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
Michael v S (A111/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 239 (6 August 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal against a DUI conviction, finding the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was under the influence while driving.
Ntlemeza v S (R129/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1090 (15 August 2019)
High Court review confirming a guilty plea conviction for driving with excessive blood alcohol, but remitting the licence-suspension issue for reconsideration.
Sifunda v S (A577/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 391 (20 June 2014)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for driving under the influence, holding the unchallenged evidence and statutory presumption sufficient.
S v Mjandana (2012000349) [2013] ZAECGHC 58 (1 January 2013)
The magistrate erred in treating the accused's conviction as a 'second offence' under section 35(1) of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996. The correct interpretation, as established in S v Van Rooyen, is that only convictions for offences specifically mentioned in subsection (1) count towards the sequence of offences for suspension purposes. The accused's current conviction is a 'first offence' for the purposes of section 35(1), and the suspension period of 8 months imposed by the magistrate was therefore incorrect. Taking into account the accused's personal circumstances, including his…
Source excerpt
Jamneck v S (A265/11) [2012] ZAWCHC 134 (10 February 2012)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a conviction for drunk driving, finding no material error in the magistrate’s assessment of witness credibility.
S v Vekeni (CA & R 248/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 56; 2012 (1) SACR 458 (ECG) (21 September 2011)
High Court review confirming a drink-driving conviction and sentence, but setting aside a licence disqualification order for failure to properly apply section 35 of the Act.
Kammies v S (CA&R 98/10) [2011] ZANCHC 11 (1 July 2011)
The appellate court found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to consider the established norms for fines in drunk driving cases and by combining the two charges for sentencing purposes. The sentence imposed was substantially harsher than the norm and did not adequately reflect the appellant's personal circumstances, particularly his financial position and lack of previous convictions. The court held that each charge should have been considered separately and that the trial court underemphasized the mitigating factors. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the original se…
Source excerpt
Van Wyk v S (CA 56/09) [2010] ZANWHC 2 (18 February 2010)
The court found that the appellant's history of alcohol dependency, positive response to rehabilitation, and the nature of his offence made him suitable for rehabilitation rather than direct imprisonment. Two of his previous convictions were more than ten years old, and he was convicted for exceeding the statutory blood alcohol limit, not for drunken driving per se. The trial court misdirected itself by not considering correctional supervision or commitment to a rehabilitation centre. The appeal against sentence was upheld, and the appellant was committed to a rehabilitation centre under sect…
Source excerpt
S v Muhl (A691/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 288 (27 November 2007)
Appeal in a drunk-driving and negligent-driving case. The court set aside the first alternative conviction, confirmed the negligent-driving conviction, and refused the State’s bid to substitute the acquittal.
S v Lelimo (833/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 27 (14 September 2006)
The court found that the accused's conduct—driving a heavy vehicle in a highly dangerous manner over a distance of approximately 30 km, repeatedly veering across the road—was primarily attributable to his intoxication. The deviation from the standard of a reasonable driver was due to the influence of alcohol, and thus, the convictions for both driving under the influence and negligent driving constituted a duplication. The conviction for negligent driving was set aside. The sentence was reconsidered in light of the accused's status as a first offender, his employment history, and the absence…
Source excerpt
Explore more
