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 Joubert (Review) (03/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 180 (2 October 2023)
The High Court set aside a regional court conviction after finding the accused had not pleaded afresh in de novo proceedings and the earlier review order was misread.
S v Machubeni (REV59/2023) [2023] ZALMPPHC 59 (1 August 2023)
The court found that the accused's right to legal representation was not properly respected, as the magistrate failed to confirm with the accused whether he wished to conduct his own defence and did not encourage him to seek legal representation. The magistrate relied solely on the prosecutor's statement and failed to conduct the necessary enquiry. Furthermore, the magistrate did not question the accused in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act to ensure that all essential elements of the offence were admitted, resulting in a conviction based only on a general guilty plea.…
Source excerpt
S v Paulse (208/22;29/22;15/932/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 145; 2022 (2) SACR 451 (WCC) (29 July 2022)
The court held that the magistrate erred in convicting the accused solely on her admissions during section 112(1)(b) questioning, without any supporting scientific evidence or section 212 certificate to confirm the nature of the substances. The accused was unrepresented and her admissions regarding the identity of the substances were not based on personal scientific knowledge. The authorities require that, in such circumstances, the court must request and consider scientific evidence before convicting. The absence of such evidence rendered the convictions unsafe and not in accordance with jus…
Source excerpt
S v Mzimba (16/2012) [2012] ZAKZPHC 30; 2012 (2) SACR 233 (KZP) (7 June 2012)
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the accused did not admit all the essential elements of the offence, specifically the impairment of his driving ability due to alcohol. The Magistrate failed to question the accused on this critical element and did not inform him of his rights under section 35 of the NRTA or his right to make submissions regarding review or appeal. These procedural irregularities rendered the proceedings unjust. The matter was remitted to the trial court for a plea of not guilty to be entered and for the prosecution to proceed accordingly.
Source excerpt
S v Nkuna (A255/2011) [2011] ZAGPPHC 60 (19 April 2011)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside a conviction for possession of illicit goods after finding defective section 113 compliance and prejudice to the unrepresented accused.
S v Mlambo and Others (371/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 99 (9 September 2010)
High Court review setting aside all convictions and sentences after confusion in the record and defective section 112(2) guilty pleas.
S v Mngomezulu (C 746/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 585 (11 February 2010)
The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s sentence, setting it aside because the magistrate exceeded her sentencing powers and made a firearm-unfitness order without the required enquiry.
S v Pholeli (314/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 10 (12 February 2009)
On automatic review, the court set aside a conviction and sentence because a material part of the record, including the plea inquiry and conviction, was missing and could not be reconstructed.
S v Pule (282/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 113 (4 September 2008)
Automatic review set aside a guilty plea conviction and sentence because the magistrate’s section 112 questioning was inadequate and the fine ignored ability to pay.
Qoko v La Grange and others (CA344/2002) [2002] ZAECHC 14; 2004 (2) SACR 521 (E) (22 May 2002)
The court held that the applicant bore the onus to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his guilty plea was improperly induced by threats and promises from the investigating officer. The applicant's version was found to be inherently improbable and contradicted by his own conduct, particularly his spontaneous implication of his half-brothers in the offence after conviction. The evidence presented by the respondent, including affidavits from the prosecutor and police officers, further undermined the applicant's credibility. The court concluded that the applicant failed to discharge the r…
Source excerpt
Explore more
