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
O'Connor v Lexisnexis (Pty) Ltd (P18/24) [2024] ZALCPE 11; (2024) 45 ILJ 1287 (LC) (11 April 2024)
Labour Court held that refusing employment solely because of an irrelevant criminal history was unfair discrimination and ordered the employer to appoint the applicant.
S v Elgin (274/21) [2021] ZAWCHC 147; 2022 (1) SACR 325 (WCC) (5 August 2021)
The High Court found that the accused was not properly informed of her rights or the consequences of paying the admission of guilt fine. The documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that the accused understood the permanent impact of her actions, nor was she given a meaningful choice between paying the fine and contesting the charge in court. The new facts in her affidavit, including her mental state and lack of procedural explanation, were not before the magistrate at the time of certification. The failure to explain the consequences and provide alternatives amounted to a failure of ju…
Source excerpt
Sambo v S (CA01/2020) [2020] ZANCHC 27 (17 June 2020)
The appeal court found that the magistrate erred in refusing bail on the grounds that the appellant was a flight risk and likely to commit further schedule 1 offences. The evidence relied upon by the magistrate, particularly the investigating officer's unsupported assertions and the appellant's foreign origin, did not establish a real likelihood of flight or further criminal conduct. The appellant's history of attending previous trials despite serious charges, his fixed address, and legal status in South Africa were not properly considered. The magistrate's frustration regarding the appellant…
Source excerpt
Mudau v S (A141/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 43 (20 February 2020)
The court found that the appellant was convicted of extremely serious offences, including multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and robbery with aggravating circumstances. The crimes were committed while the appellant was on the run, and he had a history of violent offences. The trial court exercised its discretion properly, and there was no material misdirection. The sentence of life imprisonment did not induce any sense of shock and was justified given the gravity of the offences, the appellant's predisposition to violence, and the need to protect society. The appeal against sentence was the…
Source excerpt
S v Matross (47/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 68; 2019 (2) SACR 331 (WCC) (13 June 2019)
The court found that the accused was not properly informed of the consequences of paying an admission of guilt fine, specifically that it would result in a criminal record. Section 56(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act imposes a duty on the police officer to explain the import and significance of the written notice, including the serious consequences of payment. The failure to provide this explanation constitutes a procedural irregularity and a failure of justice. The court held that the admission of guilt fine and the resultant criminal record must be set aside as they were not in accordanc…
Source excerpt
S v Madhinha (18617) [2018] ZAWCHC 172; 2019 (1) SACR 297 (WCC) (7 December 2018)
The court held that a conviction and sentence resulting from the payment of an admission of guilt fine under section 57(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not a conviction as envisaged in section 271 of the Act. Such a conviction is administrative in nature, does not require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and does not result from a judicial pronouncement. The record of such a conviction is not permanent and should not be entered into the criminal record system as a previous conviction. The accused was not properly informed of his rights, did not admit guilt unequivocally, and paid t…
Source excerpt
S v Rademeyer (A186/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 175 (12 April 2017)
The court held that there is no statutory duty on police officers under section 56 of the Criminal Procedure Act to warn accused persons of the full consequences of paying an admission of guilt fine, including the resulting criminal record. The accused was properly informed of her constitutional rights and the process, and her admission of guilt and payment of the fine were voluntary. She did not allege that she was misled, coerced, or that her admission was mistaken. The desire to set aside the conviction arose only after she became aware of the criminal record, not due to any procedural irr…
Source excerpt
S v Du Plessis (A45/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 60 (28 January 2016)
The High Court found that Imoné du Plessis was not informed of the consequences of paying an admission of guilt fine, namely that it would result in a criminal conviction and record. This omission constituted a failure of justice and an infringement of her right to a fair trial. The court relied on precedent (S v Claasen, S v Gilgannon, S v Tong) which established that such convictions must be set aside where the accused was not properly informed. The court held that the same principles apply to fines paid after appearance in court under section 57A. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence w…
Source excerpt
South African Revenue Service v Lazenby Vervoer CC and Others (1640/2013) [2014] ZANWHC 44 (14 November 2014)
An article examining whether a criminal record bars admission to the legal profession, concluding it does not, but that applicants must show full disclosure and genuine reformation.
S v Gilgannon (040/2013) [2013] ZAGPJHC 226 (29 August 2013)
The accused was not informed of the consequences of signing the admission of guilt fine, specifically that it would result in a criminal record. He signed the document under duress, motivated by the threat of remaining in jail over the weekend, and was not given an opportunity for a fair trial. The absence of any evidence that the consequences were explained to him constitutes a failure of justice and an infringement of his constitutional right to a fair trial. The magistrate was functus officio and could not reconsider the matter, but the High Court has the power to set aside the conviction…
Source excerpt
Explore more
