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
S v Gqesha (217810) [2024] ZAECMHC 15 (9 May 2024)
High Court review set aside an assault conviction and six-month sentence after finding the guilty plea was wrongly accepted and the magistrate used degrading language.
S v Mentoor (C946/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 139; 2020 (1) SACR 104 (WCC) (28 October 2019)
The High Court found that the Magistrate erred in reconstructing the record of the plea proceedings without proper certification and by informally confirming the reconstructed record with the accused. The Magistrate further erred by questioning and convicting the accused twice on the same charge under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is not permitted unless the original proceedings have been set aside. The accused's denial of knowledge of unlawfulness during the second questioning meant that an essential element of the offence was not admitted, and the proceedings should…
Source excerpt
S v Ramatar (171201/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 71; 2018 (2) SACR 414 (WCC) (30 May 2018)
Automatic review of a regional court conviction was set aside after the magistrate improperly elicited the accused’s prior convictions before plea and conviction.
S v Mashau (17/2015, 13/2014) [2015] ZALMPTHC 4 (20 August 2015)
The magistrate failed to conduct sufficient and proper questioning under section 112(1)(b) of Act 51 of 1977 to establish all elements of the offence. The questioning was inadequate, consisting largely of leading questions and failing to elicit the necessary factual admissions from the accused regarding how entry was gained, intent, and understanding of unlawfulness. This procedural irregularity resulted in a failure of justice, rendering the conviction and sentence invalid. The matter must be remitted to the magistrate's court for proper compliance with section 112(1)(b) and, if appropriate,…
Source excerpt
S v Lipharawia (23/2015, 08/2015) [2015] ZALMPTHC 3 (20 August 2015)
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.
S v Funani (4/2015) [2015] ZAECBHC 8 (17 April 2015)
The conviction was irregular because the magistrate failed to elicit a clear admission from the accused that his driving ability was impaired by alcohol, as required by law. The accused's statements before conviction did not amount to an admission of impairment, and his later comments in mitigation were coincidental and insufficient. Furthermore, the circumstances described by the accused suggested a possible defence or at least reasonable doubt as to whether his driving was impaired by alcohol or whether the collision was caused by another driver. The magistrate should have entered a plea of…
Source excerpt
S v Olyn and Another (22/2001) [2001] ZANCHC 7 (4 May 2001)
The High Court set aside a stock-theft conviction after finding the section 112(1)(b) questioning did not properly establish knowledge of unlawfulness.
Explore more
