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 466
|
|
S v Mahlaule (A322/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 466 (13 May 2014)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISIO, PRETORIA
High Court Ref:-
308/14
A322/14
13 May 2014
In the matter
between
THE STATE
and
LAWRENCE MAHLAULE
JUDGMENT
MOTHLE J:
[1] This matter came
to me by way of special review.
[2] The accused,
Lawrence Mahlaule was charged with theft of tables in the Magistrate
Court, Giyani, Limpopo. On 27 March 2014 he
pleaded guilty to the
charge and was convicted as such. He appeared in person.
[3]
It came to the attention of the Magistrate during sentencing that the
accused suffers from mental illness. The Magistrate stopped
the
proceedings in terms of Section 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51
of 1977
(“CPA
”).
The
accused was informed accordingly and referred to hospital for
observation.
[4] Section 304A of
the CPA provides:
“
304A
(a) If a Magistrate or Regional Magistrate after conviction but
before sentence is of the opinion that the proceedings in respect
of
which he brought in a conviction are not in accordance with justice,
or that doubt exists whether the proceedings are in accordance
with
justice, he shall, without sentencing the accused, record the reasons
for his opinion and transmit them, together with the
record of
proceedings, to the registrar of the provincial division having
jurisdiction, and such registrar shall, as soon as practicable,
lay
the same for review in Chambers before a judge, who shall have the
same powers in respect of such proceedings as if the record
thereof
had been laid before him in terms of Section 303. ”
[5] Section 303 of
the CPA provides that the Court shall receive and consider in
Chambers a matter referred by the clerk of the
Magistrates Court to
the provincial division for review. Section 304 (2)(c)(i) empowers a
Judge in Chambers on consideration of
the review to confirm, alter or
quash the conviction.
[6] The Magistrate
is of the view that the sentencing of the accused should not proceed
because the accused has indicated to Court
that he is mentally ill.
He stated to the Court that he has been taking pills from Mushakeng
hospital since 2008. The accused,
while testifying in mitigation of
sentence, stated the following on page 3 line 18 of the record:
“
EXAMINATION
BY COURT: Are you employed, sir?— Not employed.
How do you survive?—
I am getting pension.
For what?— I
am not well your worship I am ill.
Is it something
physical or is it something mental? — The head, your worship.”
[7] The accused had
already pleaded guilty and found guilty of the offence in terms of
section 112(l)(a). Consequently, there was
no need to inquire from
the accused whether indeed he intended to plead guilty. The accused
was found guilty without any such inquiry.
As a result, it did not
occur to the magistrate at that time that the accused is mentally
ill.
[7] It seems to me
that the conviction was not in accordance with justice and it will
therefore prejudice the accused if the sentence
proceedings should
continue. The magistrate was thus correct in stopping the proceedings
and referring the accused to the hospital
and the record of the
proceedings to the High Court. The conviction under the circumstances
cannot stand.
[8] In the premises
I make the following order:
The conviction
imposed on the accused by the Magistrate Court on 27 March 2014 is
set aside and the matter is referred back to the
Magistrates Court.
S. P. MOTHLE
JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA.
I AGREE.
EM MAKGOBA
JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA