S v David (21/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 20 (27 February 2014)

49 Reportability
Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Sentence — Exceeding speed limit — Accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a fine exceeding statutory limit — Magistrate conceded sentence was impermissible due to fine exceeding R5 000 and inappropriate suspension of alternative imprisonment — Sentence set aside and matter referred back for appropriate sentencing.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAFSHC 20
|

|

S v David (21/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 20 (27 February 2014)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review
No.: 21/2014
In
the review between:-
THE
STATE
and
PETRO
DAVID
CORAM:
KRUGER
et
VAN
DER MERWE, JJ
JUDGMENT
BY:
VAN DER MERWE, J
DELIVERED
ON:
27 FEBRUARY 2014
[1]
The accused was charged with exceeding the speed limit on the N1
national road. He pleaded guilty and the magistrate dealt with
the
matter in terms of section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51
of 1977 (the Act). The accused was then sentenced to
a fine of R10
000,00 or, in the alternative to the fine, 2 (two) years
imprisonment. The magistrate, however, ordered that the
alternative
sentence of 2 (two) years imprisonment be conditionally suspended for
a period of five years. In terms of section 297(5)(b)
of the Act
arrangements were made for payment of the fine in instalments.
[2]
Upon enquiry the magistrate concedes that the sentence is
impermissible. This concession is undoubtedly correct. First, the

fine of R10 000,00 exceeds the amount of R5 000,00 determined in
respect of section 112(1)(a) of the Act in Government Notice No
R62
published in the Government Gazette No 36111 of 30 January 2013.
Second, in a case like this the purpose of the sentence of

imprisonment in the alternative to the fine in terms of section
287(1) of the Act, is to compel payment of the fine. (See
S
v Bokbaard
1991 (2) SACR 622
(C).)
When the alternative imprisonment is suspended, thus giving the
accused a choice between a fine and a suspended sentence
of
imprisonment, this purpose is defeated. For this reason too, the
sentence is wholly inappropriate and cannot stand.
[3]
In the result the following order is issued:
1.
The sentence is set aside.
2.
The matter is referred back to the trial
court for imposition of an appropriate sentence.
C.H.G.
VAN DER MERWE, J
I
concur.
A.
KRUGER, J