South Africa Case Law

Uchechukwu v Govuza and Another (3728/2023)

Uchechukwu v Govuza and Another (3728/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 22; 2024 (2) SACR 51 (ECMk) (20 February 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3728/2023

Judges

T.V Norman, V. Noncembu

The court found that the oral plea and sentence agreement between the applicant and the State was invalid as it was not in writing, not authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and not disclosed to the court prior to the plea, in contravention of section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The applicant's legal representative was unfamiliar with the statutory requirements and misled the applicant into believing the agreement was binding, resulting in an uninformed guilty plea. Furthermore, the applicant did not admit all elements of the offence, specifically that 'Tik' is a dangerou…

Source excerpt

• Plea And Sentence Agreements
• Section 105a Criminal Procedure Act
• Fair Trial Rights
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Legal Representative Incompetence

S v Tsotetsi; S v Thinyane; S v Tladi (R272/2018; R352/2018; R353/2018)

S v Tsotetsi; S v Thinyane; S v Tladi (R272/2018; R352/2018; R353/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 212 (28 December 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R272/2018; R352/2018; R353/2018

Judge

Musi

The High Court set aside three speeding convictions on automatic review, finding the magistrate's section 112(1)(b) questioning was leading and inadequate.

• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Section 112 1 B Criminal Procedure Act
• Speeding Offence
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Guilty-plea-procedure
• Section-112-1-b

S v Flobela (17258)

S v Flobela (17258) [2018] ZAWCHC 31 (12 March 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17258

Judges

Henney, Samela

Review judgment setting aside a housebreaking conviction after improper admission of hearsay evidence against an unrepresented accused.

• Admission Of Hearsay Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Section 220 Admissions
• Section 3 Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Hearsay-evidence

S v Mthembu (374/17)

S v Mthembu (374/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1303 (18 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

374/17

Judges

M J Mosopa, N P Mngqibisa-Thusi

Automatic review of a guilty-plea conviction for drunken driving was successful because the magistrate’s section 112 questioning did not establish all elements of the offence.

• Drunken Driving
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• National Road Traffic Act Section 65
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Criminal-procedure
• Guilty-plea-review

S v Gqiba (R132/2017)

S v Gqiba (R132/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 153 (14 September 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R132/2017

Judges

B.R. Lefenya, S. Naidoo

On special review, the High Court set aside a theft conviction and sentence after finding multiple procedural irregularities in the magistrate’s court.

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 304
• Irregular Proceedings
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Right To Mitigation
• Plea Procedure
• Criminal-procedure

S v Mokhati (158/2015)

S v Mokhati (158/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 226 (18 November 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

158/2015

Judges

M Opperman, A F Jordaan

Automatic review of a guilty plea and sentence was set aside after procedural irregularities, including inadequate explanation of rights, law, and sentence.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Legal Representation Explanation
• Record Of Proceedings
• Sentencing Principles
• Best Interests Of Child

S v Moholo and Another (179/2014)

S v Moholo and Another (179/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 166 (9 October 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

179/2014

Judges

A.F. Jordaan, M.H. Rampai

The High Court set aside the convictions and sentences of two unrepresented accused because the trial record was missing and the suspended sentence condition was too vague.

• Possession Of Suspected Stolen Property
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 304
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Fair Trial Rights
• Missing-trial-record
• Special-review

S v Mokgou (11/11)

S v Mokgou (11/11) [2011] ZANWHC 36 (22 August 2011)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

11/11

Judges

Kgoele, Hendricks

The High Court found that the presiding officer failed to properly conduct the section 112(1)(b) inquiry, as he did not adequately question the accused regarding the elements of unlawfulness and intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The record showed that the accused's explanation did not establish all the elements of the offence, and the presiding officer's subsequent concession confirmed the procedural defects. The conviction and sentence were therefore invalid and could not stand. The matter was referred back to the magistrate's court for a new hearing before a different presiding officer.

Source excerpt

• Section 112 1 B Inquiry
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Plea Procedure
• Conviction And Sentence Review

S v Mohapi (58/2011)

S v Mohapi (58/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 94 (14 April 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

58/2011

Judge

Kruger

High Court review setting aside a guilty plea conviction after the accused did not admit all elements of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

• Plea Procedure
• Section 112 1 B
• Section 113
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Criminal-law
• Guilty-plea