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
Mkhetshane v S (CA&R 83/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 50 (7 May 2020)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside housebreaking convictions where the plea admissions did not prove breaking, and substituted theft on one count.
Shiburi v S (205/2017) [2018] ZASCA 107; 2018 (2) SACR 485 (SCA) (29 August 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the regional magistrate erred in failing to alter the appellant's plea of guilty to not guilty on counts 1 and 2 when his explanation raised a possible defence of compulsion. The questioning exceeded the permissible ambit under section 112(1)(b), and the appellant's explanation should have been accepted as true for the purposes of the plea procedure. Both the regional and high courts misapplied the law by evaluating the plausibility of the appellant's explanation instead of remitting the matter for trial. On count 3, the court found that the evidence was…
Source excerpt
Ronny v S (A435/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 504 (30 June 2016)
High Court review set aside a theft conviction and sentence after inadequate section 112(1)(b) questioning, vague sentence conditions, and firearm-order irregularities.
S v Joseph (A148/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 170 (7 September 2010)
Automatic review of a guilty plea conviction under the Criminal Procedure Act and Domestic Violence Act. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence.
Dube v S (A399/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 189 (13 August 2010)
The appeal succeeded on the basis that the trial court misdirected itself by considering facts not placed under oath and not accepted by the parties for sentencing purposes. The accepted version was that the appellant assaulted her husband by throwing hot water at him during a domestic dispute, without premeditation or the addition of oil. The High Court held that sentencing must be based on the facts accepted by the State and the accused. Given the seriousness of the offence, a custodial sentence was warranted, but in light of the appellant's personal circumstances, lack of previous convicti…
Source excerpt
S v Machimana (A541/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 236 (22 June 2009)
The High Court set aside a conviction entered after a guilty plea because the accused did not admit all elements of the offence under section 112(1)(b).
S v Makoko and Another (191/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 75 (26 June 2008)
On special review, the court set aside accused 2’s conviction on count 2, but confirmed the remaining robbery convictions and all sentences.
S v Stuurman (80060) [2008] ZAECHC 119 (7 May 2008)
Review of a criminal conviction where the record wrongly reflected guilt on the main cannabis dealing charge instead of the alternative charge.
S v Louw, S v Lubbe (588/04,589/04) [2004] ZANCHC 95 (17 December 2004)
The High Court set aside the convictions and suspended sentences in two reviewed criminal matters because section 112(1)(a) was improperly used.
Explore more
