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
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAGPPHC 333
|
|
S v Ramaotsa (A182/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 333 (27 March 2014)
(IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA)
(NORTH GAUTENG)
HIGH COURT REF
NO: 19/14
REVIW CASE NO: PR
01/2014
CASE NO. A
182/14
DATE: 27 MARCH
2014
THE STATE
VS
EPHRAIM
RAMAOTSA
.......................................................................................................................
Accused
SPECIAL
REVIEW JUDGEMENT
TEFFO,
J:
[1] The accused, a
28 year old male, appeared in the magistrate’s court,
Soshanguve on 6 December 2013 on a charge of contravention
of section
4 (a) 4 (b) read with sections 1,13,17 to 25 and 64 of the Drugs and
Drug Trafficking Act, Act 140 of 1992 (possession
of 4.10 grams of
dagga).
[2] He was not
legally represented and on 10 December 2013 he pleaded guilty. He was
then convicted as charged and sentenced to
pay a fine of R1200.00 or
12 months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of 5 years on
condition that the accused is not
convicted of dealing or possession
of drugs committed during the period of suspension.
[3] The matter was
brought before me as a special review in terms of
section 304
(4) of
the
Criminal Procedure Act of 1977
.
[4] The magistrate
who presided over the matter is of the view that she had imposed an
incompetent sentence. She did not state the
reasons as to why she
thinks she had imposed an incompetent sentence. She merely stated
that she has learnt that she committed
an oversight.
[5] The matter was
then referred to the office of the National Director of Public
Prosecutions (NDPP) for comment.
[6] The office of
the NDPP submitted that in terms of
s 112
(1) (a) the presiding
judge, regional magistrate or magistrate may, if he or she is of the
opinion that the offence does not merit
punishment of imprisonment or
any other form of detention without the option of a fine exceeding
the amount determined by the Minister
from time to time by notice in
the Gazette, convict the accused in respect of the offence to which
he or she pleaded guilty on
his or her plea of guilty alone and,
impose any competent sentence, other than imprisonment or any form of
detention without the
option of a fine or a fine exceeding the amount
determined by the Minister from time to time by notice in the
Gazette.
[7] It was further
submitted that the Minister has determined the amount of R5000-00 for
purposes of
section 112(1)
(a) and (b) as per Government Notice(GN)
R62 in Government Gazette (GG) 36111 of 30 January 2013 effective
from 1 February 2013.
The previous amount determined by the Minister
was R1500-00 in terms of the repealed GN R239 in GG 24393 of 14
February 2003.
[8] Furthermore it
was submitted that given the fact that the imposition of sentence is
discretionary, the review court can only
interfere if there is an
irregularity or misdirection or where the sentence imposed is grossly
excessive.
[9] It was then
proposed that the conviction and the sentence be confirmed as being
in accordance with justice because the sentence
imposed was competent
in that it was a fine for an amount not exceeding that determined by
the Minister in the Gazette.
[10] The magistrate
convicted the accused in terms of
section 112(1
)(a) of the
Criminal
Procedure Act 51 of 1977
. She therefore in terms of the provisions of
section 112
(1) (a) of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
had a
discretion to impose any competent sentence other than imprisonment
or any form of detention without the option of the fine
or a fine
exceeding the amount determined by the Minister from time to time by
notice in the Gazette once she was of the opinion
that the offence
does not merit punishment of imprisonment or any other form of
detention without the option of the fine exceeding
the amount
determined by the Minister from time to time by notice in the
Gazette.
[11] She imposed a
fine of R1200-00 which did not exceed the amount determined by the
Minister in the Gazette.
[12] It is my
considered view that the sentence imposed is competent and I cannot
find any reasons as to why I should interfere
with it.
[13] I find that the
proceedings are in accordance with justice.
[14] The conviction
and sentence are therefore confirmed.
M J TEFFO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
(NORTH GAUTENG)
I agree
E MAKGOBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
(NORTH GAUTENG)