Summary of Judgment

1. Introduction

This was a special review in the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein, conducted in terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The review concerned the propriety and continued validity of a deemed conviction and sentence following payment of an admission of guilt fine.

The parties were the State and P J Claasen (the accused). Although the matter arose from a criminal charge dealt with at magistrates’ court level, it came before the High Court on review rather than by appeal.

The procedural history was that the accused paid an admission of guilt fine in terms of section 57(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 on 24 December 2009, with the consequence that he was deemed to have been convicted and sentenced. The deemed conviction was not set aside by a judicial officer under section 57(7). In October 2012, the accused placed an affidavit before the magistrate at Heilbron, requesting that the matter be sent on review so that the conviction and sentence could be set aside.

The dispute concerned whether, in light of the accused’s version of events and the circumstances under which the admission of guilt fine was paid, it was fair and equitable to set aside the deemed conviction and sentence, particularly where the accused later discovered that he had a criminal record (including for an offence he contended had not been explained to him).

2. Material Facts

The court accepted that the matter arose from an incident at the accused’s liquor store on 24 December 2009. According to the accused’s affidavit, a complainant purchased liquor, left the store, and thereafter returned alleging that a bottle had broken on the way home and demanding a replacement. The accused refused.

On the accused’s version, the complainant then caused a disturbance, refused to leave when instructed to do so, and created a nuisance in a store that was busy (it being shortly before Christmas). The accused stated that he then used pepper spray on the complainant, after which the complainant left.

It later emerged that the complainant went to the police station and laid a charge of assault against the accused. Police came to the accused’s premises, arrested him, and took him to the police station, where he was informed of his rights under section 35 of the Constitution. The accused elected to make an exculpatory statement to the police.

After making the statement, a police captain asked whether the accused would pay an admission of guilt fine of R150 to dispose of the matter quickly. The accused paid the fine despite maintaining that he was not guilty, explaining that he did so because he could not afford to be away from his business during a busy trading period and because he had been assured by two police captains that payment would not result in a criminal record.

The accused stated that only in 2012, when attempting to renew his professional driver’s permit, did he discover that he had a criminal record reflecting not only assault but also crimen injuria. The judgment records that, on the papers before the court, the documentation forming the record of the proceedings did not show that a charge of crimen injuria was ever at issue, and the accused asserted that it had never been explained to him that he faced such a charge.

A further material fact for the court’s evaluation was the delay: by the time the accused sought review, almost three years had elapsed since payment of the admission of guilt fine.

3. Legal Issues

The central legal question was whether the High Court should, on special review, set aside a deemed conviction and sentence resulting from payment of an admission of guilt fine under section 57(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, where the accused later sought relief on the basis of an arguable defence and considerations of equity and fair dealing.

A related issue was whether the circumstances indicated that the admission of guilt process had produced unintended and potentially unjust consequences, including the appearance of a crimen injuria conviction where the record did not show that such a charge had been preferred or explained.

The dispute primarily concerned the application of legal principles to the facts, informed by an evaluative judgment about fairness and equity in reviewing admissions of guilt, as opposed to the determination of contested trial facts (since the matter had been finalised through the admission of guilt procedure rather than adjudication on evidence).

4. Court’s Reasoning

The court approached the matter by applying established principles governing the review of admissions of guilt fines. It relied on the articulation of the approach in S v Esposito 2007 (1) SACR 527 (C), which summarised earlier authority to the effect that courts have been prepared to assist accused persons and set aside deemed convictions and sentences where it is evident that the accused has an arguable defence and where, on considerations of equity and fair dealing, the admission of guilt ought to be undone.

On the facts presented, the court considered that the accused appeared to have a valid or at least arguable defence. The accused’s version suggested that he acted in response to disruptive conduct in his business premises and that his actions were not simply an unprovoked assault. The court also regarded it as significant that the accused had made an exculpatory statement to the police, which was inconsistent with a genuine admission of guilt.

A major factor in the court’s evaluation was the accused’s assertion that he had not been informed that he faced a crimen injuria charge and that the record did not show that such a charge had been in issue. The court treated the appearance of a crimen injuria conviction, apparently without it being properly raised or explained in the admission of guilt process, as supporting the conclusion that the outcome was unjust and that the accused should not be left to bear the consequences of the process.

The court also took into account the accused’s allegation that police officers told him that payment of an admission of guilt fine would not result in a record of previous conviction. While noting that this might align with “general experience”, the court accepted that, in the accused’s case, the opposite occurred. The court characterised the result as an unintended consequence of an “ill-considered action” and concluded that fairness required relieving the accused of those consequences.

At the same time, the court engaged with the timing of the review request. It noted that the accused sought review only after a considerable lapse of time, and it endorsed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ caution that such delays should be discouraged because they may prejudice the administration of justice, including by making it difficult or impossible to reinstate prosecution due to witnesses moving and memories fading. The court agreed with these concerns in principle, indicating that review applications should be brought within a reasonable time, even though no fixed period applies as with appeals.

Despite that cautionary stance, the court ultimately held that, in the circumstances of this matter, considerations of fairness and equity justified intervention. The presence of an arguable defence, the inconsistency between an exculpatory statement and a deemed admission, the alleged misinformation about the consequences of payment, and the unexplained inclusion of crimen injuria in the criminal record collectively supported setting aside the deemed conviction and sentence.

5. Outcome and Relief

The High Court set aside the accused’s conviction and sentence.

The court ordered that the admission of guilt fine paid by the accused (stated in the order as paid on 28 December 2009) be refunded to him.

No separate order as to costs was made in the judgment.

Cases Cited

S v Esposito 2007 (1) SACR 527 (C).

S v Marion 1981 (1) SA 1216 (T).

S v Mthiya 1991 (1) SACR 615 (E).

S v Cedras 1992 (2) SACR 530 (C).

Legislation Cited

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 304(4).

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 57(6).

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 57(7).

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, section 35.

Rules of Court Cited

No rules of court were cited in the judgment.

Held

The court held that the accused’s admission of guilt fine had resulted in a deemed conviction and sentence that, in the circumstances, ought to be set aside on special review. It accepted that the accused had an arguable defence, that the record did not show that a crimen injuria charge had been properly at issue, and that fairness and equity warranted relieving the accused of the unintended consequences of paying the admission of guilt fine.

Although the court cautioned against substantial delays in bringing such review applications and acknowledged potential prejudice to the administration of justice, it nevertheless set aside the deemed conviction and sentence and ordered repayment of the fine.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A deemed conviction and sentence arising from payment of an admission of guilt fine may be set aside on review where it appears that the accused has an arguable defence and where considerations of equity and fair dealing support undoing the admission of guilt outcome, as reflected in the approach endorsed in S v Esposito 2007 (1) SACR 527 (C) and the earlier cases it referenced.

In assessing whether fairness requires intervention, a court may consider whether the admission of guilt procedure produced unintended or unjust consequences, including where the accused’s conduct (such as making an exculpatory statement) suggests that the payment did not reflect a genuine admission, and where the record does not support that all relevant charges were properly explained or placed in issue.

The judgment also applied the principle that review applications of this kind should be brought within a reasonable time, and that substantial delay may prejudice the administration of justice; however, this concern does not necessarily preclude relief where the overall circumstances justify setting aside the deemed conviction and sentence on grounds of fairness and equity.