Road Traffic Act
• Presumption Of Driver Identity
• Blood Alcohol Evidence
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Wessels v S (A226/10)

Wessels v S (A226/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 186 (13 August 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A226/10

Judges

Rose-Innes, Traverso

The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove that the blood sample was taken within two hours of the alleged offence, so the conviction and sentence were set aside.

• Driving Under Influence
• Blood Alcohol Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Procedural Irregularity
• Driving-under-influence
• Blood-alcohol-evidence