South Africa Case Law

S v Shrosbree (Review) (23/7627/2023)

S v Shrosbree (Review) (23/7627/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 86 (8 November 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

23/7627/2023

Judges

Ntlokwana, Mossop

The proceedings in the magistrate's court were not in accordance with justice. The State failed to tender scientific analysis certificates to prove the nature of the substances, which is a necessary evidentiary requirement for conviction on charges involving scheduled substances. The accused's plea explanation raised a defence that the Lipitor tablets were lawfully obtained by a third party with a prescription and that the substances were not his property, undermining the element of possession. The legal representation provided to the accused was inadequate and failed to protect his right to…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Possession Of Scheduled Substance
• Scientific Evidence Requirement
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Right To Fair Trial

S v Macingwane (426/2023)

S v Macingwane (426/2023) [2024] ZAECMHC 71 (25 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

426/2023

Judges

L. Rusi, F. Dawood

The court found that although the magistrate failed to invite the accused to confirm the contents of her written plea statement, no prejudice resulted because the accused understood the charge, pleaded guilty, and her attorney confirmed the instructions. The conviction was therefore not vitiated by the irregularity. However, the sentence imposed was vague and did not set out clear conditions for suspension, specifically using the phrase 'similar offence' which is overly broad and imprecise. The court held that the conditions for suspension must be clear and relate directly to the offence of t…

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Suspended Sentence
• Section 112 Criminal Procedure Act
• Sentencing Irregularity

Salman and Another v S - Appeal (CA&R 69/2021)

Salman and Another v S - Appeal (CA&R 69/2021) [2023] ZAECMHC 59 (14 November 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA&R 69/2021

Judges

Rugunanan, Monakali

The High Court set aside convictions entered on guilty pleas, finding the section 112 statements defective and the plea proceedings unfair.

• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights
• Sexual Offences Act
• Common Purpose Liability
• Minimum Sentencing
• Section 112 Criminal Procedure

S v Nzanza (R04/2023)

S v Nzanza (R04/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 98 (15 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R04/2023

Judges

Daniso, Mahlangu

The court found that the accused's section 112(2) statement did not admit the essential element of intention to permanently deprive the owner of the cell phone. The accused explained he took the phone for safekeeping and returned it the next day, which raised a defence to the charge of theft. The presiding magistrate misdirected himself by convicting the accused on a plea statement that did not establish all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the court to record a plea of not guilty and allow the prosecuti…

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Intention To Permanently Deprive
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Section 112 Statement
• Section 113 Procedure

Mkhize v S (AR365/21)

Mkhize v S (AR365/21) [2023] ZAKZPHC 11 (3 February 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR365/21

Judges

Chetty, Ploos van Amstel

The High Court upheld an appeal against a murder conviction because the accused’s s 112(2) statement did not admit intention or unlawfulness.

• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Mens Rea
• Unlawfulness
• S112 Statement
• Premeditated Murder
• Guilty-plea-procedure

S v Moyo (25/2022)

S v Moyo (25/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 250 (21 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25/2022

Judges

S D J Wilson, M Ismail

The High Court set aside a fraud conviction on special review because the guilty plea statement did not adequately admit the elements of fraud.

• Fraud
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Section 112 Criminal Procedure Act
• Sentencing
• Best Interests Of Children
• Guilty-plea-procedure

S v Sibanyoni (Rev 54/2021)

S v Sibanyoni (Rev 54/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 34 (20 July 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

REV 54/2021

Judges

Kganyago, Kgomo

The magistrate's questioning of the accused was leading and elicited admissions rather than allowing the accused to explain his conduct. The accused's explanation that he picked up the batteries from the floor and did not enter the store with the intention to steal raised a possible defence. The magistrate failed to alter the plea to not guilty as required by section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act, thereby committing an irregularity. Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused was not afforded a fair trial. The proceedings were not in…

Source excerpt

• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights
• Section 112 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 113 Criminal Procedure Act
• Theft
• Judicial Irregularity

S v Du Plessis (R36/2021)

S v Du Plessis (R36/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 158 (24 June 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R36/2021

Judges

NS Daniso, NM Mbhele

The court found that the magistrate failed to adequately question the accused regarding the functioning and calibration of the speed measuring device and the training of the officer who operated it. Without these admissions, not all elements of the offence were established. The proceedings were therefore not in accordance with justice, and both the conviction and sentence must be set aside.

Source excerpt

• Road Traffic Offences
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Speed Measurement Evidence

S v Saeed (R14/2021)

S v Saeed (R14/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 83 (24 March 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R14/2021

Judges

Opperman, Reinders

The High Court set aside a minor’s guilty plea and conviction because the Child Justice Act had not been applied, and sent the matter back to the District Court.

• Child Justice Act
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Immigration Offences
• Review Of Conviction
• Child-justice-act
• Guilty-plea-procedure

S v Makuyana (R09/2020)

S v Makuyana (R09/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 16 (13 February 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R09/2020

Judges

S Naidoo, P Molitsoane

The court held that, although the section 112(2) statement repeated much of the charge sheet's wording, the accused also made additional admissions, including having no defence and being an illegal foreigner. These admissions demonstrated an understanding of the offences and covered the essential elements required for conviction. The court found that the requirements of section 112(2) were met in this case, and the convictions and sentences were therefore confirmed. The court emphasized that magistrates should ensure that section 112(2) statements contain sufficient factual detail, but in thi…

Source excerpt

• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Section 112 Statement
• Trespass
• Illegal Entry
• Immigration Offences