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 167
|
|
S v Mosoeu (183/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 167 (9 October 2014)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review
No. : 183/2014
DATE:
09 OCTOBER 2014
In the review
between:-
THE STATE
Versus
THABISO MOSOEU
CORAM: RAMPAI,
AJP et JORDAAN, J
JUDGMENT
BY: JORDAAN, J
DELIVERED ON: 9
OCTOBER 2014
[1] In this matter
the accused was charged with the crime of housebreaking with the
intent to commit a crime unknown to the State.
He pleaded guilty to
the crime of housebreaking with the intent to steal and filed a
statement in terms of
section 112(2)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act,
No 51 of 1977
in which he admitted breaking into the premises with
the intent to steal, but indicating that he was caught red-handed
before he
stole anything. Because of that he was then convicted and
the learned magistrate convicted him of housebreaking with the intent
to steal and theft.
[2] After the
conviction and sentence the learned magistrate realised that the
conviction is not in order in that no theft was committed.
[3] In view of the
aforesaid the matter was forwarded to this court for a special review
in terms of
section 304(4)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
.
[4] After the
aforesaid conviction the accused was sentenced to a fine of R2 000,00
or 6 (six) months imprisonment of which half
was suspended for a
period of three years on condition that the accused is not again
convicted of housebreaking with intent to
steal and theft committed
during the period of suspension. The accused was also declared unfit
to possess a firearm.
[5] I agree with the
learned magistrate that the conviction should be amended and the
sentence accordingly amended as well.
[6]I am satisfied
that the plea explanation of the accused covers the crime of
housebreaking with the intent to steal and that the
conviction as far
as that is concerned, is in order, excluding the conviction of theft.
I am also satisfied that the sentence
is in order, except for the
reference to theft and should be amended accordingly.
[7] In the result
the conviction and sentence are set aside and the following orders
substituted therefore:
1. The accused is
convicted of housebreaking with the intent to steal.
2. The accused is
fined R2 000,00 or 6 (six) months imprisonment of which half is
suspended for a period of three years on condition
that the accused
is not convicted of housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime
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