South Africa Case Law

S v Mathibe (CA & R220/08)

S v Mathibe (CA & R220/08) [2008] ZAECHC 172 (9 October 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA & R220/08

Judges

Greenland, Sangoni

The appeal court found no misdirection in the magistrate's reasoning. The appellant knowingly transported a substantial quantity of cannabis on behalf of others, which, by probability, were dealers. The magistrate correctly considered the seriousness of the offence, the interests of society, and legislative intent. The suspended portion of the sentence reflected appropriate consideration of the appellant's personal circumstances, including his status as a first offender. The sentence was not shockingly disproportionate and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Possession Of Dependence Producing Substances
• Sentencing Principles
• Judicial Discretion
• Magistrates Court Appeal

S v Daniels (50/88)

S v Daniels (50/88) [1989] ZASCA 48 (31 March 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

50/88

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Milne, Nicholas

Criminal appeal on whether the appellant knew of Mandrax tablets found in her locked wardrobe. The court held the circumstantial evidence proved knowledge and dismissed the appeal.

• Possession Of Dependence Producing Substances
• Dealing In Mandrax
• Presumption Of Dealing
• Knowledge Requirement
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Criminal-law