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 165
|
|
S v Thameng and Others (178/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 165 (9 October 2014)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review
No. : 178/2014
DATE:
09 OCTOBER 2014
In the review
between:-
THE STATE
Versus
RODNEY
THAMENG
......................................
Accused
1
JAMES
PHEPHENG
.......................................
Accused
2
ISAAC
KGATOE
............................................
Accused
3
NDOKWANE
MOHATELE
............................
Accused
4
CORAM: RAMPAI,
AJP et JORDAAN, J
JUDGMENT BY:
JORDAAN, J
DELIVERED ON: 9
OCTOBER 2014
[1] This matter was
brought to the attention of this court by the senior magistrate of
Welkom in terms of
section 304(4)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, No
51 of 1977
.
[2] All the accused
were charged with contravention of section 2 of the Stock Theft Act,
No 57 of 1959, namely being in possession
of suspected stolen stock
without giving an acceptable explanation for such possession.
[3] They all pleaded
guilty and submitted written statements concerning the basis of their
pleas in terms of section 112(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Act. They
were then convicted and sentenced in the magistrate’s court, in
regard to all of them to a
fine of R2 000,00 or 3 (three) months
imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of five years on condition
that the accused is
not convicted of the contravention of Act 57 of
1959, committed during the period of suspension.
[4] The learned
senior magistrate who sent the matter for special review was of the
correct opinion that the conditions of suspension
were totally vague
and not legally tenable. He suggested that, if this court is
satisfied with the convictions, the sentence should
be altered to
make provision for specific conditions of the suspended sentence.
[5] It goes without
saying that the learned senior magistrate is quite correct and that
the condition of suspension as set out in
the sentence, is too vague
and covers about all of the criminal acts provided for in the
aforesaid Act. It is not only too vague
and unspecific, but most
definitely prejudicial to the aforesaid four accused.
[6] I am satisfied
that the conviction, based on the statements of the different
accused, is in order as far as each of the accused
is concerned and
can be confirmed.
[7] In the result
the following orders are made:
1. The convictions
of all accused are confirmed.
2. The sentence in
regard to each of the accused are set aside and replaced with the
following:
“A fine of R2
000,00 or 3 (three) months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period
of five years on condition that the accused
is not convicted of
contravention of section 2 of Act 57 of 1959 committed during the
period of suspension.”
3. The remainder of
the proceedings are confirmed.
A.F. JORDAAN, J
I concur.
M.H. RAMPAI, AJP
spieterse