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
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAFSHC 110
|
|
S v Mogale (247/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 110 (14 July 2011)
FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No. : 247/2011
In
the review between:-
THE
STATE
versus
DONALD
MOGALE
______________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
BY:
JORDAAN, J
______________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
14 JULY 2011
______________________________________________________
[1] In this matter the
accused pleaded guilty to contravention of section 4(b) of Act 140 of
1992 (possession of dagga). After
being questioned in terms of
section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act, he was duly convicted as
such and sentenced to a fine of
R1 500,00 or four months
imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of three years on certain
conditions.
[2] The matter was sent
by the control magistrate of Bloemfontein for a special review in
terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal
Procedure Act, the reason
being that the trial magistrate neglected to explain the accused’s
rights of review when the case
was heard.
[3] The trial magistrate
commented that he neglected to explain those rights to the accused
and therefore asks that the conviction
be confirmed and the sentence
set aside for the purpose of the matter being remitted to the trial
court for imposition of an appropriate
sentence and dealing with the
matter in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, especially with the
view of explaining the accused’s
right of review in the matter.
[4] It is obviously
necessary that an accused’s rights of review be explained to
him and it be brought to his attention that
the matter will be
remitted for review so that he can make representations, if any.
[5] Since the matter was
brought to my attention during recess, this judgement will not be
countersigned by another Judge of this
Division.
[6] In the result the
following orders are granted:
1. The conviction is
confirmed.
2. The sentence is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for the
imposition of an appropriate sentence and to
be dealt with in
accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act.
_______________
A.F. JORDAAN, J
/sp