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
Brass and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (73283/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 660 (30 August 2018)
The court stayed criminal prosecution against the applicants, holding that res judicata did not apply and that related cannabis constitutional challenges justified a pause.
S v Maroeli and Another (338/12) [2013] ZAFSHC 1 (17 January 2013)
The review court found that the trial magistrate's excessive and leading questioning of accused 2 went beyond the permissible boundaries set by section 112(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. This irregularity resulted in admissions that exposed accused 2 to a more serious charge than he intended to plead to, undermining both the fairness of the trial and public policy. The conviction for possession of cannabis was not rationally connected to the facts, and the prosecutor did not accept the plea, further tainting the process. The court set aside the conviction and sentence for possession of can…
Source excerpt
Hendricks v S (CA&R 124/2011) [2012] ZANCHC 60 (29 June 2012)
The court dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence for dealing in cannabis, finding the trial court correctly rejected the appellant’s version.
S v Van Wyk and Others (575/08, 721/08, 761/08) [2009] ZAFSHC 12 (12 February 2009)
High Court review set aside cannabis possession convictions where the accused had admitted facts supporting dealing charges; matters were remitted for reconsideration.
S v Rautenheimer and Another (CA&R 129/06) [2006] ZANCHC 71 (15 December 2006)
The court found that the discrepancies in the State witnesses' evidence were not material and did not undermine the reliability of their testimony. However, the second appellant's version, that he placed the cannabis in the vehicle for a third party, was not challenged by the State and was accepted by the trial court. This created a reasonable possibility that the first appellant was only aware of the cannabis belonging to the second appellant and did not intend to deal in it. Accordingly, the conviction for dealing was set aside and replaced with possession. Both appellants were first offend…
Source excerpt
S v Leburu and Others (1096/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 162 (2 November 2006)
The court found that, although the accused were youthful first offenders, the quantity of cannabis involved was substantial and the offence is common in the area. However, the sentences imposed were disproportionate given the mitigating factors, including the time already spent in custody and their personal circumstances. The court held that the sentences should be adjusted to better reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors, substituting the original sentences with partially suspended sentences to achieve justice.
Source excerpt
S v Ralejoang (836/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 29 (21 September 2006)
On review, the High Court confirmed the conviction for cannabis possession but reduced a three-year prison sentence to 18 months as too severe.
S v Masoetsa (1113/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 67 (7 October 2005)
The High Court confirmed a cannabis possession conviction but found the magistrate’s sentence too severe, replacing it with a wholly suspended 10-month term.
S v Lekanyane (118/2006) [2005] ZAFSHC 118 (9 March 2005)
High Court review of a cannabis possession sentence. Conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was replaced with a fine and partially suspended imprisonment.
S v Moholo (562/3004) [2005] ZAFSHC 19 (20 January 2005)
The High Court confirmed a cannabis-possession conviction but found the sentence too harsh, replacing it with a reduced fine or imprisonment, half suspended.
Explore more
