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 Sephiri (357/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 224 (29 November 2012)
The High Court confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence, finding the magistrate had not properly investigated mitigation or explained section 103 of the Firearm Control Act.
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 Masekwa and Another (377/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 64 (29 March 2012)
High Court review setting aside robbery convictions after finding unreliable identification evidence and unfair trial management of unrepresented accused.
S v Makhetha and Others [2009] ZAFSHC 90 (25 September 2009)
The Free State High Court set aside convictions and sentences in several guilty-plea matters after finding the magistrate’s proceedings were not in accordance with justice.
S v Jonker (A721/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 376 (1 September 2008)
Review of a maintenance conviction and sentence was successful after the court found the plea questioning incomplete and the accused’s lack-of-means defence not properly addressed.
S v Mookwa (43/04) [2004] ZANCHC 53 (10 March 2004)
The magistrate failed in his duty to properly inform the unrepresented accused of the legal consequences of not testifying or calling witnesses. The explanation given was vague and insufficient, and the record is incomplete. Without a proper explanation, the accused's decision to close his case was uninformed. This constitutes a serious irregularity in the proceedings, rendering them not in accordance with justice. The conviction and sentence must therefore be set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
