South Africa Case Law

Bagananeng v S (CA & R 33/23)

Bagananeng v S (CA & R 33/23) [2023] ZANCHC 68 (27 October 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 33/23

Judges

Phatshoane, Stanton

The trial court's procedure in allowing the prosecutor to question the accused during section 112(1)(b) plea proceedings constituted impermissible cross-examination and violated the accused's fair trial rights. The accused's responses did not amount to admissions of guilt and should have triggered the entry of a plea of not guilty under section 113. The irregularity was uncovered early in the proceedings, and remittal to the same magistrate would be undesirable due to potential prejudice. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice and must be set aside, with the matter remitted for t…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination At Plea Stage
• Remittal Under Section 312
• Magistrates Court Review

S v Ndzishe (221/2023; 222/2023)

S v Ndzishe (221/2023; 222/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 167; 2023 (2) SACR 419 (WCC) (20 July 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

221/2023; 222/2023

Judges

Lekhuleni JD, Nziweni CN

On automatic review, the High Court set aside two drug-possession convictions because guilty-plea questioning was inadequate and legal representation issues arose.

• Possession Of Drugs
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Forensic Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Legal Representation
• Remittal Under Section 312

S v Lipharawia (23/2015, 08/2015)

S v Lipharawia (23/2015, 08/2015) [2015] ZALMPTHC 3 (20 August 2015)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

23/2015

Judges

A Lamminga, E M Makgoba

On automatic review, the High Court set aside a conviction and sentence after finding the magistrate’s section 112(1)(b) questioning was inadequate and leading.

• Housebreaking With Intent To Steal
• Section 112 1 B Procedure
• Unfair Trial
• Leading Questions
• Remittal Under Section 312
• Section-112-1-b

Mshengu v S (446/08)

Mshengu v S (446/08) [2009] ZASCA 65; 2009 (2) SACR 316 (SCA); [2009] 4 All SA 242 (SCA) (29 May 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

446/08

Judges

Jafta, Ponnan, Mhlantla

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the written statement tendered by the appellant, a 13-year-old child, did not comply with section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The statement failed to address the presumption of criminal non-responsibility and did not provide sufficient factual admissions to justify a conviction on the plea of guilty. The court held that the conviction and sentence must be set aside. Regarding remittal under section 312(1), the court determined that the provision is not peremptory and that remittal is discretionary. Given that the appellant had already served a…

Source excerpt

• Plea Of Guilty
• Criminal Capacity Of Child
• Fair Trial Rights
• Remittal Under Section 312