About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 650
|
|
S v Dikgoro (C44/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 650 (1 August 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION
,
PRETORIA
REVIEW
CASE NO C44/2023
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED:
YES
DATE:
1 AUGUST 2023
THE
STATE
Applicant
And
KOKETSO
DIKGORO
Accused
NEUKIRCHER
J
:
1]
This matter comes before me by way of
review at the reques
t
of
the Acting Senior Magistrate, Pretoria North
.
The reason for the request appears from
the letter accompanying
the
transcript and that reads as follows
:
"
The
accused person appeared before then acting magistrate Mabe whose
contract expired and was never renewed
,
when I attended to quality
assurance
,
I
discovered that an incomplete
worded
sentence
was
imposed
,
fortunately
according
to our records
the
Accused
person paid the fine immediately
on the day when the sentence
was
imposed
,
the reason for the referral of the
matter is
for the High Court to
review the incomplete
sentence and
direction
."
(sic)
2]
It
is unnecessary to go into too much detail regarding the facts of this
matter. Suffice it to say that the accused was charged
with
possession of cocaine in terms of the provisions of s 5(a) the Drugs
and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 (the Act)
.
[1]
He was represented at trial and he plead guilty
.
As
the State did not prove that the possession fell under the provisions
of
s 51(2)
of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
, and thus
did not prove that the sentence required a minimum sentence, the
provisions of s17(c) of the Act apply which provides
that a person
convicted of the above offence shall be liable
"
in
the
case
of
an offence referred to in section 13(e)
,
to
such fine
as
the
court may deem
fit
to impose
,
or
to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years
,
or
to both such fine and such imprisonment
".
3]
In
the present matter the Magistrate sentenced the accused to the
payment of a fine of R2 000
,
payable
immediately. She was of the view that, having regard to all the
relevant circumstances, this was an appropriate sentence
.
I
cannot fault this finding. The accused was also not declared unfit to
possess a firearm because his future employment hinged upon
his being
able to carry one.
[2]
4]
The J4 form
records
the sentence reads as follows:
"
Fined
R2000 (TWO THOUSAND
RAND)
5]
The accused has already paid the fine in
full.
6]
Insofar
as
the
Senior
Acting
Magistrate
is
of
the
view
that
the
sentence
is
incomplete, and simply for record purposes, the sentence is set aside
and replaced with the following:
"
1
.
The accused
is
found guilty of contravening
the provisions of
s
5(a)
of the
Drugs and Drug
Trafficking Act no 140 of 1992
.
2.
The accused
is
sentenced
to the payment
of
a
fine
only
in
the amount
of
R2
000-00
,
which fine
is
payable immediately.
3.
The accused
is
not declared
unfit
to
possess a
firearm
."
B
NEUKIRCHER
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
1
August 2023
[1]
S
5(a)
,
as
read
with
s
13(e)
of
the
Act
prov
i
de
that
it
i
s
an
offence
for
anyone
to
use
or
be
in
possession
of
a
dependence
producing
substance
-
there
are
exceptions
to
this,
but
the
present
circumstances
do
not
fall
within
those exceptions
[2]
His
prospective
employment
being
that of a security guard