Curnow v S (A142/2009)
Curnow v S (A142/2009) [2011] ZAWCHC 61 (4 March 2011)
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the magistrate failed to properly interrogate the appellant's defence of lack of means and did not ensure that the prosecution discharged its onus to prove that the lack of means was due to unwillingness to work or misconduct. The appellant's statement raised doubts about the reasons for non-payment, which should have been examined in detail. The matter is remitted to the trial court to comply with sections 112 and 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act, allowing for proper questioning and, if necessary, a change of plea and proof of the charge by…
Source excerpt
- Maintenance Act
- Failure To Pay Maintenance
- Onus Of Proof
- Lack Of Means Defence