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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 280
|
|
S v Conradie (A287/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 280 (4 May 2015)
IN
THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
)
HIGH
COURT REFERENCE NO.
819/2014
MAGISTRATE’S
SERIAL NO.
03/2014
REVIEW
CASE NO.
570/2014
DATE:
4 MAY 2015
CASE
NUMBER: A287/15
NOT
REPORTABLE
THE
STATE v ALEC CONRADIE
SPECIAL REVIEW
JUDGMENT
JANSEN J
[1] This matter was
referred to me as a special review by ML van Loggerenberg, acting
magistrate of Ventersdorp.
[2] The accused, on
the 6
th
of October 2014. pleaded guilty to a breach of
section 59(4)(b) of Act 93 of 1996, namely exceeding the applicable
speed limit.
Section 112(2 ) of Act 51 of 1977 was duly complied
with.
[3] The accused was
sentenced to R1000.00 (a thousand rand) or six months’
imprisonment plus an additional six months' imprisonment
suspended
for four years on condition that he was not convicted again of
breaching section 59(4)(b) of Act 93 of 1996 and, if so
found guilty,
a direct sentence of imprisonment would be imposed without the option
of a fine.
[4] The accused's
licence was not endorsed, revoked or suspended.
[5] The acting
magistrate admits freely to explaining to the accused his rights of
appeal, but not his rights pertaining to review.
He realised it soon
afterwards and tried to contact the accused in vain. Hence this
special review.
[6]
Given that
bona
fide
mistakes
do occur and given the acting magistrate’s prompt conduct in
forwarding the record and seeking a special review,
his omission is
condoned.
[7] The acting
magistrate also furnished cogent reasons why the review was sent
late. His explanation is accepted and the non-compliance
for the
period within which the record should have been forwarded is
condoned.
[8] Yet another
problem arose. The invoice which was alleged to be that of the
accused (who paid the fine of R1000.00) refers to
a certain AJ Fourie
and bears another case number. The accused in this matter is a Mr
Alec Conradie. The acting magistrate requests
that this inaccuracy be
rectified. It is not clear how this mistake arose. Furthermore, it is
accepted, as stated by the acting
magistrate, that Mr AJ Fourie paid
a fine of R500.00 only, whereas Mr Conradie paid R1000.00 and this
amount should be reflected
in the invoice.
[9] The acting
magistrate also states that the sentence is too harsh and requests
that the suspended part of the sentence be omitted.
(The acting
magistrate states that without the suspended part of the sentence it
would not have been reviewable as he has been
performing the duties
of a magistrate since 1991.)
[10] The acting
magistrate further requests that the accused be informed of the
lesser sentence. Fie requests that this be done
by handing a copy of
this judgment to the accused.
In the result, the
following order is made: —
[11] The sentence
imposed by the acting magistrate is set aside and the following order
is made: —
1. The accused is
ordered to pay a fine of R1 000.00 (one thousand rand) or to serve a
six month period of imprisonment.
2. The clerk of the
Ventersdorp magistrate's court is ordered to correct the invoice made
out to the accused to reflect his name,
Alec Conradie. correctly, as
well as the correct case number and the amount paid by him, namely R1
000.00.
3. The records of
the Ventersdorp magistrate’s court must be amended accordingly.
4. This judgment and
the corrected invoice must be handed personally to the accused.
JANSEN J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
I agree
RABIE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT