S v Mothabeng (A299/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 296 (12 May 2015)

25 Reportability
Criminal Law

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Possession of dagga — Accused initially pleads guilty but later enters not guilty plea — Conviction based on incorrect weight of dagga — Typographical error identified during review — Conviction amended to reflect correct weight. The accused was charged with possession of 5.765 kg of dagga but the evidence indicated the correct weight was 5.67 kg. After a guilty plea was entered and evidence was led, the magistrate convicted the accused based on the incorrect weight. The legal issue was whether the conviction should be amended to reflect the correct weight of the substance possessed. The court held that the error was a mere typographical mistake and ordered the conviction to be amended to reflect the correct weight of 5.67 kg, while confirming the original sentence.

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 296
|

|

S v Mothabeng (A299/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 296 (12 May 2015)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
DATE: 12 May 2015
CASE NUMEBR:
A299/2015
HIGHCOURTREF.NO.
: 121/2015
MAGISTRATE’S
SERIAL NO : 1/2015
CASE NUMBER :
325/2014
IN THE MATTER
BETWEEN:
THE STATE
AND
DIKHETO MOTHABENG
REVIEW JUDGMENT
TOLMAY. J:
[1] This matter came
before me by way of review.
[2] The accused was
charged with possession of dagga. The accused, who chose to represent
himself pleaded guilty as charged and
after being questioned by the
presiding magistrate a plea of not guilty was entered. After evidence
was led the accused was found
guilty as charged. He was sentenced to
R4 000-00 or 4 months’ imprisonment of which R2 000-00 or 2
months’ imprisonment
was suspended for 5 years on condition
that he not be convicted of section 4 B of Act 140 of 1992 committed
during the period of
suspension.
[3] The learned
magistrate found him guilty of possession of 5.765 kg of dagga whilst
the evidence indicated that the correct weight
was 5.67 kg.
[4] The reviewing
judge Thobane AJ, drew the learned magistrate’s attention to
this error and the learned magistrate conceded
that the conviction
should be altered to read:

Guilty
of contravention of section 4(b) of Act 140 of 1992 - possession of
5.67 kg of dagga”.
[5] It is clear that
the error was a mere typographical error and should be rectified.
[6] Consequently I
make the following order:
The conviction is
set aside and amended to read:

The
accused is found guilty of contravention of section 4(b) of Act 140
of 1992 - possession of 5.67 kg of dagga”.
[7] The sentence is
confirmed.
R G TOLMAY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
I agree
C PRETORlUS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT