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 Mackay (326/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 17 (22 February 2022)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction for attempted housebreaking, finding the record did not adequately prove the offence charged.
Moyakhe v S (CA&R15/2021) [2021] ZAECGHC 108 (25 November 2021)
The High Court found that the trial court failed to properly question the appellant on the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the complainant prior to conviction, as required to activate the minimum sentence provisions under section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997. The appellant's written statement and plea did not admit the factual basis for grievous bodily harm, and the medical evidence was only submitted after conviction. This procedural irregularity amounted to a failure of justice, as the facts activating the minimum sentence were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt prior to convict…
Source excerpt
S v Motlibeli (R88/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 160 (19 September 2019)
Automatic review of a speeding conviction was set aside because the section 112 plea inquiry did not establish all required admissions.
S v Thakanyane (R29/2019, 882/18) [2019] ZAFSHC 99 (28 June 2019)
The magistrate failed to ensure that the accused admitted the competence of the traffic officer who operated the speed recording device, as required by the guidelines in S v Phuzi. Furthermore, the accused did not admit that his conduct was unlawful or punishable by law. The questioning focused on irrelevant matters and did not cover all essential elements of the offence. As a result, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
State v Motladile (R91/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 144; 2019 (1) SACR 415 (FB) (21 September 2018)
The proceedings were not in accordance with justice because the accused, who was unrepresented, was not properly questioned to establish his understanding of the charge and the nature of the substance involved. The charge sheet was defective, lacking sufficient detail and failing to allege intention or ensure the accused understood what constituted an undesirable dependence producing substance. The presiding magistrate failed to advise the accused of the defects in the charge sheet and did not ensure the accused's rights were protected during the trial. These irregularities resulted in a viol…
Source excerpt
S v Lephallo (136/2014(B)) [2014] ZAFSHC 139 (4 September 2014)
The magistrate failed to ensure that the accused's constitutional rights were protected, specifically the right to legal representation and to be informed of the charges with sufficient detail. The accused was convicted and sentenced without proper procedure, including the absence of an enquiry into his plea and failure to allow both parties to address the court before sentencing. These procedural irregularities constitute serious misdirections and violations of the accused's right to a fair trial. As a result, both the conviction and sentence must be set aside and the matter remitted for a h…
Source excerpt
Donda v S (A165/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 12 (17 February 2014)
The High Court set aside a culpable homicide conviction and sentence because the guilty plea papers did not properly admit negligence required by section 112(2).
S v Lewis du Plessis (75/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 129 (11 July 2013)
On special review, the High Court confirmed the conviction for assault but set aside an excessive sentence imposed under section 112(1)(a).
S v Phakoe (337/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 228 (6 December 2012)
The court found that the accused did not freely and without undue influence admit all the elements of the charge, particularly unlawfulness and intent to do grievous bodily harm. The magistrate's persistent and excessive questioning, after the accused denied knowledge of unlawfulness and intent, exceeded the permissible bounds of section 112 and amounted to material irregularity. The accused's responses indicated a lack of admission of key elements, and the court failed to apply section 113 when required. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence regarding the nature of the injuries and in…
Source excerpt
S v Mofokeng (19/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 117; 2013 (1) SACR 143 (FB) (18 June 2012)
The review court found that the accused, who was unrepresented, was not properly informed of her rights, the procedure under section 112, or the possible competent verdicts. The magistrate failed to ensure that the accused admitted all elements of the charge, and did not conduct an inquiry under section 103 of the Fire Arms Control Act. The accused's answers did not establish the necessary intent for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the record did not confirm that the complainant, date, and place matched the charge sheet. The cumulative procedural irregularities resulted in…
Source excerpt
Explore more
