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
Makukunzva v S (A44/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 220 (15 September 2020)
The High Court upheld an appeal against a speeding conviction because the State failed to prove the speed device was properly mounted and reliable.
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 Fredericks (293/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 153 (5 September 2019)
The magistrate failed to properly question the accused in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The questioning was leading and did not elicit the factual basis for the accused's plea of guilty. The accused was not given an opportunity to explain the circumstances, and the magistrate did not ascertain whether the accused admitted all the factual allegations necessary for conviction. Furthermore, the State did not prove that the speed measuring device was reliable, properly set up, and operated by a trained person, as required by law. The magistrate's concession that the re…
Source excerpt
S v Bam (R52/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 123; 2019 (2) SACR 662 (FB) (22 July 2019)
The court found that the accused was not properly questioned regarding the competence of the traffic officer to operate the speed measuring device, which is a necessary element for conviction under section 59(4)(a) of the National Road Traffic Act. General questions about satisfaction with procedures do not suffice to establish all factual elements required for a valid guilty plea. The absence of specific admission or proof regarding the traffic officer's competence rendered the proceedings not in accordance with justice. Consequently, the conviction and sentence could not stand and were set…
Source excerpt
S v Gama (R40/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 122 (18 July 2019)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside a speeding conviction and sentence because the charge was vague and the guilty-plea inquiry was defective.
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
S v Tsotetsi; S v Thinyane; S v Tladi (R272/2018; R352/2018; R353/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 212 (28 December 2018)
The High Court set aside three speeding convictions on automatic review, finding the magistrate's section 112(1)(b) questioning was leading and inadequate.
S v Mtyhole (R255/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 156 (18 October 2018)
The review court found that although the accused intended to plead guilty and admitted the offence, the trial magistrate failed to elicit a sufficient factual basis for the plea, particularly regarding the circumstances under which the offence was committed and possible defences such as necessity. The accused's explanation in mitigation—that he was rushing due to his wife's labour—should have prompted further inquiry to determine the presence or absence of unlawfulness. The record was incomplete regarding the required inquiry under section 35 of the National Road Traffic Act. As a result, the…
Source excerpt
S v Moela (R241/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 151 (11 October 2018)
On special review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction and sentence for speeding because the accused was not properly questioned under section 112.
S v Omar (R31/18) [2018] ZAFSHC 63 (6 April 2018)
The conviction cannot stand because the accused did not admit all the essential elements of the offence, specifically that he drove on a public road and that the speed measuring device was properly calibrated and operated by a trained person. The presiding officer failed to elicit these admissions and did not satisfy the requirements for a valid conviction under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act. The questioning fell short of the standards required by section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court cannot take judicial notice of facts not admitted by the accused. A…
Source excerpt
Explore more
