About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAECMHC 39
|
|
S v Guzu and Others (217029, 217031, 217029) [2016] ZAECMHC 39; 2017 (2) SACR 575 (ECM) (22 September 2016)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN
CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA)
REVIEW
NO: 217029;
217031;
217029
DATE:
22 SEPTEMBER 2016
In
the matters between:
THE
STATE
........................................................................................................................
APPLICANT
And
SIHLE
GUZU
..................................................................................................................
RESPONDENT
SIVIWE
MGIDI
..............................................................................................................
RESPONDENT
SAZISO
NOMBUYA
......................................................................................................
RESPONDENT
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
BROOKS
J:
[1]
Three matters emanating from the Magistrate’s Court for the
district of Dutywa have been placed before me on automatic
review. In
each there is a response from the magistrate to a query raised by one
of my colleagues before whom the matters had served
on automatic
review previously. In each, the query sought clarity on the manner in
which the sentence imposed had been expressed
by the magistrate. In
each, the response from the magistrate gives that clarity.
[2]
It is distressing to encounter errors in the manner in which
sentences are expressed. Not only is it impossible for an
unrepresented
accused person to understand a sentence which is
ill-expressed, but the record of that sentence cannot be altered
simply by clerical
amendment.
[3]
The imposition of sentence is a crucial part of court proceedings. It
must be attended to with a level of care and attention
to detail
which is commensurate with the utmost level of diligence expected of
a judicial officer in the performance of his or
her official duties.
Sloppiness in the manner in which a sentence finds expression not
only leads to an undesirable state of uncertainty
at the end of court
proceedings; it also reflects badly on the judicial officer concerned
and, indeed, upon the judiciary as a
whole.
[4]
I have read the record in each of these three matters and I am
satisfied that, but for the unacceptable confusion arising from
the
mistakes made in the expression of the sentence imposed by the
magistrate, the proceedings are in accordance with justice.
[5]
In State v Sihle Guzu, case no B 475/2015, the sentence imposed by
the magistrate is set aside and is replaced with the following:
“
1.
The accused is sentenced to payment of a fine of R1000,00 or, in
default of payment thereof, to a period of six (6) months
imprisonment.
2.
The sentence imposed is wholly suspended for a period of five (5)
years on condition that the accused is not convicted of assault
with
the intention to do grievous bodily harm arising from any offence
committed during the period of suspension.”
[6]
In State v Siviwe Mgidi, case no B 153/2016, the sentence imposed by
the magistrate is set aside and is replaced with the following:
1`“1.
The accused is sentenced to the payment of R500,00 or, in default of
payment thereof, to a period of six (6) months
imprisonment.”
[7]
In State v Saziso Nombuya, case no B 131/2016, the sentence imposed
by the magistrate is set aside and is replaced with the
following:
“
1.
The accused is sentenced to the payment of a fine of R500,00 or, in
default of payment thereof, to a period of four (4) months
imprisonment.
2.
The sentence imposed is wholly suspended for a period of five (5)
years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any
offence
arising from the possession by him of dagga without authority during
the period of suspension.”
RWN
BROOKS
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT.
MAJIKI
J:
I
agree.
B
MAJIKI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT