South Africa Case Law

S v Madito and Others (151/2013)

S v Madito and Others (151/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 156 (8 August 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

151/2013

Judges

Kruger, Sepato

The High Court found that the referral of the case to the regional court for sentencing was improper, as the district magistrate did not exercise independent judgment and acted solely on the prosecutor's request, contrary to section 116(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. There was no evidence that the seriousness of the offence or previous convictions warranted a sentence exceeding the jurisdiction of the district court. Regarding accused no 1, the court held that he was not prejudiced by his age, as he turned 18 the day after the plea, was assisted by an attorney, and the trial was in camera.…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Courts
• Referral For Sentence
• Unreasonable Delay
• Child Justice Act
• Prejudice To Accused

S v Duma (R345/11)

S v Duma (R345/11) [2011] ZAKZPHC 35; 2012 (2) SACR 585 (KZP) (16 August 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

R345/11

Judges

Ndlovu, Lopes

The court held that the referral by the district magistrate to the regional court for sentencing was a procedural ruling and not a final judgment or order. Therefore, the magistrate was not functus officio and retained the authority to sentence the accused. The prescribed penalties for the offences fell within the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court, making the referral to the regional court erroneous. The court declared that section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Act was not applicable in this case and remitted the matter to the magistrate's court for sentencing. If the original magistrate…

Source excerpt

• Functus Officio
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Referral For Sentence

S v Machaba and Others (SH91/09)

S v Machaba and Others (SH91/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 296 (29 September 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

SH91/09

Judges

C Botha, CJ Eksteen

The High Court confirmed robbery convictions and held that section 51(2) minimum-sentencing provisions do not bind magistrates’ courts.

• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Courts
• Minimum Sentencing Legislation
• Application Of Section 51 2
• Referral For Sentence
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Magistrates-court-jurisdiction

S v Joubert (A149/09)

S v Joubert (A149/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 72 (2 March 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A149/09

Judges

TLHAPI V V, MOLOPA L

The referral of the accused to the regional court for sentence under section 122(C)(2)(a) was unlawful because the accused pleaded not guilty and did not admit all allegations. The proper procedure was to refer the matter under section 116 after trial, with the regional magistrate requesting reasons for conviction and reconstruction of the record. In the absence of a reconstructed record and reasons for conviction, the conviction cannot be set aside at this stage. The matter must be referred back to the magistrate's court for proper procedure and record reconstruction. Only if reconstruction…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 122
• Referral For Sentence
• Record Reconstruction
• Irregularities In Proceedings

Swartz and Another v S (A664/2000)

Swartz and Another v S (A664/2000) [2002] ZAWCHC 16; 2002 (2) SACR 1 (C) (9 April 2002)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A664/2000

Judges

Traverso, Desai, Knoll

The High Court set aside the sentencing proceedings after finding the judge may not have read the record and had misconstrued his role under section 52.

• Criminal Procedure Act
• Minimum Sentencing
• Referral For Sentence
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Fair Trial Rights
• Criminal-procedure