S v Ramonyaola (26/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 10 (7 February 2013)

60 Reportability
Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Bail — Forfeiture of bail — Accused charged under incorrect provision after bail forfeiture — Accused initially charged with rape and granted bail, which was forfeited upon failure to appear — Subsequent charge under section 67(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act found to be incompetent as the correct charge should have been under section 67(A) — Conviction and sentence set aside.

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
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAFSHC 10
|

|

S v Ramonyaola (26/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 10 (7 February 2013)

FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Case
No. : 26/2013
In
the case between:-
THE
STATE
and
TEBELO
CHARLES RAMONYAOLA
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JORDAAN,
J
et
DA
ROCHA-BOLTNEY, AJ
_______________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
BY:
JORDAAN,
J
_______________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
7
FEBRUARY 2013
______________________________________________________
[1]
The accused in this matter was charged with rape and was granted bail
for purposes of awaiting trial. He failed to appear and
the bail was,
provisionally forfeited. At the following hearing of the matter the
accused again did not appear and bail was finally
forfeited to the
state.
[2] Sometime after that
the accused was arrested and appeared before court and at that stage
charged with contravention of
section 67(1)
of the
Criminal Procedure
Act, no. 51 of 1977
. He was found guilty and sentenced to a caution
and discharge.
[3] The learned
magistrate afterwards came to a different view and sent the matter
through for special review. In his comment the
magistrate points out
that since the bail was already forfeited to the state, the accused
should not have been charged in terms
of
section 67(1)
but he should
have been charged in terms of
section 67(A)
of the said Act.
[4] In view of the above,
the learned magistrate is of course quite correct and the proceedings
and the charge in terms of
section 67(1)
of the Act was at that stage
not competent.
[5] In the result the
conviction of contravening
section 67(1)
of Act 51 of 1977 and the
sentence following upon that are set aside.
_______________
A.
F. JORDAAN, J
I
concur.
___________________________
P.
W. DA ROCHA-BOLTNEY, AJ
/EB