S v Khopjwa (102/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 112 (30 May 2013)

32 Reportability
Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Special review — Accused convicted of possession of dagga — Magistrate's sentence exceeded statutory limits — Magistrate referred matter for special review citing irregularity in sentencing — Court upheld conviction but set aside original sentence, replacing it with a lawful sentence of imprisonment or fine.

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 112
|

|

S v Khopjwa (102/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 112 (30 May 2013)

FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No. : 102/2013
In the review between:-
THE STATE
and
TSHEDISO KHOPJWA
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
LEKALE, J
et
PHALATSI, AJ
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT BY:
PHALATSI, AJ
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
30 MAY 2013
_____________________________________________________
[1] This case came to us
by way of special review in terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal
Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (“CPA”).
[2] The accused was
convicted of contravention of section 4(b) of Act 140 of 1992, for
being in possession of 3 kg dagga after pleading
guilty in terms of
section 112(1)(a) of the CPA, in the Ficksburg District Court.
[3] He was fined R600,00
or 3 (three) months imprisonment, plus 6 (six) months imprisonment
wholly suspended for a period of 2 (two)
years on condition that the
accused is not convicted of contravention of section 4(a) and (b) of
Act 140 of 1992, committed during
the period of suspension.
[4] The learned
magistrate states the following as a reason for referring this matter
for special review.

I have
decided to refer the matter to the Honourable Judge to rectify the
sentence. This stems from the fact that the legislation
that governs
section 112(1)(a) does not allow me to impose a sentence of direct
imprisonment hence I concede the 6 months that
I impose as further
sentence exceeds the penalty clause. I further concede that the
sentence as it stands is irregular.”
[5] I concur with the
sentiments expressed by the learned magistrate, and, in the premises,
make the following order:
5.1 The conviction
stands.
5.2. The sentence imposed
by the magistrate is set aside and replaced with the following:

The
accused is sentenced to 3 (three) months imprisonment or a fine of
R600,00.”
5.3. The sentence is
antedated to 20 February 2013, being the date on which the sentence
was passed in the Court
a quo
.
_________________
N.W. PHALATSI, AJ
I concur.
_____________
L.J. LEKALE, J
/spieterse