Appelgryn v S (A953/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 256 (17 April 2014)

50 Reportability
Criminal Law

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Firearms Control — Declaration of unfitness to possess a firearm — Appellant pleaded guilty to fraud and was declared unfit to possess a firearm for ten years under section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 — Appeal against the declaration unopposed — Court found that the Appellant's legal representative failed to properly address the court, resulting in prejudice to the Appellant — No evidence of propensity for violence and Appellant's profession requiring firearm possession — Declaration set aside.

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 256
|

|

Appelgryn v S (A953/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 256 (17 April 2014)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: A953/13
DATE
OF HEARING: 17 APRIL 2014
In
the matter between:
DIANNE
BARBRA
APPELGRYN                                                                         APPELLANT
and
THE
STATE                                                                                                        RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MAKHOBA,
AJ
[1]
THE APPEAL
The
Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud on the 17
th
August 2012 in the Brakpan magistrate court and was found guilty as
charged.
[2]
THE CHARGE
The
Appellant was sentenced to undergo twelve months imprisonment wholly
suspended for four years on certain conditions.
In
terms of section103 (1) of Act 60 of 2000 Appellant was declared
unfit to possess a firearm for the minimum period of ten years.
The
appeal is solely against this order and it is not opposed by the
Respondent.
[3]
THE LAW
Section
103 (1) (g) of the Firearms control Act of 60 of 2000 reads as
follows
u
(1) Unless the court determines otherwise, a Person becomes unfit to
possess a firearms if convicted of - (g) any offence involving

violence, sexual abuse or dishonesty, for which the accused is
sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine”
[4]
CONCLUSION
it
is clear from the affidavit by the Appellant’s legal
representative in the court a quo
that
in terms of section 103 (1) of the Firearms Act Appellant’s
legal representative did not properly address court and did
not take
full instruction from the Appellant. As a result Appellant suffered
prejudice in that Appellant was subsequently declared
unfit to
possess a firearm.
Appellant
was a first offender. She pleaded guilty. There is no evidence that
she is prone to violence. Appellant needs a licence
to possess a
firearm in order to be employed in the field of her profession namely
security officer. It is my view that she should
not have been
declared unfit to possess a firearm.
[5]
ORDER
I
propose the following order:
The
order by the court a quo
declaring
Appellant unfit to possess a firearm is set aside and is replaced by
the following order:
1.
In terms of section 103 (1) of the firearms control Act 60 of 2000
Appellant (Dianne Barbra Appelgryn) is not declared unfit
to possess
a firearm.
D
MAKHOBA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG
DIVISION. PRETORIA
I
agree and it is so ordered
KOLLAPEN
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH
COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION. PRETORIA
Representation
for the Appellant:
Counsel

Mr M B Kgagara
Instructed
by

Legal Aid South Africa - Pretoria
Representation
for Respondent
Counsel

Adv: L Williams
Office
of the Director of Public Prosecutions